Sciongrad wrote:OOC: The idea that factual inaccuracies can exist in repeals at all, regardless of how central to the argument they are, is completely and utterly illogical.
OOC: That doesn't really disprove the point I made earlier. Mouse's piece that mentioned it, did so in passing. And made many other arguments. The WA Counterterrorism Act can successfully be argued to prevent state terrorism(and was). If the original included a clause stating that it didn't, and that any clauses that might interfere with state terrorism didn't, then saying it did would be an honest mistake. Since it doesn't include such an exclusion, there are arguments to be made that the act does result in an effective ban. This repeal doesn't make those arguments but uses it as the exclusive reasoning for repeal, and so on face value appears to run afoul of the honest mistake rule.
He needs to explain his points here, since the central crux of the repeal is that the WA Counterterrorism Act does something that it doesn't appear to actually do. The point isn't the veracity of the statement, it's in explaining what the heck you're talking about. By my estimation, honest mistake is not a rule meant to exclude all incorrect arguments. It is meant to exclude obviously incorrect arguments especially when they are the central focus of a repeal.