| Once again you don't address the points in my previous points and reply with something completely different. > All your interpretation and from some of jurists that you cite is that the attacks that Brazilian institutions suffered, like the attacks caused by digital militias during the Bolsonaro government were not serious coordinated attacks against the rule of law and against the tribunal. Oh yes, the grave attacks of people talking on twitter. The Brazilian institutions suffered so much. > Saying that "Brazil is dictatorship" just because you have a divergent interpretation is ridiculous. Brazil is a dictatorship because its own Supreme Court disrespects the constitution, censors elected congressmen and journalists without due process (see Twitter Files Brazil), arrests people with without due process, withdraws access to case files to defense attorneys... the list goes on. > You replicate the arguments in far right groups Yes, the former Republic Attorney General, a well known far right extremist. > This is just a term used in media The exact term is used in the opening of the wildcard illegal inquiry. > If I threaten to kill all judges in Brazil, and create a plan to do so, according with you, I cannot be judged because any judge would also be victim in my crime? You think this is some sort of slam dunk argument but it is so juvenile that it shouldn't even deserve a thoughtful reply. You create a fantasy scenario where there's no specific victim ("threaten all judges in Brazil") that is obviously so absurd that such a threat shouldn't even be considered seriously. In the case of an actual crime, where a number of judges are victims, one would expect that investigations are carried out by the Federal Prosecution Service, not by the judges themselves, and that the case would be judged different judges, not the victims themselves. > The fact is that there are cases where the STF has power to act This is the core of the problem. The Supreme Court has the power to do whatever it wants, without limits. It is also a political court that is, in their own words, adversarial against right wing thought, and to defeat the right wing they will not be limited by the rule of law. > Moreover, nobody is being at the same time judge and prosecutor You cannot be serious. |
Reached the same conclusion as you just did. When I get into these discussions, I end up feeling like I'm getting gaslit. Stuff happened, I saw it happen but the other guy just keeps insisting it didn't happen until the end of time. I'm honestly not even sure if it's deliberate or not.
Reductio ad absurdum is the only viable response.