Or perhaps listing 3 different positions and claiming someone is between them is confusing.....

Given they were directly responding to a quote of the confusing statement, perhaps they were not remarking on the actual position, but on the confusing nature of the description ?

The problem with bible quotes as points is that it's a large corpus of text "edited" and "translated" over thousands of years by the powers of the time to suit their needs.

Even if you assume it's the original singular text, with no changes, written by one person, it's all open to context and subjectivity.

If a particular passage, section, or idea is helpful to you, thats great, but trying to point at isolated quotes as objective truth immediately falls down when someone cherry picks a different quote that (from their perspective) is counter to yours and for some reason , more true.

Thats not even touching on cultural drift or linguistic interpretation.

To be clear this applies to any text of the same nature, not just the bible.

All of this is my subjective opinion.

I meant the banking industry over leveraging themselves into extinction and then walking it off because if subsidies and bailouts

Anyone else seeing an older, rounder Michael Cera?

Sloperator

I'd say it's less a legal fight than it is a fight for control , using the law this time.

Pretending that what people are upset about is the field rather than the pre-capitulation is not helping the cause.

Most of the hate isn't for the technical implementation of a field, though some FOSS people are upset at that as well.

You can sidestep the legal fight by not serving the places where it is illegal.

That's doesn't necessarily align with the goals of whatever project, but it is possible.

The law is the law in the very specific contexts in which it applies and is heavily open to interpretation and bias, which is (in theory) why trials and lawsuits exist.

done

At this point, surely its just easier to say he deported 700k people than to actually do it, his supporters can't possibly care about fact checking his statements so why bother making them factual.

Reason is fine, doesn't mean everyone has to agree.

You mean cats? Are they not obligate carnivores?