>what else can I google for you?
I don't think asking for clarification was an unreasonable ask. Too many people today use emotional charged rewordings to describe things. It's honestly hard at times to know what people are referring to anymore.
I don't think asking for clarification was an unreasonable ask. Too many people today use emotional charged rewordings to describe things. It's honestly hard at times to know what people are referring to anymore.
You can dismiss anything because no proof, or you can prove to yourself yay/nay. It took seconds to find the specific texas legislation. It's not like it was hidden. You can then come back and say, "hey i tried looking for this in a websearch, but it was too muddled. got something more definitive?" vs "i don't believe you so the onus on you."
That aside, people supporting their own claims with evidence provides a whole host of secondary benefits. It makes it more clear makes it more clear who is claiming what, it pushes back somewhat on the problem of "it takes an order of magnitude more effort to produce bullshit than to refute it", and it prevents some obnoxious debate tactics that reduce discussion quality.
To be honest it don't understand why anyone would advocate any other convention on a discussion board. It seems super short sighted to me.
If the sources they provide are biased and therefore suspect, that is a separate concern that can then be addressed. But having some source for your claims is table stakes for an intelligent discussion.
> (1) the person operating the motor vehicle was exercising due care; and
That law clearly states twice that "due care" needs to be taken otherwise it's not applicable. So compare and contrast this with the original claim by the parent commenter:
> legal for car drivers to mow down pedestrian protesters
I call bullshit on that. Thanks for the link.
similarly:
>(b) This section does not affect a person's liability for an injury caused by grossly negligent conduct.
That is to say, you're not allowed to just mow them over.
Sources are nice not because they magically add quality to a post, but because you can check them for yourself.
>I call bullshit on that. Thanks for the link.
Sometimes hyperbole just isn't the right thing, but I seriously doubt the original poster honestly believes laws were created that allowed for mowing down of citizens willy nilly. Pedantic people go nuts and throw out the rest of the conversation on a caveat rather than keeping focus on the discussion. Laws were written that allows for a defense after running people over with your car. There's plenty to be left to the interpretation of lawyers to argue and judges to decide.