The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Do You Have Any Moral Absolutes?

I’m curious as to whether readers have any moral absolutes — actions they believe are never acceptable, or actions they believe must always be taken.

I’ll name two of mine: rape and torture are never justifiable as far as I’m concerned.

Do you have any moral absolutes? If so, what are they?

(Be polite in comments when discussing other people’s moral absolutes.)

You get what you support. If you like my writing, please SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE


Did The Houthis Hit The USS Eisenhower May 31st?


The Real Test Of The Gaza War Will Be The Israeli Invasion Of Southern Lebanon


  1. Phaedrus

    On a similar note – are there red lines? Would you eat dinner with a friend who supports torture? A family member? Would you support a Dem against Donald Trump, even if he was VP in a previous admin that supported torture? Would you pay your taxes to a country that practices torture?

    I’ve not found clear right/wrong answers to these questions – and it has really softened my own view for others and what they must struggle with. But I keep searching for a way to align my life with my principles.

  2. NR

    I agree, rape and torture are always evil acts and never justified.

    For me, I’d also add child abuse. Now, by child abuse I don’t mean all forms of corporal punishment. I don’t like corporal punishment for children in general but I’m not necessarily 100% against it in all cases. But there is a big difference between corporal punishment and the act of getting drunk and beating the crap out of your child (or doing something even worse) because you’re mad at the world. As far as I’m concerned, that is another evil act that is never justified.

  3. jump

    Be polite and respectful. A lot follows from that.

  4. Andaréapié

    The genocide of a People.. Rape. Torture. Abuse of children. Engaging in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of modern weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Use, development, threats to employ nuclear weapons. Destruction and poisoning of any environment that provides shelter for non-human persons, and human persons. Slavery- explicit/implicit.

    Any person or nation deliberately engaging in these offenses is disqualified from loyalty, respect, or cooperation, recognition of territorial borders, or any compliance, when possible, with its self appointed authority.

    Given their savagery and willingness to do harm, asymmetric resistance against these people or nations is justified and tactically advisable. I understand that this may all of the present nations that are constituent parts of Global Industrial Civilization, all persons willingly invested in, and incentivized by the demonstrably omnicidal “Business as Usual”. It’s important to avoid having one of these entities murder you.

    Do I fail my own standards? Yes. Do I continue to embrace these standards, understanding my own complicity and endeavor to overcome my own failings? Yes.

    Overshoot is the machinery driving the achievement of Fermi’s Paradox. I am watching a madness spread like a wildfire through humanity. A toxic eruption of the collective Shadow and humanity’s utter blindness as it stumbles into an obvious dead end.

    As far as I have the strength, courage, and luck, I will not fucking comply.

  5. mago

    Torture and rape, definitely—to which I would add deliberately taking of life.
    There are other more subtle things like lying, cheating and stealing—which are so easy to do and maybe even circumstantially justifiable. The same could even be said about killing, but rape and torture? No.
    As Phaedrus noted, aligning one’s actions with one’s principles can be a tricky act.
    On another note, my favorite definition of stupidity is when one’s actions are contrary to one’s aspirations. For example, we all want to be happy, but usually in its pursuit we create suffering, not just for ourselves, but others as well.
    I’m tempted to expound on the 60% principle but will gracefully sign off.

  6. someofparts

    Children – any harm to children and by extension, pregnant women

  7. Soredemos

    No, because context matters. I can always conceive of some potential scenario, no matter how contrived, where something horrific might be the least bad option (and you often have to pick an option in life. Attempted neutrality or doing nothing is often itself picking a side).

    I’m pretty sure this has come up before, but I can imagine that a scenario, probably in a war, where “rape her for my amusement or I execute you all” has happened at some point in human history. The only response I got was something vague about confusing who the real rapist was or something, which to me amounts to deflection.

  8. Revelo

    Absolutely no absolutes in my moral worldview.

