You don’t have to concede anything. No one ever does anyway.
The fact that this is a courtroom or a Lemmy comment thread doesn’t somehow negate the accuracy of the language being used. The context doesn’t change what the words mean.
And frankly, there’s nothing for you to concede. You’ve already admitted that I’m right and you’re wrong. Your only remaining argument is apparently that because this isn’t a courtroom, I’m somehow wrong—which is some impressive mental gymnastics.
“You’re right in the only place where it matters, therefore you’re wrong here.”
Okay. You said some stupid-ass shit, got called out on it, couldn’t come up with a response for weeks, and what you’ve finally come up with is still bullshit.
Context does change what words mean. sudo rm -rf / means one thing in a terminal and means nothing in a legal brief.
You’re narrow technical view of one aspect of law, missing the bigger picture, is an egregious instance of a lack of context implying things.
For example, if someone said “Hitler made various economic improvements that were helpful” and that’s it, the person is likely a racist evil piece of shit, especially if it’s on a neo-Nazi forum. I suppose technically in a history paper the statement in and of itself would not be egregious or false.
In the same way, if someone is making the case appellate courts are still binding on lower courts, without mentioning that appellate courts not being able to create nationwide injunctions or impact nationwide federal policy when the Supreme Court is slow as molasses and cherry picks what to hear, and when humanitarian violations are going on that are truly evil, that person is either malevolent, lacking rhetorical skills, or technically true but writing something that’s problematic for the context.
Look, I admire your 115 IQ and I find your arrogance alluring, and perhaps if we were in the same area and you were at least decent looking and gay or bi or bored, I’d let you fuck me once or twice because sometimes I like dumb guys who think they are smarter than they are, but even you have to understand why context does impact meaning. I have not admitted to being wrong.
It’s not to say that a lack of additional text makes an analysis bad, but using court language on an Internet forum doesn’t make you right, just like an economist saying on an Internet forum with no context how “Slavery was beneficial for GDP during 1784” is wrong and stupid.
Okay — so we have an appeal to my “IQ” — an argument that context doesn’t matter — an offer for me to have sex with you, but only if I’m gay or bi — and a criticism of how our law works.
So — essentially — the ramblings of an idiot.
I have made my case — I stated my points plainly — and I have provided the relevant information without any emotional context attached to it. If you don’t like the information — you are perfectly free to continue not liking it.
You don’t have to concede anything. No one ever does anyway.
The fact that this is a courtroom or a Lemmy comment thread doesn’t somehow negate the accuracy of the language being used. The context doesn’t change what the words mean.
And frankly, there’s nothing for you to concede. You’ve already admitted that I’m right and you’re wrong. Your only remaining argument is apparently that because this isn’t a courtroom, I’m somehow wrong—which is some impressive mental gymnastics.
“You’re right in the only place where it matters, therefore you’re wrong here.”
Okay. You said some stupid-ass shit, got called out on it, couldn’t come up with a response for weeks, and what you’ve finally come up with is still bullshit.
Don’t worry about it. I got you.
Thanks for admitting you were wrong.
Context does change what words mean. sudo rm -rf / means one thing in a terminal and means nothing in a legal brief.
You’re narrow technical view of one aspect of law, missing the bigger picture, is an egregious instance of a lack of context implying things.
For example, if someone said “Hitler made various economic improvements that were helpful” and that’s it, the person is likely a racist evil piece of shit, especially if it’s on a neo-Nazi forum. I suppose technically in a history paper the statement in and of itself would not be egregious or false.
In the same way, if someone is making the case appellate courts are still binding on lower courts, without mentioning that appellate courts not being able to create nationwide injunctions or impact nationwide federal policy when the Supreme Court is slow as molasses and cherry picks what to hear, and when humanitarian violations are going on that are truly evil, that person is either malevolent, lacking rhetorical skills, or technically true but writing something that’s problematic for the context.
Look, I admire your 115 IQ and I find your arrogance alluring, and perhaps if we were in the same area and you were at least decent looking and gay or bi or bored, I’d let you fuck me once or twice because sometimes I like dumb guys who think they are smarter than they are, but even you have to understand why context does impact meaning. I have not admitted to being wrong.
It’s not to say that a lack of additional text makes an analysis bad, but using court language on an Internet forum doesn’t make you right, just like an economist saying on an Internet forum with no context how “Slavery was beneficial for GDP during 1784” is wrong and stupid.
Nice Em Dash, by the way.
Okay — so we have an appeal to my “IQ” — an argument that context doesn’t matter — an offer for me to have sex with you, but only if I’m gay or bi — and a criticism of how our law works.
So — essentially — the ramblings of an idiot.
I have made my case — I stated my points plainly — and I have provided the relevant information without any emotional context attached to it. If you don’t like the information — you are perfectly free to continue not liking it.
I’m done with your dumb ass — good day.