https://www.vulture.com/2024/01/in-the-know-animation-zach-woods-mike-judge-stop-motion.html

The fact of the matter is, since it's not possible to know what the law is until a judge or jury has determined it as a matter of fact in a court of law, it's impossible to justly enforce this provision. If a court determines something to be illegal, they'll let Reddit know. There's no need for a "consensus" of self-appointed non-lawyer reddit police to decide for people. Also, since when do the enforcers get to ultimately decide what's right or wrong without any oversight? Oh, that's right, on Reddit which was designed to be tyrannical and fascist. 🙄

ReconfigBehSci. (2021, January 18). Calling lawyers, historians, and political scientists. A thread on the value of life. I’m still stunned by Lord Sumption, ex-judge on UK’s Supreme Court, now anti-lockdown campaigner, publicly stating that the life of a woman with stage 4 bowel cancer was ‘less valuable’ 1/4 [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1351118909886312449

This is true, $7.25 is not enough for people to live on. At first this was understandable because this was an ok amount for teenagers to experience their first job, but with unemployment rates high, people are forced to deal with minimum wage to make a living. This is not enough for them

I agree that if we are to be unified as a society, we need an economy that works to everyone's benefit.

This is an astounding statistic that would be hard for anyone to back up. It is issues like this that we need to address in order to stop the huge problem of climate change.

This is the point i was trying to get across in my argument. College tuition is getting to the point where students are considering not going to school instead. This is a serious problem that should be addressed.

But how would anyone know what kind of disposition the doer really possessed? This seems something that only an all-knowing God or gods would know, that is why our justice system works off of the crime committed. You get into difficult judgement calls when you start at the root of why someone did something. Like when people plead mental illness for why they committed a crime. I'm not making a judgement call on whether this is right. I'm only stating that if we start going that route, when do we stop? Do we scan everyone's brain for why they did it and blame it all on mental instability? What about when our technology gets so good that we can see each area of their brain that has been affected by abuse? There most likely is something funky going on in everyone's brain who does something terrible... so should we judge them on their actions or the reasons behind them?

That completely absolves judges and juries of making bad decisions charges rhetoricians with fault when maybe they did their best and the hearers were not receptive to their argument even if it was at no fault of their own. The law is not black and white, that is why there are judges to "judge."