Somehow, he had no grey hair, no hair loss, a house, and two kids. We lived entirely on his income alone. He made $50,000 a year in 2000, which is nearly $100,000 in today’s dollars. He had an associates degree in mining engineering and what he did had fuck all to do with mining.
My mom was a homemaker. We lived comfortably and then some for most of my childhood and all of my teen years. He did work hard and sometimes did long hours, I’ll give him that.
But he never worked two jobs at once. I did. He never worked 7 days a week for years straight. I did. And you’re right: I have fuck all to show for it. My hard work and long hours were rewarded with harder work and longer hours. My performance was rated the same as the stoned jackoff who did nothing but jack off.
Promotions? No, they hire from outside or just eliminate positions entirely. The only movement is horizontal. People get shuffled from one position to the next after they inevitably fail or get burnt out at the one they’re in. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Raises? Maybe a 1% raise at the end of the year, if you’re lucky. And it’s not tied to performance. Fuck no. You and Stoned Jackoff make the same and always will, even though you have 3X his workload.
And this is in a STEM field doing real, honest to God work. Not HR “Belonging Week” event organizing bullshit that somehow takes 7 women making $120,000 each to do.
I don’t disagree with that, but I think you’re not understanding my point. If the government ceased to exist, there would still be a need and an obligation to punish evildoers. Justice itself precedes the existence of the state and its systems of justice.
The original comment you responded to assumed a priori failure by the state to execute justice, and made the argument for immediate vengeance under that assumption.
@jwludwig@thelillygaddis There is such a duty for humans in a state of nature. The justice system is a concession that surrenders that duty to the state for the sake of good order and fact-finding.
@HenriettaGreat@apinionsvary My only guess is that they’re deliberating on whether her suicide attempt was earnest or if it was a smokescreen to add verisimilitude to her story.
@blkgunsmattr Frankly, that idea follows intuitively from the idea of self ownership and personal responsibility. It’s obvious to everyone that isn’t a brainwashed state-simp.
@jjsway@thelillygaddis She never told him. She allegedly told only her mother, who also mysteriously never told him or anyone else.
The idea that she told anyone anything is an obvious lie.
I agree with you, but only conditionally. In the state of nature, it would have been his duty to avenge the blood of his children.
However, the justice system exists, and he has nominally waived the right to vengeance and ceded that authority to the state.
However, if the state fails to in its duty to exact vengeance for those babies (and it seems it may fail), it could be argued that he has the obligation to satisfy the demand for her blood.
What the insanity defense was not created for
Lindsay Clancy- I had a one off voice command telling me to kill my children only at the time that my husband left the house on an errand I sent him on. The voice command only lasted until I had murdered all of my children then it went away and never came back
What an insanity defense is actually for
I’m a paranoid schizophrenic who is hallucinating an alien invasion of earth. The cop coming at me is actually the alien leader who killed the human cop and took over his body. He is coming to kill me and all the other people around me. I must stop him from killing all the humans and taking over their bodies.
These two are not the same.