Gentle nerd freak of the pacific northwest. All nation states are vermin.
Stealing a physical item from a giant corporate store is also always morally acceptable.
Having power neurologically suppresses empathy. Therefor resources controlled by the powerful will on average be used more harmfully. Taking resources from the powerful reduces total harm done.
You will use a loaf of bread less harmfully than Walmart will use the profit from it.
I would’ve gone with Fus Rule Dah as the title.
I’m saying the need to instantly and constantly denounce tankies is tedious and counterproductive. I’m saying that policing the boundaries of leftism based on dumb shit said online is a reactionary distraction.
It’s not about defending tankies it’s about people who are constantly shifting the focus of conversation to the most mockable section of online lefties.
The ruling class don’t waste their time distancing themselves from qanon, they focus on furthering their class interests and emiserating the poor.
Liberals who are constantly calling people tankies are helping the ruling class.
underage and the prostitute is committing statutory rape
So the ethical issue for you is that it’s illegal?
decide as a society that any underage can make the decision to hire a prostitute or none of them can
As a society we’ve decided that no one outside of Nevada can hire a prostitute, regardless of age. But again, this argument sounds like your point of view is that breaking the law is unethical - or have I misunderstood?
Endocannibalism - eating people from your own group -has been practised as a respectful part of funerial traditions by a handful of cultures across the world and may have been more widespread in prehistory.
Totally unethical
What specifically do you feel is unethical in this situation?
I’m curious because for me, behavior that harms no-one cannot be unethical. I see no harm, so I’m very interested to know what part flags it as unethical for you?
It’s possible to spend your own money unethically. I don’t think your argument is sound.
You may be punished because:
==please incorporate the word rule in your post titles==
Maybe put an R the word “SCHOOLS”?
During the first trump regime I got banned from /r/politics for inciting violence by repeating a quote from trump and replacing the original target’s name with trump.
One of the earliest widely publicized school shootings was a female shooter in San Diego, 1979. The shooter’s explanation inspired the song “I don’t like Mondays”.
statistically significant amount of whistleblowers are actually just liars … When their lie catches up with them … decide to end it all"
This is a very unlikely situation.
These stories of nefarious liars abusing poor defenseless corporations would be publicized widely if true. We’d have prominent, well known examples.
This needs people who think the threats and reputational damage of being a whistleblower are worth it for the ‘recognition’, who are smart enough to construct a believable sounding claim but not smart enough to see the inevitable consequences. That specific kind of person is going to be much rarer than people who work for a legitimately shitty company and don’t like it.
The level of vitriol against pelosi is in no small part because of republican efforts to demonise her. Yes, she’s a corrupt plutocrat. But why do people hate her specifically, versus every other corrupt plutocrat that makes up the leadership of the democratic party?
She forced out biden and was one of the few dems who actually wanted to fight this election. But she was also a driving force behind the kamala campaigns failed right turn which destroyed her own good work.
She’s a more complicated corrupt plutocrat than people give her credit for, is I guess my point.
Another rich conservative asshole writing about the working class as if he has any idea wtf he’s talking about. He doesn’t, of course, but it’s the NYT so that doesn’t matter.
This is Russia targeting the core alliances of the US.
It’s genuinely hard to recognize when a rule that almost always applies doesn’t apply to the specific situation at hand.
Killing bloodthirsty rich people who are beyond the reach of the law and can’t be stopped any other way is a valid exception to the otherwise valid rule that murder is bad.
Choking someone to death for a full minute after they’ve gone limp isn’t as clear cut a situation as you’re making it sound and not an appropriate response to a mental health crisis.
That’s not really harm in the way that hunger or poverty or lobbying against workers protections is harm. That’s more like a temporary inconvenience that doesn’t stop anyone getting what they need, right?