You didn’t though. You replied to me saying this:

What did Clinton do? You mean aside from keeping his mouth shut about being offered an underage girl?

In this specific case I agree, not reporting CSA should be illegal (and probably is?) I’m not so sure that we should codify the current ethical understanding into law though.

We need to leave room for development. Forcing new ideas to first go through the battle of legalization isn’t helpful in this regard. Laws are there to regulate what normal social regulation can’t do properly.

I think people who cheat on their partners are morally speaking bad people. But writing into law you can’t have multiple partners at once is quite obviously a bad decision, because there are happy polyamourus relationships. The government doesn’t need to get involved here, being treated like the ass that you are for cheating is punishment enough, and leaves the room for developing new ways of living together.

Bro the guy was literally “the leader of the free world” and said nothing about his friend selling children to child diddlers and you are going to come at me with a “but akchually WHICH LAW DID HE BREAK?!?!?!?”. Go piss.

What did Clinton do? You mean aside from keeping his mouth shut about being offered an underage girl?

The point being trump would set the bar very low anyways

It’s not like trump is known to not stoop below any bar he sees. Holding the bar up won’t do anything

Well building bombs on the other hand is very lucrative. As long as you keep a few zones of earth as playgrounds for these bombs

Is that so? I thought one main staple of military ranks was that if the soldier rejects an order because of judicial concerns but the superior tells them to do it anyways the judicial blame is on that superior

Does a member of the military have the right to refuse the direct order of the president?

So even if what you’re insinuating were true: do you really want to vote for the corrupt and stupid rather than the corrupt and smart? I’d at least trust the corrupt and smart people to run the country in a way that doesn’t lead to catastrophic failure.

You know what I never had a picture of a silly goose in my head. But now I do. Thanks!

Well I hope she’s afraid of them now.

deleted by creator

If that was a real card I would have hated the font of that 23 so hard

I’m gonna start following and bothering you!

Edit: huh boost for lemmy doesn’t seem to have a “follow this user” button. So you might be save for now.

No that’s not the same. In one case there is only the theoretical possibility of help whereas in the other case there is a realizable possibility for help. This is a big difference.

Stupidity shouldn’t result in death. And not following the law also shouldn’t result in death as long as lives aren’t actively endangered.

Aside from that, chasing the guy over a broken light was pretty dumb of the cop. Noncooperative vehicles are a BIG hazard to other traffic. Write down the number plate, visit them at home. The taillight will still be broken tomorrow.

But if a private company does it, it belongs ti the private company.

Unless you don’t believe in private ownership?

“If I invented the means of saving lives that doesn’t make it my responsibility to actually do so. Especially if there are profits on the line”. Wow.

Germany has a beautiful sentence in its constitution:

Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen.

Property implies responsibility. Its use shall also benefit the wellbeing of the general public.

The thought being that while private property is a core staple of our society this is only the case because the concept of private property is seen as beneficial overall. If private property starts hurting the general public then the implied responsibilities coming with the property are not being fulfilled and the concept loses its value to society as a whole.

I really don’t get what you’re trying to say here. That’s obviously great. I am all for doing this stuff, how could you even think I wouldn’t? I’m saying both kinds of activism provide value.

(Aside from the fact that nothing really got damaged…)

Part of your anger seems to stem from me saying that this whole thing isn’t moving forward fast enough and somehow you think that’s a critique of your personal work. I assure you that wasn’t my goal. But you have to admit that we are, globally, not moving fast enough.

The connection to the fight for racial equality is interesting but I’m not sure how well this applies. How do you suppose you can do anything equivalently “not accepting the rules we want to protest” in the context of climate change? Because before there was a big movement there were just a few people breaking the unfair rules. Which where likely talked similarly about as you are talking about these activists right now.

I’m only speculating that you made that situation up because deep down you understand the need to disassociate yourself from these protests, and it’s increasingly clear to me that you see their value in some kind of shell game strategy, where no one knows who’s pulling the strings. But again, you made that up, not me.

I am being very clear about the fact that two forms of activism can and should be done under different names. And that that is because some forms of activism that I deem valuable would have detrimental effects on the other form of activism if done under the same name. You seem to have a hard time getting that but that’s not because I’m being unclear about this.