    ASSUMING civilized conditions, anyone who advocates allowing rape and torture as part of war (I can’t imagine that anyone would advocate allowing these outside war) loses soft power, because uninvolved parties will be reluctant to give power to or cooperate with such advocates. But this is not moral absolutism, but rather pragmatism: we all agree to forego some behaviors so we all benefit from not being victims of these behaviors.

    If civilization breaks down, whoever refuses to use rape, torture and every other atrocity may lose to those who will do anything to win. War is ultimately about terror: terror of death and destruction is how we usually think of war, but no absolute reason to rule out terror of rape and torture and any other terror the mind can conceive. Unilaterally deprive yourself of a terror weapon and you become weaker and evil wins and so rape and torture and the other atrocities occur despite your moral righteousness. Bilateral pragmatic agreements to outlaw some behaviors require some sort of civilizational framework.

  9. Ian Welsh

    Don’t actually believe that argument, but fair enough and it makes the point well.

    With absolutes one does or does not do something despite the consequences, so if one would do anything to survive then one does not, indeed, have any moral absolutes.

  10. Jan Wiklund

    There may be situations where you have to choose between two evils, and you never know which. So no, there are no moral absoutes.

    Concerning your two absolutes, Ian, they are included. But I believe my body would say no even if my intellect doesn’t.

    And that is the point. Our moral is hardwired. It is transmitted through evolution, weeding out those who don’t conform to our being social animals depending on eachother for our survival.

    However, evolution is no foolproof mechanism. Among other things, we are provided with fallible brains that are able to convince us that we are smart when we are actually quite stupid, and that we are acting morally when we do morally reprehensive things. But to do that, they have to be pushed by a social surrounding – e.g. a mafia, an army or a course in neo-classic economics.

  11. Soredemos

    @Ian Welsh

    I notice that ‘anything for the survival of others’ doesn’t seem to factor in for you.

    I also notice how murder isn’t off limits for you. Killing is, in fact worse than rape or torture, but I’m sure you would differentiate between murder, self-defense, manslaughter, etc. Context matters.

  12. Ian Welsh

    Context matters for some acts, and not for others. Some acts can never be justified, others can. I also don’t agree about killing being worse than than rape or torture.

    Anything for the survival of self also does not matter to me. There are things I would not do to save my own life.

    However, I’m not really interested in my own moral absolutes, but in other people’s and if they have any.

  13. Soredemos

    To be clear, I can’t imagine any real scenario I’m likely to ever encountered where I would feel a need to rape anyone, kill a kid, or so on. But my mind can conceive of the possibility of a scenario where such a thing might be required, in which case such things became the least bad and justified action.

    If I have an absolute then, I suppose it’s that collective needs trump individual rights. If there were some scenario where there was a desperate need to kill and harvest kids for their stem cells, then I would support it (anyone else remember when this was a bullshit controversy during the George Bush years? Conservatives believed fetuses were intentionally being aborted for their cells. That wasn’t the case at all, but maybe in some possible future that scenario does actually happen).

    How you differentiate genuine extreme collective need from a fictitious moral panic or similar, eg ‘we have to censor everything because won’t someone think of the children, or Russia mind control, or whatever’, I don’t know.

  14. wmd1961

    Advocating harm to vulnerable people. Once you start after a vulnerable other you’ve crossed a red line for me.

  15. Purple Library Guy

    Ehhh . . . in theory, no. I mean, you can always come up with some kind of stupid trolley scenario where if you don’t do X incredibly evil thing, X++++ vastly more incredibly evil thing will happen and so you have to do X. I’m not entirely a utilitarian in my ethics, I think that things like justice are important . . . but ultimately, justice has to be justice about something–below both justice and utilitarianism is this agreement that some things that can happen to people are bad and you don’t want them to happen. So if you agree that a bad thing happening to a person who didn’t do anything to deserve it is unjust, you’re saying it’s bad when those bad things happen . . . which presumably has to mean it’s MORE bad when MORE bad things happen, which gets you some utilitarianism. Greatest good for the greatest number has some force even if it can get silly when that’s all you think about.

