3 ms·
You had me up until now. Turns out your whole point is arguing semantics? You're arguing just to argue and not providing anything of substance on this point. As
by y-c-o-m-b 8mo ago
You had me up until now. Turns out your whole point is arguing semantics? You're arguing just to argue and not providing anything of substance on this point. As another person said, this isn't a court.
- otterley 8mo agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47026226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47026226
- DenisM 8mo agoIf X is against law Y the recourse is to seek judgment from courts. If it’s not against the law the recourse is to seek new law from Congress. The difference is significant for that reason alone. The other reason is that if you’re looking to recruit supporters you will get more of them if you get your ducks in a row. Disorganized ducks impair credibility and create friction. Not making the distinction between the two is only helpful for the purpose of blowing off steam and the only outcome is outrage fatigue.
- delfinom 8mo agoUnfortunately, all lawyers and courts do is argue semantics. Which is why it's a misnomer to call the legal system a justice system in criminal cases. Lol.