> Your "evidence of illegal activity comment" is written later in the post, and I didn't respond to it because it's completely irrelevant.
You forgot about the guidelines: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
Do you have anything to add to the discussion regarding the topic at hand? I explained the problem with their reasoning in the post you're replying to.
> Anything can be considered "evidence of illegal activity" IF it implicates one in a crime. Using your reasoning, a bloody knife is illegal because it's "evidence of illegal activity". Well... no, it could just as easily be evidence that I cut myself making dinner, so there is no reason for you to bring that up except to shoehorn my examples into the category of illegal activity even though they aren't actually illegal.
The problem with your explanation is that it reverses the probability of an action being illegal if the context of it is not provided.
More people are accidentally injured with knives than they are used to commit assault, but in the examples the probabilities are flipped.
You could say that under that reasoning, running over an old nun in the street is illegal because it's "evidence of illegal activity", Well... no, it could just as easily be evidence that you were stopping a mass shooting by a psychopathic old lady.
You forgot about the guidelines: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
You did that by ignoring the context of the post.