I advocate for logical and consistent viewpoints on controversial topics. If you’re looking at my profile, I’ve probably made you mad by doing so.

  • 3 Posts
  • 244 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle


  • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.catoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worldPlease hurry
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    usufruct

    So… reading the Wikipedia article on it for more info, it doesn’t seem to place any limits on what you can own. It simply lets you makes allowances for others to use something of yours. It doesn’t seem to mention forfeiting unused property in the least.

    It’s basically just being a landlord, but with other stuff, no? I’m not following how this isn’t corruptible unless there’s something I’m missing.




  • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.catoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worldPlease hurry
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    No political system is perfect. Ever.

    They require constant vigilance. They require battling. Human greed is capable of corrupting every system that a human mind can create.

    Anyone that tells you they have a perfect political system that would never need fixing is a liar, an idiot, or both.












  • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.caOPtoLemmy Moderators@lemmy.worldBanning Spree?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    You are most certainly purposefully misunderstanding things at this stage.

    Yes, I wasn’t arguing for (or against) veganism and never stated I was. I was arguing against reasons some may give and defending logical ones.

    No, veganism isn’t a moral stance. It CAN BE a personal moral stance as well as a dietary one, but morality is not required and may not factor into it. It may be for YOU, but perhaps a person’s stomach just handles meat poorly in some fashion and therefore they choose not to partake. Don’t claim that everyone in a group must also ascribe to your moral stance. They do not.

    And no, punishing murder is not a moral stance, it’s a self-preservationist stance. If you can go out and murder indiscriminately, then you yourself can be murdered just as easily.

    I’m sorry you don’t understand logic. Please don’t attempt to explain to me one of my degrees when you clearly don’t have even a loose grasp on the concept. Here’s a free course you can take to better understand logic as opposed to a personal moral stance.


  • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.caOPtoLemmy Moderators@lemmy.worldBanning Spree?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I also wasn’t arguing against their dietary choices. I was showing that their arguments could be turned back on themselves because they were spurious at best.

    Before I replied, the now-deleted user was stating that there was no reason to eat meat unless you’re a psychopath and love murder and was threatening suicide, violence to others, and other such garbage throughout the thread, then followed it up with a stream of PMs to a bunch of users including myself with some… not great / illegal content (we’ll say).

    My response was purely a “let’s look at your statements, but in good faith” exercise.

    Put simply, they started attacking food choices first and I called them on it. I’m okay with what I said.


  • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.caOPtoLemmy Moderators@lemmy.worldBanning Spree?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Fair warning: The account you’re arguing with is a troll account who bad-faith argues with everyone, as evidenced by their post history - they often simply have their posts deleted by mods. It’s best to block and move on.

    As much as I hate echo chamber-ing, when it comes to trolls, it is occasionally required.