    So if you have some stupid trolley scenario and the outcomes are lopsided enough, you have to give up on justice and avoiding atrocities and just do the horrible thing so the far more horrible thing doesn’t happen. So IN THEORY I wouldn’t rule anything out.

    But real life has very few trolley scenarios. Almost always, you get better outcomes from doing good things than from doing bad things, no matter how much neoliberal economists and national security experts try to claim the reverse. Take torture, for instance. CIA people will claim the point of torture is to get important information that could stop terrorists from doing mass slaughter or something. But looking at the track record, that is clearly NOT what torture is for, and indeed many serious “intelligence professionals” will agree that it isn’t much good for that. Torture has two purposes: In a dictatorship, the point is to terrorize the population so they will not resist the horrible regime. In an aggressive, nominally democratic state (such as the US), the point of torture is to extract confessions to whatever fiction the aggressive state wants to use as an excuse for some aggressive action. It’s all about “Look, our intelligence agency has confirmed the enemy has an evil plan/was responsible for the bad things! We must attack!” Of course, this kind of thing is only necessary if the aggressive action is not, in fact, ethically justified.

    In real life, the question of whether the end justifies the means is very often moot, because whenever you see really bad means, if you think about the ends for a while it turns out they suck too. This shouldn’t be surprising–duh, people who are willing to use torture, murder innocent people and so on are pretty much always the kind of people who want something bad.

    So for decent people, the question of “Where would you draw the line?” should almost always not be an issue in the first place–if you have good ends, you will generally be using good means to accomplish them. There’s no point in finding the line because that’s not the direction you want to be going anyway.

    None of this is to say I am against all violence. It should be against people who are doing violence themselves, which includes the soldiers of an oppressive, dictatorial regime. Violent revolution against dictators is legit in my books. And soldiers in general, at least volunteer ones, have put themselves in an odd moral category–they have defined themselves as someone who fights and kills and expects other people to try to do the same to them. They don’t have as much complaint coming if someone takes them up on that. I’d still prefer that soldiers not get killed, but I’m not going to say that someone who killed a soldier in a war or a rebellion is morally culpable–they didn’t do something unjust, even though total utility was reduced.

  16. Soredemos

    @Jan Wiklund

    Doesn’t history make abundantly clear that morality isn’t evolutionarily hard wired? Morals are social fictions devised by cultures to try and navigate the world and potential conflict. Different societies can arrive at extremely different solutions that they call moral to similar problems.

    Also of course the material basis of much morality. ‘Theft is wrong’, insists the class that wants there to be private property and wants it to be considered sacrosanct.

  17. Soredemos

    Sorry, I simply don’t subscribe to the ‘rape is worse than death’ mindset.

    In fact, and this will piss a lot of people off, I’m sure, but I’m increasingly of the opinion that just as there are societies that are far too dismissive of rape (for example the idea that marital rape doesn’t happen because a husband has a right to sex), the opposite can happen, with rape elevated to being the ultimate, or near-ultinate crime. An endless series of Lifetime movies about how female sexual victimhood is just the worst possible thing (our culture doesn’t care about male rape. It’s the punchline of prison jokes).

    I know sexual assault victims, and I know the trauma can be extremely bad, with a long tail as well. But I also know plenty of deeply traumatized who were damaged by a variety of non-rape experiences. In fact sexual assault seems to be relatively uncommon among the people on the street that I know. I refuse to privilege rape as some uniquely worse form of physical assault. How would you even objectively measure if it’s worse to get raped or to beaten black and blue for an hour straight or similar?

    And regardless of the cause, most people can recover to a substantial degree from even immense trauma. They’ll never fully forget, but eventually the mind and body can heal and you can essentially function (for adults at least; childhood abuse, sexual or not, can lead to completely broken adults whose development has been permanently stalled). You can’t recover from being dead.

