• Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not arguing the legal definition of this so everything you’ve said is irrelevant.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The legal definition is THE definition, it’s literally what the word means, and where the concepts of both originate.

      What you’re saying isn’t irrelevant, it’s just completely ignorant and wrong.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The legal definition is not the definition. That is just nonsense. There are an innumerable amount of terms that have a literary definition that is not the same as the legal definition.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re trying to say that your definition is the only valid one, which conveniently is one that your argument is entirely reliant upon.

          It isn’t valid, you’re wrong, your argument does not hold water.