AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

764 readers

1002 users here now

This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.

② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.

④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.

⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

♦ ♦ ♦

Can't get enough? Visit my blog.

♦ ♦ ♦

Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.

$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

DougHolland

456

My body, my choice (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 months ago by DougHolland to c/aiop

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] partial_accumen 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You’ve equated absence of regulation of body to absence of regulation of business entities without defining the reasoning

OPs quote is clear unless you'd working to redefine the word they used: "unconditional". I don't have to provide the reasoning. OPs quote doesn't allow any reason to change the outcome. How is "regulation" which presents specific conditions compatible with the OP's original quote of "unconditional"?

[–] SirDerpy -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"Unconditional" obviously violates the social contract. My error was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not participating in meaningless mental masturbation. Cum soon. You've better things to do.

[–] partial_accumen 2 points 2 months ago

Good arguments should stand up to scrutiny. If this one fails its because the premise is flawed. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but I'm pointing out that the OP's quote stood strong on language but weak under observation. You took up the banner in defense of the OP quote. I don't know if you lost faith in the OP argument or just don't recognize its flawed.

My error was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not participating in meaningless mental masturbation.

I'm exploring an idea someone else presented. I'm not sure why you engaged if you weren't interested in doing the same.