You’re not genuinely curious or here in good faith, you’re derisive, vindictive and guilty of every moral failing you’re about to accuse me of having for not thinking the way you do.
So you do not get the luxury of a debate with me.
Now I said that legal systems are plain and simply bad ideas, and that sadly is not going to change no matter who does what. It’s just the reality of the situation.
So move on from this conversation like you would have told me to had I wasted your time arguing with you about it.
If I came across as derisive, I didn’t mean to. I was genuinely trying to ask what you meant.
I don’t know how it is possible for me to be vindictive when I don’t know you. I don’t want revenge against you. You’ve done nothing to me.
I wasn’t going to accuse you of any kind of moral failing and am not sure why you took my response as a personal attack on your moral character.
You stated that “legal systems are plain and simply bad ideas” and that “people need to have the ultimate authority to handle business on their own again”. That sounds like you are advocating a return to something that existed in the past where people could act autonomously, without regard for the legal system.
I am responding that I don’t think that people have ever had the “ultimate authority to handle business on their own” and am wondering if you can give an explanation of what you are suggesting. I’m arguing that, when presented with anarchy, humans will always tend to create social structures and legal systems.
You didn’t. Simply questioning what somebody thinks the answer is when they make such big assertions should be expected. They should not be commenting if they don’t want to engage in good faith.
Thanks. I almost said the same thing in my reply but decided to wait to see what they said in their response first. It seems they’re just not going to respond.
Their comment history looks pretty combative and rude anyway. I think they just like to attack but can’t defend himself.
You’re not genuinely curious or here in good faith, you’re derisive, vindictive and guilty of every moral failing you’re about to accuse me of having for not thinking the way you do.
So you do not get the luxury of a debate with me.
Now I said that legal systems are plain and simply bad ideas, and that sadly is not going to change no matter who does what. It’s just the reality of the situation.
So move on from this conversation like you would have told me to had I wasted your time arguing with you about it.
If I came across as derisive, I didn’t mean to. I was genuinely trying to ask what you meant.
I don’t know how it is possible for me to be vindictive when I don’t know you. I don’t want revenge against you. You’ve done nothing to me.
I wasn’t going to accuse you of any kind of moral failing and am not sure why you took my response as a personal attack on your moral character.
You stated that “legal systems are plain and simply bad ideas” and that “people need to have the ultimate authority to handle business on their own again”. That sounds like you are advocating a return to something that existed in the past where people could act autonomously, without regard for the legal system.
I am responding that I don’t think that people have ever had the “ultimate authority to handle business on their own” and am wondering if you can give an explanation of what you are suggesting. I’m arguing that, when presented with anarchy, humans will always tend to create social structures and legal systems.
You didn’t. Simply questioning what somebody thinks the answer is when they make such big assertions should be expected. They should not be commenting if they don’t want to engage in good faith.
Thanks. I almost said the same thing in my reply but decided to wait to see what they said in their response first. It seems they’re just not going to respond.
Their comment history looks pretty combative and rude anyway. I think they just like to attack but can’t defend himself.