Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtlethargic
The bottom line is that you two haven't engaged in honest discussion.
|
The bottom line is I made a joke, probably not that funny because of my dry, condemning style, and you took it seriously.
I'm not for climate catastrophism reparations for the reason I'm not for even more absurd notions of reparations (more absurd because I'm alive right now, and slaves in America are not).
You've caused me to explain an unfunny joke, which is the worst. How about this one. The tooth fairy is long overdue in payment for my last 3 teeth.
I will reply to anyone of goodwill (and assume it by default) on any subject whatsoever. That said, I'm only half the participants of 2 parties talking past each other.
Finally,
I defined justice as those that are wronged being made whole by those who did the harming, and there has been no challenge to that definition. I can only assume that a non-challenge to that definition is defacto acceptance of it, and therefore any deviation from that is by definition injustice. I'm against injustice to the extent possible.
If the argument is that we should commit injustice, then I say no. If the dumb hoard insists we commit injustice, then I prefer to commit injustice as least harmingly to all individuals involved as possible. Some insist in maximum harm to all, and to them I have utter contempt.