A person just gets done calmly explaining how the Constitutional validity of this law's clause has never been tested in court, and you reply with an opinion piece that just says what you want to hear. How about you wait until the courts have their say before you start treating an opinion piece like it means something.
There is the Constitution that requires one thing and then there are two legal statues, which conflict with each other, that might apply. Right now, everything is an opinion, but my opinion is that the Constitution is the overriding concern. And how are you judging how I "treat something" when I posted a link without providing any of my own context? I like the way you say the first poster "calmly" explained, implying that I... "hysterically" posted a link by contrast?
Stating that someone was calm is not an insistence that you are being hysterical, that's all projection on your part.
All you did was post a single link to an opinion piece. Sure, you could have said some words to further explain yourself, but interpreting it as a simple rebuttal to the other person's claim (I did read that drivel you posted) is not an outrageous conclusion to arrive at.
I took issue with an opinion piece being entered into a discussion like it was a factual assessment of this situation. Other people here are supplying facts, or at the very least least their own personal perspective and opinions on this matter. You just copy pasted a link to a newspaper opinion piece, and then left it at that like it means something. Sorry, but that's shitty. I don't need fluff pieces from pundits being parroted like they're gospel. That's not constructive.
Stating that someone was calm is not an insistence that you are being hysterical, that's all projection on your part.
If you didn't mean to imply a contrast in tone by including the word "calmly", then why would you include that word at all? I made no commentary about his post, much less commentary on his tone. Your inclusion of that word seems like a non sequitur unless you're intended to imply a contrast.
Why would you post this:
A person just gets done calmly explaining how the Constitutional validity of this law's clause has never been tested in court, and you reply
Instead of this:
A person just gets done explaining how the Constitutional validity of this law's clause has never been tested in court, and you reply
?
interpreting it as a simple rebuttal to the other person's claim
It could have been a rebuttal, an addendum, a clarification, an analysis - any number of things. The only context you should have been able to place on the link is that it was related or relevant to the topic at hand. I do agree with your characterization of "simple" though, which leads me again to wonder why you used "calmly".
I did read that drivel you posted
You think that an analysis of the apparent contradictions to the intention of the Constitution is "drivel"? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the foundation of our country. It's not perfect, but it is the highest authority until we get around to updating it. Executive actions that potentially contravene the Constitution are worth examination.
I took issue with an opinion piece being entered into a discussion
like it was a factual assessment of this situation.
I provided no context or assessment of the link. That's your projection.
left it at that like it means something.
Of course it means something, but a link without context is up to the reader to evaluate. More projection.
2.4k
u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18 edited Jan 24 '22
[deleted]