1915
Title (lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years 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@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years 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@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years 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.

[-] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years 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.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I didn't post it. I just interpreted it.

this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
1915 points (98.0% liked)

piracy

440 readers
1 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS