[RandoHolmes]

If I were to engage with you in a serious manner, it would imply that I agree with your view that the only morality is that which is in the constitution.

But I fundamentally disagree with that argument. And I mean _FUNDAMENTALLY_. I cannot agree that these practices in a country that doesn't have the 13 amendment are ok. I just can't.

I mean, I understand your argument. You believe these things should be ok in all countries that haven't explicitly outlawed it. But it's why we're fundamentally opposed. I believe it was reprehensible even BEFORE these countries outlawed it.

I mean, I get it, this is "arguing in bad faith"... "THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT". Of course it isn't because it's morally reprehensible. Of course that's not what you meant.

but...........

If the logical implications of your statement results in something morally reprehensible, than maaaaaaybe the statement itself is morally reprehensible...

juuuuuust something to think about from a "bad faith actor".

[dang]

We've banned that account, but in the future please flag egregious comments instead of feeding them by replying. that's also in the guidelines!

[RandoHolmes]

gasp

YOU MEAN THE SLAVE OWNER POINTED TO THE CURRENT LAWS TO DEFEND THEIR POSITION!?!??!

Well that worked out well in terms of their history, lmao.

Please, keep telling me how the site guidelines for a random website somehow protect you from the moral judgement of others, I'd love to hear more...