You could’ve left it at “Child labor isn't exclusive to capitalism”, since the tweet isn’t critical of some vague notion of “children working” but instead explicitly calls out the exploitative practices that necessitate protective laws. Obviously not talking about lemonade stands and the like, so it'd probably be better to not derail your good point by going on a bit of a strawman-ish tangent.
All these posts just read as "but I don't WANT to work for a living for 60 years" and, to be honest, tough luck.
That's reasonable - you must be in the wrong thread.
I'd love to know what you reckon some of them are! I love sheer uninformed reckoning - it's my favourite kind of discourse.
If you believe posts demonstrating why capitalism needs regulations = this person wants to freeload, I wonder how many other wrong assumptions you're operating with.
What was? You've conveniently not quoted me directly, so not only did I not get an alert, but I also can't click the little blue arrow in the box containing the words that I used.
The movement doesn't have a website. A particular subset of those who have some stake in the movement may have created and may frequent such a website, but there are lots of people who have a stake in part of the movement but who don't agree with everything everyone else who has a stake in part of the movement says. I'd wager this lack of unanimity is quite common in such movements, and it's a weak point for detractors to hit with bad faith arguments.
Ah, I suspect this is like whatever "boohoo" is supposed to have done and you saying that people involved in protests are hypocrites for placing orders through "boohoo." But you still haven't cited that article directly or established any actual link between those protesting and those placing orders. You can add these, but I suspect you won't.
Conservative victim complex.
"We have the best echo chambers."
That look is priceless.
"What I think I do."Truth:
No need to pile on...
...or stroke ego.
Addressing him directly over his post with my own opinion whilst someone else happens to do the same thing with a different post hardly constitutes piling on, but sure, I guess, if you like.
Than getting your sly comments in.
I have better things to do and there are probably worse things that I could be doing. If I've ever done anything, it's probable that I have chosen to do it over something else.
No, but I'll keep going on, as I see fit, about your propensity to play the victim. You opting to do so may or may not have anything to do with being a conservative, but that you are one is often relevant to your victimhood, as it was when I was compelled to remark in the most recent instance, andI was compelled to indicate as much in said remark.
Okay.
Perhaps you'd be willing to actually define it for me then, because I don't believe that's the case. I concede that I regularly have snarky responses to others' comments--it's in my nature to be a smartass--and I acknowledge that it's not particularly conducive to civil and meaningful discussion, which is why I make a genuine effort to curb my impulse, but I don't post with the deliberate aim to flame and/or bait.
I have had you on ignore.
It's...it's as if I'm responding to the things you say.
To your mind, is there an expectation of a response from me? What do you think such a response should look like?
Except Biden isn’t going to a damn thing to expand healthcare, guarantee clean water and air, or provide all Americans a living wage. And certainly you would not get a “competent and ethical government” from a guy who voted for the Iraq war, has taken in egregious amounts of special interest money especially from the healthcare industry, and has made “working together with the Republicans” a centerpiece of his political career. Do you really think Joe Biden is gonna be the guy who gets money out of politics and wants transparency in government? If the woman was wearing a Bernie shirt then maybe you’d have a point. You seem to think that the Democratic Party under Biden is going to do all these progressive reforms, when in reality the current Democratic party’s interests are completely antithetical to the Left’s interests. It’s quite sad honestly.
A president having little to zero indictments in their administration should be considered as the bare minimum, not an accomplishment. And that says nothing about the actual policies of the Democratic party.
But it says loads about Republican administrations.
I don’t disagree. From that data it’s safe to assume that Republican administrations are more corrupt. I’m just saying that it doesn’t make Democrats good by default, nor does it say anything about their actual policies.
