so how could it be

if the court says something legal is illegal when clearly it's not, then that categorically dictates that i do indeed know more on law than them

Back to work for me now

you're whole argument is just incorrect

now you're the liar

you have no moral authority when you twist reality like that

that's an absurd vision of reality where authority is the one arbiting mechanism of what is right and wrong

@PureEvilPie in australia we have laws limiting speech despite a constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech, the reasoning behind those laws being possible is that the guarantee is not specifically written within some bill of rights but is part of the preamble texts.

the supreme courts decision wasn't based on any law

courts are very often wrong, for political gain

any law of this land, written or unwritten

i'm 1000% sure that pep is an authoritarian

no question nothing

no debate

people say so, so is

well he's a left-leaning voter in the current decade, so yeah hyper authoritarian

well, i work in ecommerce, and i say amazon is bankrupt

so

is

i'm an expert

i disagree; stating that he's left-leaning is disgraceful to what 'left' is supposed to be

to late galaxy

it's over

as maddow said

this is our world now

@GalaxyBrainer doesn't matter what words you use, I'm saying he votes for the parties traditionally considered to be the opposite of traditionalist or individualist desires

yim yum

<:BIGBRAIN:501101491428392991>

semantics and derailing have killed debate in the public spaces

bring it back by being unapologetic in your use of language by your own meaning

that's my intention, yes

Yes, argue to meaning of words

we must protect the language as the largest priority

bastardisation must end

even if it means that we can't get something we really want, the language is more important, imo anyway

take back what things mean

rather the opposite - refuse to argue the meaning of words. Present the literal meaning or the commonly understood meaning, and never re-define regardless of what the opposition argues is the meaning. Simply ignore the semantic portion of debate and rightly accuse them of derailing the conversation when they go back to the meaning argument. People understand language without the preamble.

no no, i'd argue that is arguing the meaning

so if someone presents you a word, give them a definition of it

that's defining

and if they give you a different one, tell them that's not what that means