4 ms·

If you actually read the case the evidence is clear that the government was giving direction to social media sites. Which is what the comment I was replying to

by jajuuka 8mo ago

If you actually read the case the evidence is clear that the government was giving direction to social media sites. Which is what the comment I was replying to was about. Read the dissenting opinion. I think you're coming at this from the angle of the court is always correct, and not actually examining the case itself.

ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
"actually read the case" includes reading the judgement ("the conclusion"), which overrules your personal judgement (and mine, whatever it might've been). > Read the dissenting opinion Dissenting opinions are often irrelevant, equivalent to a loser shouting into the void because they lost. By definition, dissenting opinions are incorrect, because to be correct, they would need to be shared by the majority, in which case they would be in the non-dissenting opinion, if anywhere. > I think you're coming at this from the angle of the court is always correct By definition, the court is always "correct" unless contradicted by a constitutionally higher authority. In particular, a court consensus of 9 co-equal judges is more correct than a subset of 1 or 2 of those same judges. And while I'm sure you're a nice, competent person, perhaps even a lawyer, the court is more correct than you here.
- jajuuka 8mo ago
  I'm not sure why you're absolving yourself of free will. When courts ruled that chattel slavery was legal and just, were they correct? What if a court today ruled that chattel slavery was legal and just. Would the judges who support abolition be "losers shouting into the void"? It seems like your position falls apart pretty quickly to anyone with basic morals. Courts and judges are not perfect. Are you just clinging to that belief to justify a predetermined opinion?
  - ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
    > What if a court today ruled that chattel slavery was legal and just What if it ruled the opposite (the status quo), and you used your same argument to say that the courts are wrong and that chattel slavery actually is legal and just? What makes you, 1 random person out of billions, more correct than the courts, just because you might personally feel chattel slavery is legal and just? > Courts and judges are not perfect. If courts and judges are not perfect, then that means that you and your dissenting opinions are even less perfect. Even if we were to accept mob rule, the people don't share your dissenting opinion, so your proposal seems to be that a randomly-small minority of random people unaccountably decide matters of law based on whatever criteria they feel at the time -- a worse option than courts in every way.

by jajuuka 8mo ago

ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago

"actually read the case" includes reading the judgement ("the conclusion"), which overrules your personal judgement (and mine, whatever it might've been). > Read the dissenting opinion Dissenting opinions are often irrelevant, equivalent to a loser shouting into the void because they lost. By definition, dissenting opinions are incorrect, because to be correct, they would need to be shared by the majority, in which case they would be in the non-dissenting opinion, if anywhere. > I think you're coming at this from the angle of the court is always correct By definition, the court is always "correct" unless contradicted by a constitutionally higher authority. In particular, a court consensus of 9 co-equal judges is more correct than a subset of 1 or 2 of those same judges. And while I'm sure you're a nice, competent person, perhaps even a lawyer, the court is more correct than you here.

jajuuka 8mo ago
I'm not sure why you're absolving yourself of free will. When courts ruled that chattel slavery was legal and just, were they correct? What if a court today ruled that chattel slavery was legal and just. Would the judges who support abolition be "losers shouting into the void"? It seems like your position falls apart pretty quickly to anyone with basic morals. Courts and judges are not perfect. Are you just clinging to that belief to justify a predetermined opinion?
- ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
  > What if a court today ruled that chattel slavery was legal and just What if it ruled the opposite (the status quo), and you used your same argument to say that the courts are wrong and that chattel slavery actually is legal and just? What makes you, 1 random person out of billions, more correct than the courts, just because you might personally feel chattel slavery is legal and just? > Courts and judges are not perfect. If courts and judges are not perfect, then that means that you and your dissenting opinions are even less perfect. Even if we were to accept mob rule, the people don't share your dissenting opinion, so your proposal seems to be that a randomly-small minority of random people unaccountably decide matters of law based on whatever criteria they feel at the time -- a worse option than courts in every way.