If you voted for Bernie based on foreign policy and a belief that the US should not throw its military around the world as much, Gary Johnson is probably closer to your views than either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump

Yeah, it wasn't the time or place. I wasn't expecting a whole discussion about it, I just made a snide comment that kind of exploded. Whoops

Remember that time Trump released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees and it was a series of normal, respectable conservative jurists? Who would have thought that he might go back on that promise?!?

I deleted the comment because I had second thoughts about it given the subject matter of the article itself.

It's not a flawed argument, it's just one that nobody in the Jezebel comments section can engage with because they are incapable of assuming a premise for the sake of argument

Edit: deleting comment

Clicking through the links, it appears that at least one of the men claimed that they had consensual group sex. The complaint says that she had a history of sleeping with multiple sexual partners (that’s the “very sexually active” part). If she denied there was consent by saying that she would never consensually…

That’s a good point, I can see how that would often create a conflict (Although in the US criminal system, it’s very common for prosecutors to become criminal judges). And yeah, he should probably have spent some time on WestLaw Canada

Costs might not have been the best word to use. “Harms” might have been a better word. The argument is that while unjust wages hurt workers, getting rid of those jobs and making the workers unemployed makes them worse off. The more general argument is that in an effort to eradicate unjust practices, advocates can fail…

I sincerely hope this is the last time I ever speak to you. Trying to engage with the tiny bits of argument you sprinkled into nonsensical personal attacks has been a real displeasure

In this discussion, the bad thing is unjust wages

I’m glad the judge is learning about sexual assault and addressing his biases and misconceptions. Of course, considering that his original views of sexual assault were apparently in the realm of Roosh V, I don't think it's going to be enough

From brief research, it looks like in Canada, the prosecution can appeal an acquittal if it was the result of an error during the trial. That is not considered double jeopardy in Canada.

Here’s a crazy idea: a judge with experience in bankruptcy and contract cases should hear bankruptcy and contract cases. A judge on a criminal case who doesn't know much about the crime in question should do some legal research on that crime

Those are all reasons why making less than a living wage is bad, but aren’t reasons why it would be worse than not working at all, nor does it explain why people work for the low-income jobs if it doesn’t make them better off than not working at all.

This is the view I’m objecting to. There’s a common idea that we should get rid of bad things, period. But there’s a total aversion to the idea that it might be right to keep some bad things because the costs of getting rid of them are even worse. Clearly, it’s too difficult to get that point across in a discussion…

Well that’s the argument I object to. There are different degrees of being “in the red.” For many workers, having no money at all is worse than having to work for paltry wages. The evidence of that is that while people have the physical capability to not work, many decide to work for unjust wages instead. They would…

“Let me guess it would be *morally reprehensible* to end child labour”

It could be, but it could also be that the people reading what I write don’t care what I’m actually saying, but would rather attack a straw man.

I’m not advocating a return to that era, but I’ll put that aside to try to address your point (which actually attempts to engage with my argument)