ObjectivityIncarnate

But they didn’t exactly elaborate on what they meant by saying that sex doesn’t implcitly mean consent.

I was pretty straightforward about it, I think. Rape is a ‘subcategory’ of sex.

There’s a difference between the disingenuous act of describing a nonconsensual sex act while deliberately not mentioning the ‘nonconsent’, and claiming that the word “sex” itself carries with it the ‘trait’ of consent.

If consent was part of the definition of sex, then when two people get blackout drunk (which legally makes them both unable to render informed consent) and fuck each other at a party or something, we’d consider no sex to have happened, which would be an obviously ridiculous conclusion that no one reaches. It’s obvious consent is not an intrinsic attribute of “sex”.

ok what do I look like a dictionary

When you write “[word], by definition, is [definition]”?

Yes, you do, lol.

18 point swing sounds great, but the ‘post-swing’ percentage is 51% thinking he’s doing a worse job than Biden, which isn’t actually all that encouraging, imo.

Also, apparently the prior poll that’s the other side of the ‘swing’ is one that was taken just after he was inaugurated…isn’t that kind of a stupid time for a poll asking ‘do you think the President is doing a better or worse job than the last President’, just as he begins his term?

Must downvote out of principal for incorrect use of the “cat looks inside” meme in a meme-themed community.

deleted by creator

Like people are saying “Oh, no, he didn’t rape the kid he just had sex with her.”

It’s much more likely simply a legal CYA maneuver on the part of the media outlet vis-à-vis libel allegations, to not use the name of the crime to describe an act that no one’s yet been convicted of.

Sex, by definition, is engaging in sexual pleasure with both persons consent.

Well, not to be pedantic, but that’s not accurate. Consent is not an intrinsic attribute of sex.

Foxes are known to grow manic when trapped inside car radios for an extended period of time, you should have expected this. /s

This article’s source is the Daily Mail…

Is this what we’ve been reduced to? Soon as it says something you want to be true, now the Daily Mail is magically a bastion of journalistic integrity?

Holy confirmation bias.

It’s hard for most people who see rent rise faster than salary.

You say that as if the cost of home ownership isn’t also increasing faster than salary. This is not a function of landlords/renting.

Only if they can afford its price.

Investors accounted for 25.7% of residential home sales in 2024.

In that article, the word “investors” is deliberately lumping together individuals, and institutions/corporations, in an obvious attempt to trick people into thinking that category is comprised entirely of the latter. Underhanded semantic maneuver. Within the same article:

While large institutional investors continue to get most of the headlines in the single-family rental space, small investors account for more than 90% of the market.

those wealthy enough to start a business

You don’t need to be wealthy to start a business; most businesses are not started by wealthy people.

can have direct control of their working conditions…

Uh yeah, if you want to be your own boss, you have to shoulder the work and responsibility of creating and running the business yourself.

It’s not a “should”; any group of people is perfectly free to create a business that’s run that way.

Stealing already-existing ownership because you want the upside without risking the downside isn’t fair, though.

And that’s how it should be, for those who expect to be a part of the success when the stock price goes up. That’s the inherent risk of stock ownership.

Quick glance at the sidebar:

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes.

It’s not a “fairness argument”. I’m not arguing some subjective value judgment of mine, to be debated.

If you expect your roulette bet to pay out when you win, you’d better believe it’s part of the arrangement that the casino is not going to give your bet back when you lose. You can’t get the payout without the risk of loss; similarly, that’s how owning stock works.

So if you as a worker want the benefit that comes with your employer’s company’s net worth going up (which many workers do in fact get, it’s not that rare for stock to be part of a compensation package), it is only fair that you also accept the possibility of being on the hook if it goes down (which is what happens if you’re paid in stock whose price goes down after you receive it).

You can’t have it both ways.

Why not make a law against using unrealized capital gains as loan collateral?

Because that would outlaw home equity loans, for one thing. Anything you own that’s increased in value since you started owning it is “unrealized capital gains” by definition, until/unless you sell it, not just stocks.

The fact is, taking a loan out using stuff you own as collateral, regardless of what it is, is a perfectly normal thing to do that in itself deprives no one of anything. Lenders aren’t in the business of throwing money out the window—they make these loans because they get repaid, and then some. Someone who takes out a home equity loan and uses the money to renovate their house so that it’ll sell for an increased price beyond the loan amount + the interest rate, is making the exact same ‘move’ as someone who takes a loan out using their stock in a company as collateral, and uses that money to do things that make that stock increase in value beyond the loan amount + the interest rate.

Explain how your “point” makes any sense

It is a fact that net worth changes are not an injection of cash money, and it is also a fact that profiting when the net worth of the company you work for goes up, is only a fair arrangement if you also are on the hook when the net worth goes down. To restate the simple analogy:

Wanting only the upside is like demanding that your roulette wheel bet should pay out normally if you win big, but should be refunded when you lose.

These are plain facts. Explain precisely how either of those doesn’t make sense.

How is it ‘fair’ to make poor people pay to cover up the fuckup of a multi trillion dollar company?

It’s not, if said people aren’t being paid in company stock. However, if a worker expects to benefit from the net worth going up, they should expect to be on the hook when the net worth goes down, too. You can’t have it both ways; that would be unfair. You want the benefits of being compensated in stock without the risk that owning stock inherently carries, namely the volatility of its value.

Then the stocks used as collateral should be taxed as realized gains.

Why? They haven’t been realized. Literally nothing happens to collateral unless the loan is defaulted on. Do you think you should your house should be treated as realized gains (i.e. the same as if you sold it), if you take out a home equity loan?

we could make it so that it only applies to loans over some arbitrary amount…(within a certain time period to counter multiple smaller loans as loopholes)

This is literally impossible to realistically enforce, total waste of resources and effort to even try. Myriad ways to spread it out over different people/entities/etc.

My point still stands in its entirety. Consider actually thinking about it instead of imagining me fellating people.