Again, that doesn’t show up in the article. I can see you want it to say that, but I’m sorry, the article is objectively not suggesting no consequences.
No, you’re trying to conflate their disagreement with this action with the idea that they disagree with any action, which you’ve thus far been unable to support with quotes from the article.
You’re asking me to support my argument using only quotes from your trash article even though I’ve explained my position to you very simply, so I’m asking for an equivalent useless exercise from you.
You’re claiming the author’s opinion using the article, which is trash (according to you), so you can’t use the article to support your claim. So your claim is unsupported, even though you say the article supports your claim?
So you agree this article is saying there should be no consequences.
No, because it’s a trash article.
Again, that doesn’t show up in the article. I can see you want it to say that, but I’m sorry, the article is objectively not suggesting no consequences.
The consequences are the court ruling and the article is arguing against it.
How do you explain that the court ruling isn’t a consequence?
No, you’re trying to conflate their disagreement with this action with the idea that they disagree with any action, which you’ve thus far been unable to support with quotes from the article.
Can you explain this comment to me again only using quotes by Twilight Sparkle from My Little Pony?
GG no re?
You’re asking me to support my argument using only quotes from your trash article even though I’ve explained my position to you very simply, so I’m asking for an equivalent useless exercise from you.
You’re claiming the author’s opinion using the article, which is trash (according to you), so you can’t use the article to support your claim. So your claim is unsupported, even though you say the article supports your claim?
Yea, no re.
If you can’t explain your position using Twilight Sparkle quotes, do you even understand what you are saying?