I can’t force you to see parallels you are very firmly convinced don’t exist, nor can I force you to provide new evidence or arguments instead of rehashing conclusions I’ve already refuted as best I can.
This is especially true when you’ve declined my open-ended request to provide one of the “plenty of” peer-reviewed legal journal citations you say exist and don’t engage substantively with the evidence I do share, even while making ever more specific legal citation requests to me and asking me to do all the legwork of substantively explaining “some [interpretation of my evidence] that [you] can actually refute.”
These asymmetries are beyond the scope of what’s warranted here: we are two people having a casual unpaid Hacker News discussion, not you as a judge or juror and me as a lawyer trying to prove my client’s case in court. Similarly, if the point of me doing interpretive legwork is just to give you something to refute, that’s not worth my time.
I don’t think we have anything productive left to say to each other in this subthread, so don’t be surprised if this turns out to be my last reply to you here.
> I can’t force you to see parallels you are very firmly convinced don’t exist, nor can I force you to provide new evidence or arguments instead of rehashing conclusions I’ve already refuted as best I can
Oh. OK. So you're not actually providing any of the proof I asked you to, you're just wanting me to trust your arguments as correct in spite of all the evidence I've seen to the contrary. Yeah, that sure is reasonable. The 'trust me bro' defense.
> This is especially true when you’ve declined my open-ended request to provide one of the “plenty of” peer-reviewed legal journal citations you say exist and don’t engage substantively with the evidence I do share
Because I'm not particularly interested in doing research for you. That would actually take me maybe 10 0or 15 minutes, to find something you wouldn't just dismiss because it was cited by students and whatever reason you found convenient.
You're making a claim which against common knowledge and understanding, so the onus is on you to support it. Not just say 'read X section of the GDPR' and treat that as though you've provided proof.
> asking me to do all the legwork of substantively explaining “some [interpretation of my evidence] that [you] can actually refute.”
No. I'm just first asking you to support your point directly and not with vague handwaving. That's more than reasonable.
> These asymmetries are beyond the scope of what’s warranted here: we are two people having a casual unpaid Hacker News discussion, not you as a judge or juror and me as a lawyer trying to prove my client’s case in court.
Sure. I'm not trying to make it that. But clearly one of us is incorrect. You've been confident from the start it's me, but instead of actually showing how, you're just saying read section X of the GDPR and wanting me to trust your interpretation as correct. How is that reasonable?
There's plenty of peer reviewed legal articles talking about EU overreach. There really are not many saying "whoah, hold up guys, there's been a huge misunderstanding!" - you didn't even provide so much as a blog post claiming that.
The way I see it, EU tribalism can be just as bad as US tribalism, and EU citizens often try to defend EU laws even when it doesn't necessary make sense to do so. Likek how many EU citizens will try and say cookie banners are not the fault of the EU and try to shift blame to the websites, which is nonsense.
> Similarly, if the point of me doing interpretive legwork is just to give you something to refute, that’s not worth my time.
WHy do you think that stance wouldn't apply to me?
> I don’t think we have anything productive left to say to each other in this subthread, so don’t be surprised if this turns out to be my last reply to you here.
This is especially true when you’ve declined my open-ended request to provide one of the “plenty of” peer-reviewed legal journal citations you say exist and don’t engage substantively with the evidence I do share, even while making ever more specific legal citation requests to me and asking me to do all the legwork of substantively explaining “some [interpretation of my evidence] that [you] can actually refute.”
These asymmetries are beyond the scope of what’s warranted here: we are two people having a casual unpaid Hacker News discussion, not you as a judge or juror and me as a lawyer trying to prove my client’s case in court. Similarly, if the point of me doing interpretive legwork is just to give you something to refute, that’s not worth my time.
I don’t think we have anything productive left to say to each other in this subthread, so don’t be surprised if this turns out to be my last reply to you here.