6 ms·

>Furthermore the law doesn't interfere with what's private. If that indeed was to mean "it's fine as long as you do not get caught", that's a pretty pointless a

>Furthermore the law doesn't interfere with what's private. If that indeed was to mean "it's fine as long as you do not get caught", that's a pretty pointless argument when discussing laws Wrong again, I stated several times that it's about the limits of law, yet you still keep ignoring the answer and asking if I meant X or Y. It's not 'pointless' because the hyperbolic statement about being punished just for 'existing' was made. At least try to be more charitable in your biased interpretation for the sake of civility. >Someone who doesn't wilfully disrupt the social order should have no problems in that regard." suggests that's not what's meant though I don't even see the how your inference makes any sense here. AGAIN it is about the LIMITS of the law, if you keep something private no one can punish you, but if you wilfully disrupt the social order it will have consequences in any place of the world.

detaro 6y ago
I kinda assumed it was meant to be a defense, not a confirmation of "yes, sharia law is maximally oppressive about it" with a generic point of "actually, you don't get punished for doing something illegal if nobody catches you".
- aptidude187 6y ago
  I am only responsible for what I state, not what others (mis)understand. AGAIN, it was in reference to the hyperbolic statement that the root comment made about being punished for just 'existing'.
  - detaro 6y ago
    In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind who you are defending wrote > but there are for acting upon it publicly. So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre.
    - aptidude187 6y ago
      >In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind who you are defending wrote You are really confused, it was "LatteLazy" who made the hyperbolic statement, not jedimind. >So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre. There is nothing bizarre about it, what's bizarre tho is jumping into a discussion without having studied the root issue & the development of the discussion and in consequence failing to understand simple arguments.
      - detaro 6y ago
        jedimind wrote the response I'm quoting. No confusion. > In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind Note the lack of a "by" before "jedimind".
        aptidude187 6y ago
        > jedimind wrote the response I'm quoting. No confusion. I disagree, much confusion. I can't see any hyperbole in the statement you quoted.
        detaro 6y ago
        As the sentence says, I quote the response to to what you called the hyperbolic statement. Not the hyperbolic statement.
        aptidude187 6y ago
        Thanks for clarifying. I still don't see your point. Fact is that the hyperbolic statement that one is punished for 'just existing' is false. The arguments dealing with that are quite simple & concise, so what exactly are you arguing for?

detaro 6y ago

I kinda assumed it was meant to be a defense, not a confirmation of "yes, sharia law is maximally oppressive about it" with a generic point of "actually, you don't get punished for doing something illegal if nobody catches you".

aptidude187 6y ago
I am only responsible for what I state, not what others (mis)understand. AGAIN, it was in reference to the hyperbolic statement that the root comment made about being punished for just 'existing'.
- detaro 6y ago
  In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind who you are defending wrote > but there are for acting upon it publicly. So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre.
  - aptidude187 6y ago
    >In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind who you are defending wrote You are really confused, it was "LatteLazy" who made the hyperbolic statement, not jedimind. >So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre. There is nothing bizarre about it, what's bizarre tho is jumping into a discussion without having studied the root issue & the development of the discussion and in consequence failing to understand simple arguments.
    - detaro 6y ago
      jedimind wrote the response I'm quoting. No confusion. > In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind Note the lack of a "by" before "jedimind".
      - aptidude187 6y ago
        > jedimind wrote the response I'm quoting. No confusion. I disagree, much confusion. I can't see any hyperbole in the statement you quoted.
        detaro 6y ago
        As the sentence says, I quote the response to to what you called the hyperbolic statement. Not the hyperbolic statement.
        aptidude187 6y ago
        Thanks for clarifying. I still don't see your point. Fact is that the hyperbolic statement that one is punished for 'just existing' is false. The arguments dealing with that are quite simple & concise, so what exactly are you arguing for?