• @BigBlackCockroach
    link
    37 months ago

    I don’t agree with some of that stuff.

    How do you know before you read the entire argument? 🤔

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I don’t agree with some of that stuff.

      How do you know before you read the entire argument?

      By reading some of it, I suppose.

      • @BigBlackCockroach
        link
        17 months ago

        read the linked text if you are interested in debating me 😁😂🤣😅 I am not gonna make the same argument but worse than proudhon if you don’t care or have time or attention span for that but then you probably shouldn’t say it’s bullshit without knowing what you are talking about 😘

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -37 months ago

      It’s something about how working for a shitty wage that can’t allow you to afford a life is bad, right? How it’s basically the same thing as slavery?

      But then it goes into how property, just having property at all is somehow theft? That’s where I disagree. People need to be able to own things and have things that only they can control. You can’t and shouldn’t be allowed to do whatever you want with other people’s things.

      People should always have autonomy over their own lives and their own property. And people should be given a UBI equivalent to a living wage and the minimum wage needs to be double what a living wage would be on top of benefits

      • @AngryCommieKender
        link
        47 months ago

        No. The first argument is that the author can equate slavery to murder without being misunderstood. They then expound further on that meaning. They say nothing about wages.

        The second argument says that in contrast one cannot equate property to robbery without being grossly misunderstood, which you have so eloquently demonstrated.

        • @aidan
          link
          37 months ago

          No, it is from a 19th century socialist, this sort of language isn’t easily understood by most people in the modern day. And to act like it should be so insightful to them is sophistry.

          • @AngryCommieKender
            link
            27 months ago

            I’m not taking offense that they didn’t understand the argument. I’m taking offense that they openly admitted to not reading it, and then attempting to summarize what it said, poorly. If that’s sophistry, so be it. They’re being willfully ignorant.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              27 months ago

              To be fair, what you posted is insanely hard to actually read. Putting the whole quote as the link and not having any paragraphs makes it so much more taxing that yeah, I noped out halfway through when I realized I read the same thing three times, except it wasn’t, because they draw parallels that would have been obvious, if they were formatted. Kinda like how that last sentence was painful to read.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          07 months ago

          Okay, well. I don’t have the attention span to read all that. And I can’t tell if there’s any subtext in what you said.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            27 months ago

            A line break or paragraphs or literally any formatting at all would have helped. I suspect it’s an artifact of how the full quote was done as the link, though.