I don’t disagree that there are flaws with the US system, but the statement ‘that any system that can elect someone faster than prosecuting them is broken’ is wrong.
Not really though. This isn’t the system not working this is reasonable steps on law being abused to extend that prosecution essentially as long as you can afford to throw legal bullshit at them to create delays.
A system that can elect a felon faster than prosecute him is fundamentally broken.
This quote says, in other words, prosecuting a felon always has to take less time than electing him in a system that is not broken. Because, if it sometimes can take longer, then the system is broken according to the quote.
And in fact a system that you agree has fundamental flaws is in fact fundamentally flawed by your own admission.
Because I agree the US system is broken as fuck. But the original quote is still dumb as rocks. Both can be true at the same time.
while making an argument based on words and implications that didn’t exist is a bad look.
Not reading and understanding the whole comment thread before responding is a bad look.
It’s phrased as any but it’s clearly a reference to the USA which is one country not all, not many, not several but a singular one. It would be a lack of reading comprehension to say it’s “any” or “all” which your article just confirmed for you.
Now have a look back at my first comment and we’ll see if you can figure out what your actual point is.
You can infer additional information when that information isn’t present. Like if you say “A certain system that can […]”, then that sentence refers to a specific system but doesn’t say which. You can infer from context that it’s the US. But if you say “The US system, which can […]” then you cannot infer that “The US system” actually means the Canadian system because it’s clearly stated that it’s the US system. There’s no missing information to infer. In this case, it says “A system”. As you said, that means any system. All systems. We’re given complete information on the subject. There’s nothing to infer.
Maybe what you’re thinking of is that the current context of this post is the recent US election, so the timing of this post is an implicit reference to that. But the reference isn’t meant to change the meaning of the statement. It’s used as evidence to support it. i.e. “This kind of system is bad in general. Look at this example in which it is bad.” and not “This kind of system is bad in general. But not in general.”
Edit: Alternatively, there can be cases where you should interpret a sentence as something different from what was actually written, and that’s when you have reasonable cause to believe they meant the other thing. Here, both the general statement and one specifically about the US are statements that someone can reasonably make so most people will interpret the words exactly as written.
then you cannot infer that “The US system” actually means the Canadian system because it’s clearly stated that it’s the US system. There’s no missing information to infer.
That’s why I didn’t do that dipshit, you stated all, not me.
Maybe what you’re thinking of is that the current context of this post is the recent US election, so the timing of this post is an implicit reference to that. But the reference isn’t meant to change the meaning of the statement. It’s used as evidence to support it. i.e. “This kind of system is bad in general. Look at this example in which it is bad.” and not “This kind of system is bad in general. But not in general.”
That’s the additional info you absolute brickbrain.
It’s been 4 years though
I don’t disagree that there are flaws with the US system, but the statement ‘that any system that can elect someone faster than prosecuting them is broken’ is wrong.
Not really though. This isn’t the system not working this is reasonable steps on law being abused to extend that prosecution essentially as long as you can afford to throw legal bullshit at them to create delays.
Again, that does not mean it should always be shorter than an election.
Who said always.
Ed: to be clear no one did. And in fact a system that you agree has fundamental flaws is in fact fundamentally flawed by your own admission.
Being contrarian is ok but being tedious and contrarian all while making an argument based on words and implications that didn’t exist is a bad look.
This quote says, in other words, prosecuting a felon always has to take less time than electing him in a system that is not broken. Because, if it sometimes can take longer, then the system is broken according to the quote.
Because I agree the US system is broken as fuck. But the original quote is still dumb as rocks. Both can be true at the same time.
Not reading and understanding the whole comment thread before responding is a bad look.
Not at all. That’s arguing one of the two of those things is broken and on this case it’s both.
In this case no, you’re simply making conclusions based on your reading of it not the actual words in it.
Agreed, you should have a look at your comments and take it to heart yourself.
Now I am curios, what does this sentence mean in your head?
That the system is fundamentally broken which you’ve already agreed with.
Ed: curious not curios.
deleted by creator
I explicitly said that it could be correct for the US in this instance but is incorrect as a general statement.
No one said it as a general statement, you had to add “always” to make it generalized.
Did you not read the text in the image?
It’s called inference dude.
It’s phrased as any but it’s clearly a reference to the USA which is one country not all, not many, not several but a singular one. It would be a lack of reading comprehension to say it’s “any” or “all” which your article just confirmed for you.
Now have a look back at my first comment and we’ll see if you can figure out what your actual point is.
You can infer additional information when that information isn’t present. Like if you say “A certain system that can […]”, then that sentence refers to a specific system but doesn’t say which. You can infer from context that it’s the US. But if you say “The US system, which can […]” then you cannot infer that “The US system” actually means the Canadian system because it’s clearly stated that it’s the US system. There’s no missing information to infer. In this case, it says “A system”. As you said, that means any system. All systems. We’re given complete information on the subject. There’s nothing to infer.
Maybe what you’re thinking of is that the current context of this post is the recent US election, so the timing of this post is an implicit reference to that. But the reference isn’t meant to change the meaning of the statement. It’s used as evidence to support it. i.e. “This kind of system is bad in general. Look at this example in which it is bad.” and not “This kind of system is bad in general. But not in general.”
Edit: Alternatively, there can be cases where you should interpret a sentence as something different from what was actually written, and that’s when you have reasonable cause to believe they meant the other thing. Here, both the general statement and one specifically about the US are statements that someone can reasonably make so most people will interpret the words exactly as written.
Duh
That’s why I didn’t do that dipshit, you stated all, not me.
That’s the additional info you absolute brickbrain.