dejadeadnz:
Plenty of good reasons, if you would just engage the mind a bit and consider the facts, rather than just attacking these people right away.
--Snip--
Free hint: these important issues and policies are mostly reasonably well thought-through and most common law countries apply similar rules. You're unlikely to be so clever that you've come upon some hitherto unknown great reason(s) that demonstrate their utter moral bankruptcy. So before spouting off next time, can I heartily suggest thinking through the issues a bit harder. Or, better yet, refrain from commenting from a position of ignorance?
Why do you almost always create these replies imparting your knowledge or experience, in such a rude and disrespectful way? Even if you strongly disagree, or the person is entirely wrong, you carrying on this way simply isn't necessary. It lowers the tone of the thread and likely causes people to disengage.
There is no way in real life you would get away with speaking to people this way, why do you feel it appropriate to do so here?
Surely it's possible to provide your perspective knowledge or experience without resorting to belittling/berating or otherwise eviscerating the other person.
This was the type of question I would imagine comes up a lot in the context of jury exclusions, they aren't unreasonable questions and simply presenting the facts without everything else would have been just as productive?