No such thing as a flushable wipes. It's just defective marketing. Plus there is no need to use one after the bidet. Toilet paper is perfectly fine to dry.

My response is always "if you get shit on your hand, do you just rub it with some paper and call it a day?" Usually people get it at that point.

So I go back to my question...does a convicted child molester finish their jail sentence and the can go and work around children? Or do we also accept that maybe, even after the person has finished their sentence, that the "punishment" continues to protect society?

If the latter, then the question becomes when this is appropriate, and not if it is ever appropriate.

I find your distinction to be arbitrary. You could argue that punishment for child sex abuse should have a beginning and an end, or you can argue that the punishment for a felony conviction does not end when you get out of prison.

I work in finance, and I certainly would not want to bring on someone who was convicted of felony security fraud working for the firm, because it ours everything in jeopardy.

Reductio ad absurdum: Felony conviction for child molestation. Removed from record. Should they have free reign to be able to apply for any job, even if it might involve children?

I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore.

Are you actually trying to say you did not say "They didn't decide"? Because it's right there, just a few posts up. Literally word for word.

Are you really not smart enough to just go look back after I told you you said it? Or are you just grossly dishonest? Who are you lying for here? You can't honestly believe you can gaslight, because it's still right there for me to look at.

I love how you won't even admit that you weren't quoting me, and that you were clearly indicating that they had rigged the other election, but then have the nerve to say I'm being academically dishonest. Lol classic projection.

Apology accepted. I also apologize for snarking back. Lol

Sorry, you’ve proven otherwise.

If you feel that way, then I'm sorry for giving the wrong impression. But I assure you it's not the case.

Otherwise, my reaction from now on will just be to repeatedly tell you to go away and stop harassing me.

The better way to get me to stop responding to you is to simply not respond to me; I'm not going to respond to the same post over and over again until you respond. If we are having a back-and-forth, I would hardly call that "harassment."

Lol, the reason it’s in quotes is because it’s quoting you.

It's in quotes because I was quoting you. If it had been in quotes when I quoted it from you, I would have done something like "'They didn't decide.'" Although I wouldn't have even done that, because I'm honest and not trying to be right. I would have wondered why I misinterpreted it. You don't strike me as all that dumb, but to not even go and look three posts up to see if you had quoted it seems incredibly dumb, especially if you are basing your whole argument on it.

I have lots of reasons that I am critical about how you use your intelligence, but I assure you I hold no ill will towards you.

Where did you get your psychology degree from?

Nowhere, which is why I linked to a Harvard website.

I'm not attacking you, I'm offering you up a respite for your mental health. We all need it sometimes.

If you are constantly pessimistic, spending so much time on places like Lemmy is probably at least part of the problem.

Take a break.

Unwittingly you're proving their methods worked, because you're still talking about them.

My whole point centered around the fact that you shouldn’t pay attention to me, but that you should pay attention to the dissent WITHIN THE SUPREME COURT itself.

Yeah, well, it sounded a whole lot more like you were attacking me and my opinion. You could have absolutely made this point without cursing and without the whole "basement dweller" part. I think we all understand that Sotomayor is a SCOTUS justice.

Probably should have started with that.

I did. At least pretty clearly when I said they were crowning themselves king rather than the POTUS king. Apparently, tho, I have to say I disagree with the ruling in every post or posters will assume that any disagreement with someone who claims the ruling is wrong must mean I think the ruling is correct. I guess I should have known this already tho.

BTW, I never called you this.

"Did you read the fucking dissent? That’s a sitting SC Justice saying that quote, not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller:"

Funny to read you say my post, which doesn't even remotely imply that I think the ruling was correct, implies that. . .but when you respond to my point, saying it is wrong, and throwing in "not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller," that doesn't imply you think that about me.

I responded more directly since your ire seems to be pointed at me.

You're projecting here, as you were the one cursing at me and insulting people. I said nothing about you and I'm not really irked at all; I understand fully how partisan the average poster is and that any dissent is going to get piled on.

I never claimed anything was “rigged”

You literally linked to two people saying it was rigged with the link text "they didn't decide" and are now trying to argue that you never claimed it was rigged. This is amazing. You've got yourself so tied up trying to be right or trying not to be wrong, rather than figure out what's right, that you don't even know which way's up anymore.

What are you referring to, exactly?

My dude, you are the one making claims.

I used the word argument, not claims. Are you suggesting you aren't making an argument?

Again… Manufactured consent. Why would two senior politicians make claims and then backtrack upon them without admitting they were wrong in the first place?

So, how exactly did they rig it? You're making some vague claims, but can point to nothing.

Are you pretending that's been your argument up to this point?

Btw, why didn't you point out that both of them backtracked the comments?