ObjectivityIncarnate

Yes, many.

Stop thinking the media, heavily incentivized to be sensational and provocative, shows you the entirety of reality.

If the document was completely logical & self-supporting, then there’d be no need to cherry pick as anything said would be consistent with the whole.

You’re assuming that the entire document has a single message, which is absolutely not a given. Simple hypothetical:

If the Bible said nothing more than these things:

• Abortion is bad
• You should tithe 10% of your income to the church
• The earth is 6000 years old

And you were someone who was on board with the first two but not the third, it’d be cherry-picking to call yourself an adherent of the Bible while citing your belief/agreement in/with the first two while ignoring the third, even though none of the three things above contradict each other.

The problem is the abundance of assholes using selected parts of the Bible to manipulate others while conveniently ignoring other parts of the Bible that contradict them.

This has absolutely nothing to do with contradictions or lack thereof, though. You can just as easily cherry-pick something that has no contradictions.

That’s non-sequitur.

cis he/him

insert ‘I’m gonna pre’ compilation

Did you really tell someone else that they need a bit of mental gymnastics to not make an assumption?

If enough people assume something about you, it’s true

Great life lesson for the kids.

Can’t help but notice you didn’t quote him saying any of this.

Ridiculous stuff like this is what keeps you from being taken seriously, and makes it harder to win over voters. You guys are acting like you enjoy losing elections.

So where in there did Trump call Hitler a “good king”, call Jews “dishonest”, refer to anyone as “evil watermelon people”, or call anyone “closet f*ggots”? You know, the things being directly attributed to him here.

Also, being a chat room, none of it came from Trump’s mouth either, but who cares about accuracy, right? No bad tactics, only bad targets. /s

Yes, and my rent covers literally all of them.

So, nothing’s keeping you from buying a house then, since what you already pay in rent covers all of the cost. Right?

I should not be forced to pay a premium for a feature I will never use.

Why haven’t you bought a house already, then? Could it be that it doesn’t just cost what you pay in rent each month?

No, I will not define basic fucking terms for you.

Then don’t be surprised when people read the terms and use the definition 99% of people use in 99% of situations, and not the fringe academic definition you’re thinking of, and misunderstand what you’re trying to say.

Grow up.

If you are too ignorant to understand the difference between personal and private property when it comes to systemic analysis of our systems of ownership, the. You’re too fucking ignorant to have an argument with.

You’re so mad you couldn’t even keep track of where you’re ending and starting sentences, lol.

Imagine being this furious over something that’s entirely your fault.

Also, fuck you, I’m autistic and I’ll communicate how I fucking please, shitheel.

So am I, so what? Stop making excuses—how you communicate is your responsibility, no one else’s. You have zero justification for throwing a tantrum like this, over the fact that the vast majority of people consider “private property” and “personal property” to have identical meaning, and not the obscure academia-specific definition you’re using.

P.S. I hope you realize one day that you will never change anyone’s mind on anything, speaking to people this way.

The punchline should be on its own panel to create a natural temporal gap between it and the setup, for the reader. :)

You got a LoICE-nse for that list?

Just about everyone responded with “yes” or the equivalent, so I don’t think it was themself who was revealed, lol.

Doesn’t mean execution is the appropriate response, which is what they’re getting at, I’m pretty sure.

Not to mention it’s more expensive than imprisonment, even life imprisonment.

This is two panels too long, imo.

Change the first panel’s text to “Forgive me, Helen, I’ve changed!”, the second’s to “Have you, Theseus?”, and you’re done, lol.

The concept of someone having enough money to rent but not enough to own is ghoulish in the first place.

Don’t think you’re being a little dramatic? There are many more costs involved in owning a house than the mortgage payment.

If my landlord can pay $<1,200 for this house’s mortgage and upkeep, and I can pay $1,200 a month for the right to sleep in it, then we should simply cut out the middle man and have me pay that $<1,200 a month for mortgage and upkeep directly.

You’re paying for not having the responsibility to pay for any maintenance/repairs upfront, and for having the ability to easily pack up and move on short notice. If the roof suddenly needs replacing, that’s $9500 on average that you have to pay right now.

Chances are, if you’re financially stable enough that you’d be able to handle things like that without it being a financial catastrophe for you, then you do have enough money to own.

Holy bad faith Batman.

Pointing out that what you’re saying doesn’t make sense isn’t bad faith.

For the love of God, go read fucking theory

How about ‘for the love of God, define your fucking terms’, if you’re using them in a way inconsistent with colloquial understanding?

No one in everyday life considers “personal property” and “private property” to not be the exact same thing. Stop playing semantic games and communicate normally, if you expect to ever sway anyone. It also helps not to insult people not privy to said semantic games.

If you live in the house, it becomes your personal property. Meaning you own it while you live and reside there. No one can just come into your personal space. Yet, when you no longer wish to live there and are moving away, the house transfers ownership back to the community until someone needs it.

So:

1. How, exactly, is it being determined who gets to live there first/next?
2. If none of the residents are actually purchasing the house, who’s footing the bill for them all? I’m seeing estimates that the total residential housing in the US carries a value in the area of $45 trillion, with a T. You think you’re getting anywhere near that with tax revenue? And that’s without even considering new construction and repairs to existing construction.

Housing, and other necessities, should be community property…Fuck the exploitative system of private property ownership.

So you’d want it to be the case that anyone can enter and live in the house you’re living in, and you have no say in the matter because you don’t own it?

Do you really see no massive problems with such a system?

It’s not that complicated. Without landlords, there is no renting. Without renting, owning is the only way to have a place to live.

So if there’s no renting, and you’re unable to own, you have no place to live.