4 ms·
Because Google doesn’t take my money under the threat of violence to fund their escapades.
by horns4lyfe 4y ago
Because Google doesn’t take my money under the threat of violence to fund their escapades.
- dylan604 4y agoIf we based what should/shouldn't be allowed for a corporation or any individual based on if it physically causes harm to any person, then we'd have a really shitty place to live.
- sennight 4y agoThat actually sounds like an awesome place to live, where victimless crimes have been eliminated and obnoxious busybodies have no recourse but to impotently whine.
- dylan604 4y agoYou seem to be confused on my intent. Victimless crimes are completely different than crimes that do not cause physical harm to the victim. I'm suggesting things like hacking where your bank account is drained, but without any form of violence. The person I replied to implied that would be okay, so I was pointing out that violence should not be a precursor. You've taken it as something totally not what was the spirit of the thread. But sure, eliminating laws that make victimless crimes a possibility seems like a good idea. Have fun getting that to happen.
- sennight 4y ago> You've taken it as something totally not what was the spirit of the thread. The exact same thing can be said of your reframing of "physical harm" to be "violence" exclusively. You've clearly never debated someone from the voluntarism persuasion, because otherwise you'd know about the concept of externalities. But here is your chance to shine: will you acknowledge the fact that industrial pollution causes physical harm and that your unnecessary reframing creates that blind spot, or will you double down and hamfistedly attempt broaden the definition of "violence" to include pollution (and a thousand other things I could follow up with)?
- hotpotamus 4y agoIndeed, I think their goal is to perfect advertising to the point where you hand the money over yourself, believing it to be your own idea.