" By finding him guilty but not punishing him, he will be made to feel guilty and the chance of him reoffending will be prevented, without socially impairing the man "

So that judge is either a rapist or an idiot.

I’ve seen enough, go back to Reddit.

It’s 21 years old.

Yes.

Edit: 20 and a half.

The point of a system is what it does.

Language is for communicating to other people. The other people you communicated to think you did it poorly (because you did).

It’s ok to make mistakes. It’s not ok to refuse to acknowledge them.

It’s got the spirit

We very clearly haven’t already lost, otherwise the world would have ended. You and I wouldn’t be having this discussion, we’d be cobbling together what bits of food we could to survive.

Stop this mindset, it’s destructive and foolish - human beings have the capability of overcoming this. If people with this mindset were asked to dive into the cooling tanks at the Chernobyl incident - we, as a species, would actually be fucked.

You have to understand that the average Trump voter probably knows everything they know about computers from watching the ‘wacky-zaney hacker with personality issues/quirks’ “hack” into things by tippity tapping their fingies on a keyboard in your average copaganda performance.

This is something those types of people will believe.

–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on…

In the very strict sense, yes - violence can be committed upon things. The definition doesn’t specify ownership, simply people and things. I’m sorry, I should not have been hostile in any way. I have an edge to me when I’m speaking to anyone that I suspect is being disingenuous.

That being said, I still don’t think you understand that you may not say it - but the way you tried to deliver your message really convinced me that your subtext was humanizing billionaires that are actively dehumanizing millions of people. That is something I will not accept, in any capacity. Calling a spade a spade is one thing, I can agree with you on that. Unfortunately this is a lot more complicated than a spade, and telling people they’re committing self harm by resisting fascism is a really bad take - regardless of your intentions.

“False equivalency” seems to be another way of saying that you can’t defend your position without illustrating that you define “violence against civilians” based on how much you like the civilians in question.

You’ve just proven my point for me. You’re arguing pedantry in favor of billionaires, literally playing devil’s advocate.

Sincerely, fuck off.

Falsehoods? Like equating municipally owned water towers and privately owned charging stations?

You’re 100% playing devil’s advocate and drawing false equivalencies. Trying to sound like what you’re saying matters only works when what you’re saying… actually matters.

Yeah, I get the argument that you’re trying to make, but this is a really shitty time to play devil’s advocate.

You know, 99% is still an A+

Add it to the list

Ganondorf

Not sure if trolling or AI