• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Settlements are not part of a legal preceding

    Yes …

    So when talking about “precedent” why are you insisting that there’s an understood “legal” and what was meant was “legal precedent”?

    Which we both agree doesn’t apply to a settlement.

    Instead of thinking I meant “precedent” as a common term which is literally what was said?

    I dunno, I’m over explaining it. I’m just fascinated with why you all aren’t able to understand.

    Quick edit:

    Are you thinking of it like there’s “precedent” of which there are “legal precedent” or “illegal precedent”?

    Is the issue that people don’t understand it’s two distinct and separate things and not just the same thing but one has an adjective?

    It’s gonna bug the shit out of me until I figure out where the disconnect is.

    • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Again. If two people make a deal in private it doesn’t set a precedent for another private or public deal. That’s it.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        If two people make a deal in private it doesn’t set a precedent for another private deal

        It does…

        That’s literally what the word “precedent” means.

        If you give your dog a treat at 3pm every day, it sets that precedent. You and your dog in private have reached a deal which results in further expectations.

        There is no legal system in place there.

        But if you give the treat early, you set another precedent that early is an option and the timeline is negotiable, so your dog will ask early

        Like, “precedent” is a psychological concept …

        Does that make sense now?

        Was the only time you’ve heard that word in the context of “legal precedence”? That would explain all of this.

        • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          If I give my dog a treat every day at the same time that doesn’t mean somebody else has to give their dog a treat at that time which what you are implying.

          Does that make sense now?

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            3 days ago

            I’d think the clear analogy would be multiple dogs in the room…

            But it’s clear no progress is getting made here, have a good one