Well, no, frivolous lawsuits absolutely cannot be ignored. That will result in a summary judgment against you. In fact, the orange shithead became infamous for illegally refusing to pay contractors, then overwhelming them with frivolous lawsuits which would force the victim to back down because they couldn’t afford the legal fees to defend themselves.
Whether the allegation is reasonable or not is irrelevant. If you don’t defend yourself, you lose. If you can’t afford decent representation, you lose. Objective truth doesn’t even count. The wording of the law, whatever precedent exists from previous cases (even if it’s obviously bullshit), and correctly following obtuse rules in how you present your argument are all that matters.
So, call it pedantic if you want, whatever; our legal system just does not work the way you’re implying. At all.
Edit: Even if a lawsuit should obviously be thrown out, the judge generally cannot just do that - your lawyer has to file a motion requesting dismissal. Ignoring it WILL bite you in the ass.
I was clarifying my point, not moving goalposts. I can’t help if you assumed the goal was in a different place and argued based on that false assumption. That’s why I clarified my point since you seemed to have consistently missed it.
My point has not changed nor has the context in which I made it.
You cannot win a defamation case if they used truthful statements or statements they had reasonable belief of it being true. Sorry I used “can’t sue” as a layman way of saying “can’t win” because it’s obvious that anyone can physically sue for any reason and it’s equally obvious that anyone who is being sued must go through the court system no matter the suits legitimacy.
The fact that I had to spell all that out explicitly is wild. They should be taken as contextually assumed so we could discuss more interesting bits instead of “but what about obvious thing? And other obvious thing?”
Bruh. I don’t even know what your point is. All you’ve done is “well actually”'d through this whole back and forth while I’ve clarified my point.
It’s like I said the sky is blue and you came back with well it’s really clear but the defraction of sunlight through the atmosphere disperses the color blue more than other colors due to its shorter wavelength making it look blue. It’s a net zero contribution to the conversation other than to make you feel smarter for saying it that way
I contradicted your initial statement. You doubled down. I again pointed out the factual error in your statement. You then changed your argument entirely (moving the goal posts). You then made a false claim about what you said (gas lighting). I called you on it. Then you restated my argument as your own. I mocked you for the continued gas lighting. You finally accused me of “well, actually”.
My point is simple: the enforcement of laws is not based on truth, it’s based on debating within a rigid structure intentionally designed to reward the rich and punish the poor. Yes, it is true the law is written the way you claim. It is not enforced in the way your arguments suggested.
My goal was only to point out the dichotomy. Well, my first two comments were. I got annoyed with the dishonest methods of debate, and yes, at that point I decided to mess with you for a bit. For what it’s worth, I believe the oversimplified way your initial comment was stated is dangerous. Approaching legal matters as a matter of recognizing truth can result in horrible personal consequences.
That all aside: it would seem that our views on this matter are actually far more similar than either of us realized. Truce?
Well, no, frivolous lawsuits absolutely cannot be ignored. That will result in a summary judgment against you. In fact, the orange shithead became infamous for illegally refusing to pay contractors, then overwhelming them with frivolous lawsuits which would force the victim to back down because they couldn’t afford the legal fees to defend themselves.
Whether the allegation is reasonable or not is irrelevant. If you don’t defend yourself, you lose. If you can’t afford decent representation, you lose. Objective truth doesn’t even count. The wording of the law, whatever precedent exists from previous cases (even if it’s obviously bullshit), and correctly following obtuse rules in how you present your argument are all that matters.
So, call it pedantic if you want, whatever; our legal system just does not work the way you’re implying. At all.
Edit: Even if a lawsuit should obviously be thrown out, the judge generally cannot just do that - your lawyer has to file a motion requesting dismissal. Ignoring it WILL bite you in the ass.
Since it seemed to have still passed under the radar, let me rephrase: they can be ignored when discussing statistics and viable law.
Ofc any actual lawsuit must be literally dealt with through the court system.
But when you’re talking about laws and suits, they do not need to be accounted for on the same level as legitimate cases
Lol
Changing the goalposts? Whatever
I was clarifying my point, not moving goalposts. I can’t help if you assumed the goal was in a different place and argued based on that false assumption. That’s why I clarified my point since you seemed to have consistently missed it.
My point has not changed nor has the context in which I made it.
Edit: Oh, and I love the finishing touch of gas lighting, BTW. Real solid debate skills you got there! 🙄
You cannot win a defamation case if they used truthful statements or statements they had reasonable belief of it being true. Sorry I used “can’t sue” as a layman way of saying “can’t win” because it’s obvious that anyone can physically sue for any reason and it’s equally obvious that anyone who is being sued must go through the court system no matter the suits legitimacy.
The fact that I had to spell all that out explicitly is wild. They should be taken as contextually assumed so we could discuss more interesting bits instead of “but what about obvious thing? And other obvious thing?”
So you agree with me? 🙄
Bruh. I don’t even know what your point is. All you’ve done is “well actually”'d through this whole back and forth while I’ve clarified my point.
It’s like I said the sky is blue and you came back with well it’s really clear but the defraction of sunlight through the atmosphere disperses the color blue more than other colors due to its shorter wavelength making it look blue. It’s a net zero contribution to the conversation other than to make you feel smarter for saying it that way
I contradicted your initial statement. You doubled down. I again pointed out the factual error in your statement. You then changed your argument entirely (moving the goal posts). You then made a false claim about what you said (gas lighting). I called you on it. Then you restated my argument as your own. I mocked you for the continued gas lighting. You finally accused me of “well, actually”.
My point is simple: the enforcement of laws is not based on truth, it’s based on debating within a rigid structure intentionally designed to reward the rich and punish the poor. Yes, it is true the law is written the way you claim. It is not enforced in the way your arguments suggested.
My goal was only to point out the dichotomy. Well, my first two comments were. I got annoyed with the dishonest methods of debate, and yes, at that point I decided to mess with you for a bit. For what it’s worth, I believe the oversimplified way your initial comment was stated is dangerous. Approaching legal matters as a matter of recognizing truth can result in horrible personal consequences.
That all aside: it would seem that our views on this matter are actually far more similar than either of us realized. Truce?