> but there are for acting upon it publicly.
So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre.
You are really confused, it was "LatteLazy" who made the hyperbolic statement, not jedimind.
>So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre.
There is nothing bizarre about it, what's bizarre tho is jumping into a discussion without having studied the root issue & the development of the discussion and in consequence failing to understand simple arguments.
> In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind
Note the lack of a "by" before "jedimind".
I disagree, much confusion. I can't see any hyperbole in the statement you quoted.
Wrong again, I stated several times that it's about the limits of law, yet you still keep ignoring the answer and asking if I meant X or Y. It's not 'pointless' because the hyperbolic statement about being punished just for 'existing' was made. At least try to be more charitable in your biased interpretation for the sake of civility.
>Someone who doesn't wilfully disrupt the social order should have no problems in that regard." suggests that's not what's meant though
I don't even see the how your inference makes any sense here. AGAIN it is about the LIMITS of the law, if you keep something private no one can punish you, but if you wilfully disrupt the social order it will have consequences in any place of the world.