• 0 Posts
  • 128 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle









  • If someone assaults somebody in retaliation (…) many would argue that can be justified.

    Then when someone assaults the assaulter in retaliation for the retaliation? Fuck the rule of law - return to lynch mobs, amirite? Do you say people argue this because you’re one of them and are too much of a coward to say so, or is this an irrelevancy you don’t believe? People argue all sorts of dumb bullshit - it doesn’t make them right.

    No we’re all taught from preschool on not to hit.

    No exceptions, no discussion entered into - guess we’re locking up the military and police. Of course there are exceptions, and of course people are going to do the mental gymnastics necessary to justify their actions to themselves. That doesn’t make them right, but it does make your standard a transparently terrible one.


  • This is an understandable sentiment, but telling everyone about the charges for which this person has served their sentence in order to rally the rest of the workplace to look for ways to get them sacked is super-likely to see you face consequences for bullying.

    If you don’t want to work with this person, consider explaining the circumstances to HR (noting that your friend was a victim), and say it’ll be too traumatic to work alongside them. This seems like a reasonable request to me, which should be accommodated - particularly if HR are already aware of the conviction.

    If you want vengeance, figure out a way that isn’t going to put your livelihood in jeopardy. Don’t squeeze more negative consequences out of an already shitty situation.

    Finally, you need to consider the society you’re advocating for - if we’re abandoning the rule of law to keep people out of work and unable to support themselves after serving their time, we’re relegating them to be either wards of the state or homeless. We’ve already seen the issues caused by felons being barred from voting and its interplay with racial and political dynamics - how do you think manufacturing a desperate criminal underclass will work out for society?








  • It’s not a strawman - it’s a straightforward demonstration of the fact that you don’t belive in the legal argument you put forward. Try to avoid talking about logical fallacies you don’t understand, and putting forward arguments you don’t believe.

    If the legal argument is nonsense (of course it is - this is a conversation about morality), and you’ve stated that all censorship is bad, how do you square that with your (apparent?) pro-censorship stance on death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child porn?