No, truth is objective. It isn’t subjective. Either the EO authorizes the “rounding up of people and exterminating them in camps” (as at least one has implied in this thread) or it does not.
It can’t be “well Nazis and Marxists did terrible things with mental health laws in the past, so that means this EO does too.”
That isn’t truth. You are flailing at a hypothetical based on an assumption and conspiracy theory.
The truth is that nothing in the law changed other than a suspension of the in person exam requirement.
Maybe you deem the in-person exam requirement an absolute prerequisite. Ok. That’s fine. Have that debate. However, that’s not really what you are angry at.
You are also creating a strawman. No one ever said that anyone who held any position that I think is invalid is “crazy.”
I said “Qtardism” is “crazy.” It’s protected “crazy” that wouldn’t rise to the level of authorizing a detention under the law, it’s still “crazy.”
There is no irony there, because “crazy” has more than one meaning.
It would be ironic if I called for Qtards to be placed into camps, but I haven’t done so.
The only thing I’m pointing out is that when people start pulling out the wild conspiracy theories without taking the slightest bit of time or putting in the slightest bit of effort to see what the law actually says, do incredible damage to their own cause.
You continue to attribute to me words I have not said and positions I do not hold.
Perhaps you could use a primer on Literal and Evaluative Reading Comprehension as you appear to default to Inferential - and that heavily skewed by your apparently unshakeable preconceptions regarding others you do not know.
While you may not agree to disagree, your position would be more tenable if you disagreed with what I said instead of disagreeing with what you would like, for whatever reasons, to erroneously presume I said.