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?
The dichotomy of actual law vs the subjective reality is definitely an issue that should be discussed, I agree. My only issue is that you posed it as a rebuttal and degrading my statement. I could have been less lazy in my wordage and assumed that people would understand the meaning behind it.
It wasn’t my intention to make it seem like I was trying something shifty, I was legitimately just clarifying my meaning and using more accurate terms to do so. I do see how one could interpret it like I was changing positions as words do matter
Your original statement, as written, is false. Just flat out factually incorrect. Your ego was bruised by getting called out on it, so you’ve been all over there damn map desperately trying to pretend otherwise.
You could have accepted you were wrong, and corrected it.
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?
The dichotomy of actual law vs the subjective reality is definitely an issue that should be discussed, I agree. My only issue is that you posed it as a rebuttal and degrading my statement. I could have been less lazy in my wordage and assumed that people would understand the meaning behind it.
It wasn’t my intention to make it seem like I was trying something shifty, I was legitimately just clarifying my meaning and using more accurate terms to do so. I do see how one could interpret it like I was changing positions as words do matter
Omg, shut up.
Your original statement, as written, is false. Just flat out factually incorrect. Your ego was bruised by getting called out on it, so you’ve been all over there damn map desperately trying to pretend otherwise.
You could have accepted you were wrong, and corrected it.