Why not, instead of wriggling around, answer the question? It’ll only take a tiny amount of movement on your part, and you can still get your main point across, which is that you don’t approve of removing jury trials from that many people. It’ll feel good, I guarantee it. We can agree about something, have tea, and go home happy.
What’s your goal here? What do you think you’re achieving by being a condescending pedant?
What’s to gain by defending the removal of a means in which The People prevent miscarriages of justice, which has been a cornerstone of the justice system for centuries?
Do you think David Lammy will personally hand you a get out jail free card, or is it because your ego is so pathetically fragile you can’t stand on occasion being wrong about something?
I don’t like throwing around the word bootlicker, it’s done far too much in online discourse, but you’re acting like the epitome of a bootlicker right now.
Truth in political discourse is important. You said something untrue. What you call pedantry I call a commitment to the truth, even if the truth doesn’t fully support me at every turn. You’re happy to fudge the truth as long as the vibes are right: that’s not good enough. The ends don’t justify the means; if you sacrifice truth you lose credibility, if you lose credibility there’s no point even having political debate: you may as well just yell insults.
Condescending
You can’t answer a straight question about the statement you yourself made. I’d have more respect for you if you had just said “no” and doubled down on the lie.
Bootlicker
In my experience, this is most often used to describe someone presenting an inconvenient truth. There’s a simple remedy though: tell the truth. It’ll set you free, as they say.
Why not, instead of wriggling around, answer the question? It’ll only take a tiny amount of movement on your part, and you can still get your main point across, which is that you don’t approve of removing jury trials from that many people. It’ll feel good, I guarantee it. We can agree about something, have tea, and go home happy.
Actually maybe lemonade would be better today.
What’s your goal here? What do you think you’re achieving by being a condescending pedant?
What’s to gain by defending the removal of a means in which The People prevent miscarriages of justice, which has been a cornerstone of the justice system for centuries?
Do you think David Lammy will personally hand you a get out jail free card, or is it because your ego is so pathetically fragile you can’t stand on occasion being wrong about something?
I don’t like throwing around the word bootlicker, it’s done far too much in online discourse, but you’re acting like the epitome of a bootlicker right now.
Truth in political discourse is important. You said something untrue. What you call pedantry I call a commitment to the truth, even if the truth doesn’t fully support me at every turn. You’re happy to fudge the truth as long as the vibes are right: that’s not good enough. The ends don’t justify the means; if you sacrifice truth you lose credibility, if you lose credibility there’s no point even having political debate: you may as well just yell insults.
You can’t answer a straight question about the statement you yourself made. I’d have more respect for you if you had just said “no” and doubled down on the lie.
In my experience, this is most often used to describe someone presenting an inconvenient truth. There’s a simple remedy though: tell the truth. It’ll set you free, as they say.