  18. Joan

    Rape and torture are among my moral absolutes also. Driving someone into misery comes to mind, such as brutal poverty or withholding help when someone is in agony. I can’t respect anyone who does this to others and I would never do it myself. If, say, someone captured one of my loved ones and threatened to torture them unless I okay’d the torturing of someone else, even if that someone else were a bad person, I would still see it as a violation of my moral code, even though I’d do it to save my loved one. And of course I hope to never be in that situation. That would be awful karma.

  19. NR

    I think there are several arguments for why rape is seen as worse than most other crimes.

    – There is never a justification for rape, there may be for other crimes
    – While both men and women can be raped, women are more likely to fear being raped because of rape of women being more common and the differences in physical strength between men and women
    – Victims of rape are more likely to be subject to victim-blaming than victims of other crimes
    – Finally, this is a matter of perception, but rape “feels” more animalistic and less human than other crimes

    Now, all that said, is being raped worse than being tortured? I don’t know. Rape and torture are both terrible and evil.

  20. Preston

    Perhaps on a a level below rape, torture and child abuse, I submit trophy hunting and baiting. Some may say all hunting is bad. Not gonna argue. Hunting for food and thanking the creator and the animal for the life sustaining food adds has spiritual connections to nature where everything is food to something else. Killing the biggest and most beautiful animals, then displaying their likenesses on walls for a competition is disgusting. Add baiting into the the activity and it becomes more revolting.

  21. Ian Welsh

    Yeah, not a fan of trophy hunting. Hunting for food is fine, and so is hunting a mankiller, but other than that, no.

  22. StewartM

    I hesitates to say I have any moral absolutes; because:

    a) As Phaedrus said, what are the consequences of having a ‘moral absolute’? How is it different than having situational morality? In international relations, you usually have to talk to and strike deals with all sorts of thugs in suits.

    b) that being said, I can’t imagine any situation where torture would be justified, so it’s as close to a moral absolute as you can get.

    c) I’d add to torture the general notion of the exploitation of anyone or any being which is helpless or even greatly weaker than you. This includes everything from mistreating POWs to selling couples timeshares to scamming seniors of their money to overcharging people who are in desperate need. But hell, much of this is our very economic system, trying to scam people to buy something that is bad for them (the tobacco industry and alcohol industry).

    That’s another reason to despise Trump, who (according to Micheal Cohen) thinks that if you and he alike are happy in an agreement Trump then concludes that he didn’t “win” enough. He has to be happy and you have to be miserable for an agreement to have enough “win” for him in it. Of course, in foreign policy, such a policy leads to disastrous consequences (i.e., China and Russia both feel, and justifiably so, that the West took advantage of their weakness and force ‘unequal’ agreements on them). As individuals and as groups, the best agreements are where both sides walk away from it feeling good.

    d) The great rape debate–that’s something I’ve not wanted to touch. But some points:

    Part of the problem is ‘what is rape?’ Is it something where someone either threatens you with a weapon, or overpowers you with force, often injuring you in the process, to force a sexual act from you? Or does it include cases where someone doesn’t quite say ‘yes’ or ‘no’; not something that someone sought, but something was passively accepted with no or little fuss?

    I’ve never experienced the former. I have experienced the latter, many decades ago. And the latter really wasn’t a big deal. It wasn’t a big deal even though the other person latter bragged about it later, in front of friends, much to my embarrassment. I just made a note “don’t let yourself be put in that situation again” and let it go at that. I would have been aghast if someone had actually prosecuted the other person for rape.

    I’ve also been groped—not like in TSA groped, but sexually groped in another situation. The other person was intoxicated, and I calmly refused and gently pushed the other person away. Again, neither one of these events has caused me even minor trauma and I haven’t lost a wink of sleep over either. Thus I have a hard time understanding others who make this sort of thing a bigger deal than I perceived it to be.

