3 ms·
> None of my points or clarifications hinge on a specific crime. Well, this is not true. Yet again I simply must explain that writing the words "they're invest
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> None of my points or clarifications hinge on a specific crime.
Well, this is not true. Yet again I simply must explain that writing the words "they're investigating a crime" is literally a point that hinges on there being a specific crime. Without that, and especially with the words "we want to ask you questions about a protest", it is not reasonable to say that. Minimally, when someone else asks for a source, they probably don't just need to be told what the FBI is.
I can, at least, assert with evidence that they are not investigating a crime. You've so far failed to assert with evidence that they are investigating a crime. You may not feel you need evidence to assert that but basic logic suggests otherwise.
- mycodendral 1y agoThis is getting ridiculous. > ‘I'm not doubting that they are acting in their official capacity; obviously they're conducting a "criminal investigation" insofar as they are a crime-investigating organization conducting an investigation.’ Let’s just agree on this and move on. I’m not interested in debating semantics over whether that functionally differs from saying they are investigating a crime.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago> I’m not interested in debating semantics over whether that functionally differs from saying they are investigating a crime. That's good for you but I am interested in this discussion. Language matters; saying they are investigating a crime does make it sound like a crime occurred.
- mycodendral 1y agoI don't need to prove that FBI investigations are crime-related. That's the presumed norm, not a claim requiring evidence. If you claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]