In that order.

Israel isn’t responsible for Trump remarkable attempts at destroying the US economy, USD, and the entirety of their softpower.

No, but they helped get him elected.

Not sure they did it on purpose, and it only affected the stupidest of Democrat voters, but any argument that the genocide in Palestine didn’t impact our election is not being honest.

Bloody Cardys can’t be trusted.

That’s why I specifically quoted that part, so if I was misunderstanding you, you could have corrected me.

On that basis, I think we are substantially in agreement.

I don’t think you can blame the prosecutors for doing their jobs (assuming they’re not breaking the rules in how they do it) under that system.

So, what did you mean by this?

Yes, I see your reply. It doesn’t address my concern in any way.

At risk of repeating back to you what you already know, your argument reads that the system is necessary, and I agree. Also, the system is unfair. I also agree. Also that people who knowingly use the unfair system to hurt people unfairly caught in the system are not responsible for the unfairness. I disagree.

At this point, we should be trying to show each other why we believe what we believe. I, for example, would talk about how seal-clubbing is unfair, even if allowed by the rules. You might argue that anything allowed must be considered fair. (or you might argue something else, if I’m not properly understanding your position) We might learn from each other. We might not.

Also, why would you bring up something that I’ve already “admitted” in your parlance and tell it to me?

Because it’s central to my own point, and context helps make things clear?

What counterpoint did I raise to this argument when it was raised before?

I saw nothing that I observed as a counter-point.

I guess sharing a view with you is “admitting” something, since this needs to be an adversarial interaction and your point of view is presumed to be the “right” one that you’re trying to bring me around to

No, as I said above, we are working on mutual communication, leading hopefully to us both learning more about the issue under discussion.

Since “admitted” doesn’t work for you, what other word would you have me use? I’m trying to convey you knowing something, and saying that something, but not framing it in a way that communicates to me that you are thinking about it the same way I am, but are instead treating it as a minor point, or once detached from the immediate point, while I find it to be critical to the immediate point.

Your point number two admits the issue, but then you end by saying that you can’t blame the seal-clubbers for clubbing seals.

I agree that it’s not the fault of the prosecutors that the system is as it is. But it is their fault when they refuse to make allowances for the system being what it is.

Why are you lecturing me?

It’s what we traditionally refer to as “a discussion.” We hone our thoughts and opinions on each other’s until they match, or until we get tired of doing so, or until we decide we do not wish to, or cannot, learn any further from each other.

Prosecuting is fine. It’s when they have all the resources, and the defendant has a Public Defender getting paid practically nothing, and has practically no time to prepare, but the prosecution come at them like they are OJ Simpson that I have an issue.

I don’t think you can blame the prosecutors for doing their jobs (assuming they’re not breaking the rules in how they do it) under that system.

I think I can, too. This smacks of “just following orders,” or “just playing the game.” They knowingly and deliberately screw people for no good reason.

At risk of being political, I think that’s called “being a Democrat.”

I really hate it when people I agree with use such terrible flawed arguments to support my ideals.

I cannot express it as a single word, but I’ve become quite attached to “cause no unnecessary harm.”