3 ms·

You responded to a specific post about a specific thing with a made-up thing, that wasn't what was being discussed. That's why you are unreasonable. Here now, a

You responded to a specific post about a specific thing with a made-up thing, that wasn't what was being discussed. That's why you are unreasonable. Here now, again, you are doing it by twisting your post to now be about everything else, except the actual post you responded to, which had a pretty specific and reasonable criticism of the 5th circuit. This most recent post by you screams of projection, where you instead just insist the 5th circuit is "reasonable" just because you don't like why people disagree with them. Apparently the irony of this is beyond you.

Dalewyn 3y ago
>you instead just insist the 5th circuit is "reasonable" just because you don't like why people disagree with them. No, I find the court's ruling here reasonable because I read through the ruling and the included timeline of events and found their conclusion makes sense. That is quite different from handwaving away their authority because you just don't like their rulings. You could also read the ruling like I did and try arguing what about it is "wild" and "twisted" as the comment I replied to put it, an unreasonable sentiment also shared by most of the people in this thread. For starters, do most of the people here realize the court affirms the EPA's right to regulate PFOA and does not find fault with the core reasoning itself? If this court is "wild" and "twisted", is it "wild" and "twisted" for the EPA to regulate PFOA properly under Section 6?
- freejazz 3y ago
  > No, I find the court's ruling here reasonable because I read through the ruling and the included timeline of events and found their conclusion makes sense. That is quite different from handwaving away their authority because you just don't like their rulings. But the post was about the 5th Circuit in general, which has come out with a number of incredibly unreasonable rulings. That was the criticism, that the 5th Circuit shouldn't inherently be trusted as reasonable just because. >You could also read the ruling like I did and try arguing what about it is "wild" and "twisted" as the comment I replied to put it, an unreasonable sentiment also shared by most of the people in this thread. I feel like you haven't been engaging with what I actually wrote with if you keep arguing this.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    >that the 5th Circuit shouldn't inherently be trusted as reasonable just because. Yes, and that goes both ways. I read the ruling and found its conclusion reasonable, thus the court insofar as this case is reasonable. If you or anyone else thinks the court is unreasonable with their ruling here, please read the ruling and make your case like I have. What part is "wild" and "twisted"? >I feel like you haven't been engaging with what I actually wrote with if you keep arguing this. What part of "I read the ruling and found it reasonable." do you not understand? What part of "I find shooting the messenger unreasonable." do you not understand? What part of "Denying the judiciary just because you don't like them is an attack on rule of law." do you not understand?
    - freejazz 3y ago
      >I read the ruling and found its conclusion reasonable, thus the court insofar as this case is reasonable. If you or anyone else thinks the court is unreasonable with their ruling here, please read the ruling and make your case like I have. What part is "wild" and "twisted"? As I have several times pointed out to you, the thread you responded to wasn't discussing the reasonability of this ruling, but the reasonability of the 5th Circuit in general, to which it has also been pointed out to you, has had a number of its more extreme decisions overruled by the current supreme court. >What part of "I read the ruling and found it reasonable." do you not understand? What part of "I find shooting the messenger unreasonable." do you not understand? What part of "Denying the judiciary just because you don't like them is an attack on rule of law." do you not understand? There's no part of that which I don't understand, and it's an odd response to insist I'm not understanding your posts, which I very clearly do and have repeatedly pointed out as pertaining to a different issue than what was being discussed, by asking if I understood that you think the court is reasonable. Yes, we get that you think the court is reasonable here. Try reading my posts again. Or, don't. Either way, no need to be angry.
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        You're still not understanding me, so let me rephrase: What is the point of referring to other cases, which may or may not be unreasonable, and using them to throw out the court's authority? Without even reading their ruling, for that matter. Or worse, for no reason other than you don't like their ruling? The answer is there is no point, at least not any that is productive. All you achieve is the spreading of doubt and uncertainty about the judiciary and thus the laws governing the land. It's an attack on the rule of law, and the only logical conclusion if this is kept up is anarchy. I find this ironic, actually; because these people presumably want to protect the rule of law, but they are achieving the exact opposite. Read the ruling and make your case. Otherwise there can't be any useful conversations.

