Then please explain what was meant like I am 5. I am completely serious, as I feel something apparently went above my head.
The way I understood the comments, it was a comparison.
I stated that this bill being proposed was based off of only feelings.
I was told "before I get high on my own supply", that the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were also based on feelings with the reasoning being the statement "We hold these truths to be self-evident".
To my rudimentary comprehension skills, the only reason to bring up those documents was to compare different legislation that was based on feelings.
Am I in the same ballpark at this point?
The point is not to compare the deepest thoughts of children.
The point is that we don't get to claim any special position of virtue WRT politicians working based on feelings. In fact, taking a principled stance - e.g., humans are endowed by their creator with the right of self defense; this right must be treated as sacred - starts with a
feeling that is developed over time and through discussion, into policies. This applies to the policies we like just as much as the ones we don't.
Because "rights," as we understand them, are a human invention that results from
feelings of "fairness."
So, yes, "Politicians create laws based on feelings." This is true; it's also pablum.
Our hallowed founding documents were likely born from similarly childish protestations. Then people discussed and debated their ideas and ideals before eventually developing a novel framework for the experiment of The (née these) United States.
The proposed idea is not how we do things. It may even be dumb. There are lots of dumb ideas in the world. We don't refute them by saying "that's just your feeling, man." We put them in a crucible and challenge the core idea - e.g., if we're to treat 18-20 year-olds as juveniles WRT crime, for what else should we move the goalpost? If we can't trust them to make good choices within the law, how can we trust their choice of college, or to vote?