*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[Poopadoop]

You're not adding anything to the debate, you're just complaining about me calling out Ong's bullshit. If you're so authoritarian that you're going to ban me for arguing with your friend, then go ahead.

[OngBonga]

By definition, an illegal court is unfair.

By definition? By whose definition? Yours?

You're assuming right here that laws are by definition fair, because you're using the legality of a court to determine whether or not it is fair.

The UK probably has the legal right to overrule Scottish courts. They could perhaps, in a political incident, declare a Scottish court "illegal", which would mean their judgements have no authority. Are we now saying that this court is "by definition" unfair? Or is it the laws declaring it illegal that are unfair?

Fairness is extremely subjective. Define it for me please, show me how definite the word "fair" is. Show me how language is so rigid.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If there is something going on that is stressing you out beyond this forum, then I'm here to listen about that.
Picking a fight with me is something you know the end result of, so IDK what you're up to there.

As an adult and as a show of respect:
I apologize for quipping at you over the projection thing rather than discuss it in paragraph form.
I don't mean to get caught up in the game of quips, but I get riled up sometimes.

I am extending an olive branch. You can burn it if you choose.

You're not adding anything to the debate

I'm adding my thoughts as a friend who is chatting with 2 friends.

you're just complaining about me calling out Ong's bullshit.

I have mentioned ong once aside from assuring you that my motivations have nothing to do with him, and that was to call him out for using wikipedia as an appeal to authority. The exact equal critique I leveled against you with your dictionary shenanigans. I'm not playing favorites or defending anyone.

If you're so authoritarian that you're going to ban me for arguing with your friend, then go ahead.

I encourage you to argue with ong. He loves it. You love it. I'm a big fan.

You're projecting a set of motivations onto me that simply do not apply. It feels galling to be accused of animosity and false pretenses when I'm speaking to you directly and honestly and without any subterfuge. This is what's getting under my skin right now. Not your argument with ong and certainly not any sense that ong needs me to defend him.

IDK what's motivated you on this path, but if you're done here, then don't put me through the trauma of extending you every courtesy as I slowly become an anxious wreck, only to have you accuse me of being biased against you the entire time. I'd like to think that you have enough respect for me to at least not treat me like that. Really, I'd like to think you wouldn't treat anyone like that.

[OngBonga]

We can agree a kangaroo court is an unfair one or an illegal one, for the most part. The subjectivity arises there. Fair and legal are nowhere near synonymous. Fair is subjective, law is not supposed to be but still is.

[Poopadoop]

We can agree a kangaroo court is an unfair one or an illegal one, for the most part.

Great.

[Poopadoop]

It seemed that you managed to work your way around to a general argument that terms aren't always strictly defined, rather than the specific argument that a kangaroo court is powerless. Ok fine, I would be happy to go along with that.

Then you came up with the kangaroo civil court stuff. No-one calls a court a kangaroo court because it can't enforce a punishment. Except you I guess. But again, whatever, use the language however you want.

And yeah you obviously weren't losing your shit when you wrote 100 posts about how a kangaroo court has no power. But OTOH, telling you you're wrong 100 times is losing my shit. Nice reductio ad Ong there to finish things off.