• GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      While the general "can't fault a man for protecting his children" is a milquetoast statement we can all agree with, it's obfuscating what really happened.

      He wasn't chasing away a coyote with a pointed stick: the dude posted a bizarre attack (name-calling, non sequiturs, claims of fraud) on attorneys and the judge for what appears to be a legitimate inquiry.

        • GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, I just didn't think the second part negated the first part. I read it as the defense being to some degree legitimate, but that he was doing so out of self-interest. I was trying to underscore how absurd his so-called defense was.

          In other words, my apologies! I didn't intend for my attempt at an explanation as criticism of you, or start some pointless quibbling internet argument (because I imagine we're all tired of those). Take care out there.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I've noticed that the "anything other than complete opposition and full condemnation of everything they say and are associated with = support" mindset is present here, too.