    I also have know people who said they experience the more abusive form of rape, as either a child or young woman too. But Soredemos is right–it’s not worse than murder, The person I’m referring to was a friend who told me about her horrific childhood in Appalachia, where she was sexually assaulted by relatives and where there were shootings and stabbings galore; sometimes in her house. But even then, she wouldn’t have agreed that her living was worse than dying. I also had a female relatives of mine abducted, and feared for her body and her life, but she managed to escape her attackers.

    But even there, recalling a visit to a Vietnamese POW camp last year (one where NVA and NLF prisoners were held, not US prisoners), where prisoners endured blowtorches to their genitals, being boiled alive, having bones broken or teeth chiseled out, and if I were a POW and told I either had to endure one of those things, or submit to sex with Bubba over there–well, for me that’s an easy choice. I’d submit to Bubba in a heartbeat, the injury and pain if any will be short-lived and not likely permanent, where the other things may kill or your leave you crippled for life. Not a hard decision.

    Mind you, I don’t discount emotional trauma. I’ve experienced it too, just not over things sexual. And I’ve read it or seen it among others. The famous Soviet marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky was held by the NKVD and tortured pre-WWII, losing his teeth. However, one of the cruelest things done to him was his captors would awaken him in the dead of night, marching him outside to a forest with his hands tied behind his back, read execution orders to him, and then place the cold barrel of a revolver against the back of his head, holding it there. Then a “CLICK”. (The revolver had no rounds).

    Then they marched him back to his cell. This mock execution was done to him several times. That had to be unquestionably hellish. THAT would cause me nightmares; and apparently Rokossovsky carried a pistol with him for the rest of his life, to end his own life if he were ever arrested again.

    Similarly, I had a elderly relative who suffered a break-in in the 1970s, the robber had a gun and led her around her own house with a pillowcase over her head, threatening to shoot her. She survived (and saved a cousin of mine in the process; long story, and even I played a small bit role in this story) but after that she sold her house and moved in with her daughter as she was afraid of living by herself. That’s quite understandable.

  23. capelin

    @ Revelo

    “Absolutely no absolutes in my moral worldview.”

    That’s funny.

    I guess I don’t nessesarily have absolutes, as things do have to be seen in context – and the same occurance can have many contexts – ie a singular death, or event, in a war is personal, political; with a whole range of things and people bearing responsibility.

    But some things I’m not sure there’d ever be a “context” where I could see it being “ok”. Nukes.

    Everthing else, it’s a combination of empathy for people and all the ways they are shaped by life and larger forces; and a pretty damning judgement on doing bullshit when one should know better.

  24. bruce wilder

    I have thought philosophically about my answer and I realize that my moral philosophy, such as it may be, lies in the interstices of a great jumble of half-baked notions. An “absolute” connotes a certain detachment from context or consequence, a consideration of which certainly figures in the rationalizations of many of my jumbled notions. I am still enough of a Catholic to respect the ideas of Thomas Aquinas and to credit temptation to sin in every person. I do not think anyone is justified by faith alone, or immune from doing evil. Human nature is simply incapable of keeping a promise to self or others to refrain from the narcissistic self-indulgence at the root of hostile, cruel, sociopathic behavior. So, if “absolute” is meant to denote “this I would not do”, I simply do not believe you.

    I would like to believe I would not torture someone. Certainly, I am adamantly opposed to torture as state policy. But, if you made me angry enough, I would want to hurt you — I could conceivably punish you for your offense against my sense of fairness and it might hurt rather a lot. “Absolute” might not save you much. Which makes me wonder if “torture” is distinguished by the cruel infliction of pain or, is it possibly the Narrative that is dispositive?

    I am suspicious of Narrative as sheep might be suspicious of a border collie. “Absolute” implies that meaning is inescapable. No story, no context can redeem some acts is the supposition. Yet, I watch others “justify” war and acts of war — or worse not even feel they have to bother rationalizing the barbarities of war. War is the suspension of the rules and norms of social cooperation in favor of violence because . . . Conflict. Like conflict is not a constant of social, political life. The narrative of just war isn’t a narrative of a fair fight.

