You should realllllllllly stop including this part if you want people to stop thinking you're a pile of excrement

Sure. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. The argument is that this system is and was immoral. If someone says that slavery in the US constituted a massive and legalized system of theft from African Americans (a la Coates) that evaluation is not premised in that same system. It's an appeal to a set of values the author supposes the audience is likely to share.

I'd probably replace the word "framework" with "argument", but sure.

note the scare-quotes



But if birdman is fine acknowledging that it is possible for private profit to be justified, I guess I'm done.

I’m honestly a little confused by what you are getting at IANAW.

Theft is a legal definition and our current laws do not consider profit to be theft. I understand this. But I can think profit is a bad thing while also recognizing that it isn’t, legally speaking, theft.

Also that meme is pointing out that libertarians call taxes theft while ignoring all the money they are giving the owners they work for.

It may also be worth pointing out that theft can probably be used colloquially in a way that does not invoke its legal definition.

I’m also not sure I’m about making an argument that profit is immoral. I think it leads to bad outcomes in our society currently. Perhaps you feel that is the same as calling it immoral? Idk

I’d also like to point out that communism calls for abolishing private property but does not call for abolishing personal property which is a key distinction

Depends on whether or not the speaker is a utilitarian

Yeah this basically

I think in the future women will be less reluctant to wait years to report which is good

But if we now try to punish any person who is accused of harassment for incidents 30 years ago before they were in their job i think it's a slippery slope

Cause if this accusation alone disqualifies him from beimg a scj, then it should disqualify him from beimg a federal judge, a local judge, really any judge.

I think thre best we can do is let people have their say, and if there is evidence we can prosecute. But i don't think there is enough evidence to disqualify him. If she doesn't testify, definitely not

So like kokiri said hopefully the next generation is much better than past generations. And we become a better society as a whole by beimg better individuals

Mets did you watch that video I linked you too?

Did you read that story well named posted?

Here it is if you missed it

Slippery slope to what? If someone said that Brett Kavanaugh murdered someone when he was 17, should that be looked into?

IIRC, she said that she would testify if the FBI did a background check. Why should that not happen?

Kavanaugh is not accused of harassment. He is accused of attempted rape.

Until then, if we let a few rapists onto the supreme court.... meh

The utter disgust I feel towards Mets...










...posts...





...Is ****ing palpable

The utter, vile, sexist, handwaving, lunacy of Mets...




...posts...


...is frankly, disgusting and Mets...


...posts...


...should be shamed in a full throated manner

He trapped her in a bedroom, tried to rip off her clothes, and covered her mouth when she screamed.

This post is fairly disturbing tbh

His posts are outrageous and violent toward women

**** the courts, **** the senate, **** their hearings and committees, **** trump, and absolutely **** anyone who supports them through this

Yeah, that post is borderline sociopathic.

I mean, Mets is a fine enough guy, but I'm seriously concerned that Met's posts' rape apologetics means his posts have some deep (possibly rapey) skeletons in their closet.

It is amazing how quickly your morals pivot, Mets. It makes total sense to you that people in prison should lost all rights, be slaves, not be able to vote, etc.

But when it’s a rich white man, you find it troublesome that rape disqualifies him from being a Supreme Court Justice.

Can you explain how that works?

Oh Oh! I can, I can! Pick me!

This country has made it clear over and over again that they don’t care about women. The highest courts in the land are presided over by sexual predators and attempted rapists. **** the court then, I completely reject their jurisdiction over me

Go ahead and confirm Kavanaugh. We’ll be waiting to burn that **** down.

The crazy thing to me is that Mets brought up the Duke Lacrosse case as an example of why we shouldn’t believe rape accusations. But of course that interpretation of the Duke Lacrosse case is only an interpretation you could hear from a misogynist reactionary.

The serious miscarriage of justice in that case was the fact that the ****ing district attorney that was running the case knew they were innocent and ignored exculpatory evidence because the case was a political boon to his career.

That would make most people be wary of our justice system and consider the fact that our justice system is fully capable of sending innocent people to prison (where, according to Mets they should be slaves and lose their rights).

Instead, Mets’s chief concern is that an allegation turned out to be false. An allegation that, did we not have a totally ****ed “justice” system, would never have made it as far as it did.