this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
292 points (89.9% liked)
Lemmy.ca's Main Community
2758 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to lemmy.ca's c/main!
Since everyone on lemmy.ca gets subscribed here, this is the place to chat about the goings on at lemmy.ca, support-type items, suggestions, etc.
Announcements can be found at https://lemmy.ca/c/meta
For support related to this instance, use https://lemmy.ca/c/lemmy_ca_support
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Man sounds like you should move if you hear people threatening violence regularly against all those groups at your local pub
Are we actually talking about actual bodily harm or is this a new made up definition you just pulled out of your ass
I'd argue that landlords of all types are backed by the violence of the state. That a lord or lady doesn't themselves toss you out and drag you off to jail isn't really a meaningful distinction to the person being forcibly removed from their home.
The funny part is that in one breathe you utter the fallacy to your own argument. Being forcibly removed from whose home again?
The one you paid the mortgage, down-payment, continuing maintenance, property taxes? Cause if that describes your home- guess what- you are a homeowner and cant be forced out of your home. If that's not describing the house you are living in... you are a tenant and market conditions dictate what the rent will be. Nobody is going to let to you at a loss.
So whatever reason you have for not being a homeowner means SOMEONE ELSE has to provide a home for you to live in. Which no one is going to just give you for free.
Read up on the concepts of ownership, property, belongings, usage etc. you have a French/Roman tradition for millenia which discriminates those rights. That you are uneducated is hardly archomrade's fault.
You also ignore the monopoly of violence which is the state's and of course there is usage of violence even if you argue it is moral or can be legal. To think what legal is moral and what is legal is without violence would support genocides, colonialist murder of millions, their expropriation of land, goods, and children and legitimize atrocities of ultra nationalist governments.
The argument in short is: To ask yourself what you need to know to understand archomrade's points.
Omg. Pseudo-intellect is the worst intellect. The one thing you are right about- there is definitely no point arguing with you. I'd advise making something yourself and then trying to apply your principles when someone tells you what you can and can't do with it because they believe it's immoral.