• AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    No. The first argument is that the author can equate slavery to murder without being misunderstood. They then expound further on that meaning. They say nothing about wages.

    The second argument says that in contrast one cannot equate property to robbery without being grossly misunderstood, which you have so eloquently demonstrated.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it is from a 19th century socialist, this sort of language isn’t easily understood by most people in the modern day. And to act like it should be so insightful to them is sophistry.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not taking offense that they didn’t understand the argument. I’m taking offense that they openly admitted to not reading it, and then attempting to summarize what it said, poorly. If that’s sophistry, so be it. They’re being willfully ignorant.

        • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          To be fair, what you posted is insanely hard to actually read. Putting the whole quote as the link and not having any paragraphs makes it so much more taxing that yeah, I noped out halfway through when I realized I read the same thing three times, except it wasn’t, because they draw parallels that would have been obvious, if they were formatted. Kinda like how that last sentence was painful to read.

      • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        A line break or paragraphs or literally any formatting at all would have helped. I suspect it’s an artifact of how the full quote was done as the link, though.