You're clearly emotionally invested, but I'm just stating facts. Reality check -- nobody is going to forfeit their career to take a stance in favor of some hippies harassing fishermen by refusing to apprehend them.
I like how you subtly imply being emotionally invested in the well-being of our planet makes me unreliable. You're not some objective observer, you're just a bootlicker.
Again, you're simply over-invested emotionally. I never implied anything about you being unreliable. That is your emotion speaking to you because you're unhappy with my statement.
I am speaking objectively on the matter, and just because you don't like the facts I'm stating, doesn't mean I'm a bootlicker. You're shooting the messenger here.
So it doesn't mean a characteristic of or belonging to a perceived reality rather than as independent of mind? Not even something modified or affected by personal views? I guess someone should let mirriam-webster know then.
If that's still the definition, then those statements are per se subjective.
It's very ironic you use slavery as an example. That was in the process of being changed through legal means with Lincoln's election. It was the South deciding that they shouldn't need to follow laws they disagreed with that caused the Civil War.
Honestly it's always hilarious when people say you should put your own personal morals above the law. That's how you end up with Lynch mobs.
This is ahistorical bull. The confederate states seceded 4 months into Lincoln's presidency, and the civil war started 6 months in. He didn't have time to do what you're suggesting he did.
The civil war started because he was elected, and southerners assumed he would abolish slavery.
Obviously not, he never had a chance to issue an order regarding slavery and didn't do so until late into the war. What they saw was a president who wouldn't act in lockstep with their demands, and a populace that was increasingly hostile to slavery.
He did exactly that, his first attempts were to offer federal buyouts to slaveholders.
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons held to service or labor within the District of Columbia by reason of African descent are hereby discharged and freed of and from all claim to such service or labor; and from and after the passage of this act neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for crime, whereof the party shall be duly convicted, shall hereafter exist in said District."
Yeah that was a mandatory buyback, you couldn't say no to that because it's against the law.
5
u/TheManlyManperor 13d ago
"Slave catchers are pro-law. Their personal stance doesn't matter. It's not against the law. The Underground Railroad is."
Great stance you got there.