Dalewyn 3y ago

>you instead just insist the 5th circuit is "reasonable" just because you don't like why people disagree with them. No, I find the court's ruling here reasonable because I read through the ruling and the included timeline of events and found their conclusion makes sense. That is quite different from handwaving away their authority because you just don't like their rulings. You could also read the ruling like I did and try arguing what about it is "wild" and "twisted" as the comment I replied to put it, an unreasonable sentiment also shared by most of the people in this thread. For starters, do most of the people here realize the court affirms the EPA's right to regulate PFOA and does not find fault with the core reasoning itself? If this court is "wild" and "twisted", is it "wild" and "twisted" for the EPA to regulate PFOA properly under Section 6?

freejazz 3y ago
> No, I find the court's ruling here reasonable because I read through the ruling and the included timeline of events and found their conclusion makes sense. That is quite different from handwaving away their authority because you just don't like their rulings. But the post was about the 5th Circuit in general, which has come out with a number of incredibly unreasonable rulings. That was the criticism, that the 5th Circuit shouldn't inherently be trusted as reasonable just because. >You could also read the ruling like I did and try arguing what about it is "wild" and "twisted" as the comment I replied to put it, an unreasonable sentiment also shared by most of the people in this thread. I feel like you haven't been engaging with what I actually wrote with if you keep arguing this.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >that the 5th Circuit shouldn't inherently be trusted as reasonable just because. Yes, and that goes both ways. I read the ruling and found its conclusion reasonable, thus the court insofar as this case is reasonable. If you or anyone else thinks the court is unreasonable with their ruling here, please read the ruling and make your case like I have. What part is "wild" and "twisted"? >I feel like you haven't been engaging with what I actually wrote with if you keep arguing this. What part of "I read the ruling and found it reasonable." do you not understand? What part of "I find shooting the messenger unreasonable." do you not understand? What part of "Denying the judiciary just because you don't like them is an attack on rule of law." do you not understand?
  - freejazz 3y ago
    >I read the ruling and found its conclusion reasonable, thus the court insofar as this case is reasonable. If you or anyone else thinks the court is unreasonable with their ruling here, please read the ruling and make your case like I have. What part is "wild" and "twisted"? As I have several times pointed out to you, the thread you responded to wasn't discussing the reasonability of this ruling, but the reasonability of the 5th Circuit in general, to which it has also been pointed out to you, has had a number of its more extreme decisions overruled by the current supreme court. >What part of "I read the ruling and found it reasonable." do you not understand? What part of "I find shooting the messenger unreasonable." do you not understand? What part of "Denying the judiciary just because you don't like them is an attack on rule of law." do you not understand? There's no part of that which I don't understand, and it's an odd response to insist I'm not understanding your posts, which I very clearly do and have repeatedly pointed out as pertaining to a different issue than what was being discussed, by asking if I understood that you think the court is reasonable. Yes, we get that you think the court is reasonable here. Try reading my posts again. Or, don't. Either way, no need to be angry.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      You're still not understanding me, so let me rephrase: What is the point of referring to other cases, which may or may not be unreasonable, and using them to throw out the court's authority? Without even reading their ruling, for that matter. Or worse, for no reason other than you don't like their ruling? The answer is there is no point, at least not any that is productive. All you achieve is the spreading of doubt and uncertainty about the judiciary and thus the laws governing the land. It's an attack on the rule of law, and the only logical conclusion if this is kept up is anarchy. I find this ironic, actually; because these people presumably want to protect the rule of law, but they are achieving the exact opposite. Read the ruling and make your case. Otherwise there can't be any useful conversations.