• rational_lib@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    14 hours ago

    So this version of the argument basically amounts to: people who have harmed society should contribute to social welfare that bolsters the economy and society collectively. Which while a solid effort and earning my upvote, 1) the_petty_auntie’s reply doesn’t show signs of making this particular argument and 2) in this particular case, it fails because society as a whole wasn’t harmed by her son’s actions - rather a particular victim was. And as the victim was a teen at the time of the incident, it’s unlikely that the victim would be able to take advantage of student loan forgiveness unless it happened many years ago.

    • Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      14 hours ago

      First, I think everyone should want to contribute to social welfare that bolsters the economy and society. I think it’s abhorrent to contribute to that negatively and maliciously, even if indirectly, and then try to further drag everyone down. She’s a cancer.

      You think a child being raped only harms the individual that’s raped? Ever heard of seconds and third order effects? I disagree that the only person negatively impacted was the child he raped.