Zouayne Shyce wrote:This is an almost perfect example of a completely arbitrary, overly idiosyncratic interpretation of the effects, as I mentioned above. Really exactly that. If you go about it this way, you can also interpret an elephant as a somewhat chubby, oversized horse. You can also take apologetics to the point of absurdity.
What you seem not to have considered is that, according to this logic, you can always, really always construct cases in which the effects of a measure always add up to zero in the balance sheet. Give me any measure and I will construct such a case for you. I prefer a game in which what I do has a visible effect - and not one in which it is always explained to me afterwards why this is not the case. And this is has actually always been a crucial point of my criticism: If the game works this way, it's simply too clever by half. Apart from the fact that this interpretation of yours is really really absurd and in many parts not even logical. This partly due to your confusion between the freedom to do just anything and civil rights. There are very important differences between the both, philosophically and politically.
Or perhaps civil rights are a deeply complex thing that encompass far more than you had previously considered. I maintain that you have simply misunderstood how it all works. This isn't meant to act as insult or anything. Misunderstanding something means you have an opportunity to learn again. Shouting that everyone is wrong except for you just makes you look like a crazy person, not to mention arrogant.