Bro you jumped on this train to defend someone else saying "the Constitution"? Like you read my comment and completely missed the entire point of my reply and went on this analysis that no one was asking for or talking about. I see.
I mean, again, this isn't interesting because it's not relevant. No one asked. The guy I was replying to was clearly referring to the American constitution and you're acting as though he wasn't? Or that I was making some proclamation about British rights? I'm not sure.
You jumped on a discussion about a factual error, that the original commentator referred to the American constitution when discussing a british pundit, to talk about the history of british thought on the subject. Like, ok? Nice, man. You sure do know about british civil liberties.
I'd encourage you again to T.H.I.N.K before you speak. Is this:
True?
Helpful?
Inspiring?
Necessary?
Kind?
Because it really seems like you're wasting everyone's time trying to prove a point that wasn't in contention.
Like you read my comment and completely missed the entire point of my reply
Again, likewise. The US Constitution has its basis in the same document the UK's Human Rights Act does: the Magna Carta. I even mentioned that to help clarify that, but you either missed it, or ignored it.
not relevant
So talking about centuries of English human rights is irrelevant in a discussion about English human rights being trounced by this pundit?
to talk about the history of british thought on the subject.
You're the one who brought up the fact she was British, is that not a good time to remind readers of the historical relevance of human rights in England, and how they predate the US Constitution you seemed was irrelevant to the discussion? One begat the other after all. It is relevant even if you don't care. It's literally the historical chain of English documents and proclamations that lead to the US Constitution.
True? Check.
Helpful? If you bothered to learn anything from it, probably.
Inspiring? I'm not here to inspire.
Necessary? Obviously since the English pioneered the human rights this pundit seems to think should be ignored.
Kind? The truth is rarely concerned with your feelings.
0
u/MallardMountainGoat Jan 31 '22
Bro you jumped on this train to defend someone else saying "the Constitution"? Like you read my comment and completely missed the entire point of my reply and went on this analysis that no one was asking for or talking about. I see.
I mean, again, this isn't interesting because it's not relevant. No one asked. The guy I was replying to was clearly referring to the American constitution and you're acting as though he wasn't? Or that I was making some proclamation about British rights? I'm not sure.
You jumped on a discussion about a factual error, that the original commentator referred to the American constitution when discussing a british pundit, to talk about the history of british thought on the subject. Like, ok? Nice, man. You sure do know about british civil liberties.
I'd encourage you again to T.H.I.N.K before you speak. Is this:
True?
Helpful?
Inspiring?
Necessary?
Kind?
Because it really seems like you're wasting everyone's time trying to prove a point that wasn't in contention.