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.
technically it was only if you’re decent looking and gay or bi and there was no appeal to your IQ, 1 SD is an insult not a compliment.
also — — — — — — — — —
It’s not the lack of emotional context that’s the problem. It’s about the false implication that there’s some underlying legitimacy when there is no legal mechanism to slow or stop unconstitutional policies except wait for a very slow judiciary to possibly act.
Are you a conservative? Why the fuck are you even on Lemmy? Shouldn’t you be on Reddit or Truth Social?
Being non-emotional may work great in briefs, but implying legitimacy when there’s a jurisprudential crisis caused by slowness and consolidation of power is ignorant. You’re either a conservative and don’t care or uninsightful.
I regert — offering to let you have sex with me if you were decent looking.
Oh, trust me, there isn’t a universe where I have sex with you. So relax. I have standards.
Once again, I was correcting a factual issue. I was not supporting, condemning, or otherwise commenting on the implications of the facts at hand.
And, once again, the way the Supreme Court approached this issue is historically consistent with how the United States has functioned. The underlying idea is that courts are supposed to be impartial, so, on paper, the system should work. I have already acknowledged that, in practice, that isn’t always the case.
But that’s not the point of my comment.
It’s funny, this happens constantly on this platform. I’ll correct an objective factual error or fact-check a post, and people get all butthurt about it (no pun intended).
You don’t have to like the facts for them to be true. And I don’t have to agree with something to accurately state what the facts are.
If your response to someone correcting a factual error is to assume they’re endorsing the position behind it, that’s a problem with your reading comprehension, not with the facts.
This is like in a global warming debate someone going “You’re all saying global warming is real. Well, the temperature actually declined between August of 2026 and September of 2026.” It’s technically true, but anyone saying that would still be an idiot because they are pointing out something technically true as red-herring to distract from the more problematic reality of the situation.
The way the Supreme Court is approaching this issue is not historically consistent except for aberrations like the Trail of Tears debacle. Never has there been such a concentration of executive power that can’t be overridden with reasonable speed when there are constitutional concerns and arguably extraordinary irreparable harms. Whether you agree or disagree with this administration, this is “not business as usual” politics or business as usual jurisprudence and to imply otherwise is intellectually dishonest, even if you are merely juxtaposing truthful facts in a manner to imply legitimacy and order.
You remind me of Ben Shapiro. Probably smart enough to do well on LSATs and a law exam, probably smart enough to fool people of average intelligence with sophistry and rhetorical juggling, but I see through you, I see the legitimacy you are trying to imply that misses the problem, which is humanitarian and constitutional problems that have no reasonably expedient way of being addressed until extreme harms are done, and you aren’t fooling me, no matter what emphasis on denotative facts you push.
I am glad for both of us that you have standards and sad for both of us that you aren’t willing to properly use bad puns.
You didn’t make a pun, I didn’t commit a red herring fallacy, and your analogies don’t work.
You clearly don’t know what a pun is, you don’t understand what a red herring is, and you keep resorting to analogies because you cannot actually refute the argument I’m making. Instead of addressing my points, you’ve resorted to logical fallacies and straw-manning me into a conservative and a Ben Shapiro supporter, positions I never expressed and that have nothing to do with the argument.
Yes, you committed a straw man. My argument is that I am factually correct about the issue we’re discussing. Rather than addressing that claim, you’ve replaced it with a position I don’t hold because that version is easier for you to attack. That’s a textbook straw man.
But honestly, none of this even matters. This isn’t a formal debate where I need to keep cataloging every fallacy you commit. You’re arguing against an established fact, and I should have known better than to waste my time trying to reason you out of a position you clearly aren’t willing to reconsider.
At this point, you’ve become more than useless to this conversation. I’m done.
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.
technically it was only if you’re decent looking and gay or bi and there was no appeal to your IQ, 1 SD is an insult not a compliment.
also — — — — — — — — —
It’s not the lack of emotional context that’s the problem. It’s about the false implication that there’s some underlying legitimacy when there is no legal mechanism to slow or stop unconstitutional policies except wait for a very slow judiciary to possibly act.
Are you a conservative? Why the fuck are you even on Lemmy? Shouldn’t you be on Reddit or Truth Social?
Being non-emotional may work great in briefs, but implying legitimacy when there’s a jurisprudential crisis caused by slowness and consolidation of power is ignorant. You’re either a conservative and don’t care or uninsightful.
I regert — offering to let you have sex with me if you were decent looking.
Oh, trust me, there isn’t a universe where I have sex with you. So relax. I have standards.
Once again, I was correcting a factual issue. I was not supporting, condemning, or otherwise commenting on the implications of the facts at hand.
And, once again, the way the Supreme Court approached this issue is historically consistent with how the United States has functioned. The underlying idea is that courts are supposed to be impartial, so, on paper, the system should work. I have already acknowledged that, in practice, that isn’t always the case.
But that’s not the point of my comment.
It’s funny, this happens constantly on this platform. I’ll correct an objective factual error or fact-check a post, and people get all butthurt about it (no pun intended).
You don’t have to like the facts for them to be true. And I don’t have to agree with something to accurately state what the facts are.
If your response to someone correcting a factual error is to assume they’re endorsing the position behind it, that’s a problem with your reading comprehension, not with the facts.
This is like in a global warming debate someone going “You’re all saying global warming is real. Well, the temperature actually declined between August of 2026 and September of 2026.” It’s technically true, but anyone saying that would still be an idiot because they are pointing out something technically true as red-herring to distract from the more problematic reality of the situation.
The way the Supreme Court is approaching this issue is not historically consistent except for aberrations like the Trail of Tears debacle. Never has there been such a concentration of executive power that can’t be overridden with reasonable speed when there are constitutional concerns and arguably extraordinary irreparable harms. Whether you agree or disagree with this administration, this is “not business as usual” politics or business as usual jurisprudence and to imply otherwise is intellectually dishonest, even if you are merely juxtaposing truthful facts in a manner to imply legitimacy and order.
You remind me of Ben Shapiro. Probably smart enough to do well on LSATs and a law exam, probably smart enough to fool people of average intelligence with sophistry and rhetorical juggling, but I see through you, I see the legitimacy you are trying to imply that misses the problem, which is humanitarian and constitutional problems that have no reasonably expedient way of being addressed until extreme harms are done, and you aren’t fooling me, no matter what emphasis on denotative facts you push.
I am glad for both of us that you have standards and sad for both of us that you aren’t willing to properly use bad puns.
You didn’t make a pun, I didn’t commit a red herring fallacy, and your analogies don’t work.
You clearly don’t know what a pun is, you don’t understand what a red herring is, and you keep resorting to analogies because you cannot actually refute the argument I’m making. Instead of addressing my points, you’ve resorted to logical fallacies and straw-manning me into a conservative and a Ben Shapiro supporter, positions I never expressed and that have nothing to do with the argument.
Yes, you committed a straw man. My argument is that I am factually correct about the issue we’re discussing. Rather than addressing that claim, you’ve replaced it with a position I don’t hold because that version is easier for you to attack. That’s a textbook straw man.
But honestly, none of this even matters. This isn’t a formal debate where I need to keep cataloging every fallacy you commit. You’re arguing against an established fact, and I should have known better than to waste my time trying to reason you out of a position you clearly aren’t willing to reconsider.
At this point, you’ve become more than useless to this conversation. I’m done.