    I credit the notion of morally wrong. And, morally wrong regardless of intention or expectation of consequences. “Torture” — the deliberate, cruel infliction of pain by the powerful against the helpless — yes, that seems “absolutely” wrong to me because wrong in the context just specified. Sinful. A scar on the soul.

  25. Jan Wiklund

    Soredemos: “Doesn’t history make abundantly clear that morality isn’t evolutionarily hard wired?”

    – No, it doesn’t. People are bad at hurting eachother. They feel bad, and they do it incompetently. They have to be at a safe distance to do it, so that the hurting is abstract, and/or they must have superiors to tell them to do it, a “chain of command” with the top being completely isolated from the result of the hurting.

    There is one exception, what sociologists call “forward panic”. This is when a confrontation has been building up to extreme hight and one of the parties suddenly collapses. This is what happens in police abuse, for example. The other party, the perpetrator, can’t control himself any longer because of an extremely high level of adrenalin in the body and can’t refer any longer to the opposite party because he has collapsed.

    There are of course cultural habits that sometimes go by the name of moral, like the Victorian not having sex without marriage. But I am talking about hurting. No culture has ever condoned murder within the tribe for example. And to commit other cruel acts they have had to invent deliberate and complex theories that make them seem ok. Like our own criminal law, for example.

  26. StewartM

    Jan Wikilund

    – No, it doesn’t. People are bad at hurting eachother. They feel bad, and they do it incompetently. They have to be at a safe distance to do it, so that the hurting is abstract, and/or they must have superiors to tell them to do it, a “chain of command” with the top being completely isolated from the result of the hurting.

    I agree with you. One telling factor is that while cultures are perfectly capable of turning boys (and it’s usually boys) into hardened killers and torturers, it doesn’t happen naturally with the vast majority. No, it takes a sustained period of indoctrination and brutalization to achieve this end. In our culture, we call this “boot camp”.

    And even then, survivors of war pay the price. When I was a boy, returning Vietnam veterans told me what they saw and what they did, so the later bruhaha over a movie like “Apocalypse Now” was so surprise as it matched everything they had told me. At least two of those veterans later committed suicide.

    I would argue that it’s our cultures, which were forced by cultural evolution to embrace warfare (as once one group did, then all their neighbors had to embrace it or be exterminated) that turn us into something more cruel than we would be by our natures.

  27. Purple Library Guy

    @Jan Wiklund I think that’s an overstatement.

    I do think that ethics are a lot more universal than some would claim. People talk about things like different customs with what you do with the dead, for instance, as if that involved some kind of ethical differences. Some people bury the dead and think it would be horrible to burn them, some people expose them and think it would be horrible to bury them or whatever. But all those customs are exactly the same ethically: They have a belief about what the best thing is FOR THE DEAD PEOPLE, and they do that best thing, because they love and cherish the people who died and want to do right by them. Since nobody actually knows bugger all about anything after death, all the beliefs about what the thing is are different, but the point is the same.

    And this works for a lot of stuff. You look at different customs, and you find the same ethics underlying them even though the specific courses of action are different because the circumstances are different. Every society I know of ALSO has some kind of systematic injustices . . . and every systematic injustice has some kind of manufactured rationale for its continued existence (where the real reason is, someone at the top profits from it), and those manufactured rationales ALSO, fraudulently, invoke the same underlying ethics as other societies have.

    But hurting and killing . . . nah, we’re actually fairly good at that. Sure, most people have some reluctance to do it most of the time, certainly to people they know, but there are lots of emotional states that enable it, and some personality types. Being competent at killing people is way less common these days than it used to be, so it can seem as if we’re inherently incompetent at it. But individual level fighting and killing at short range, with clubs and spears and swords and such, used to be a quite common skill that a lot of people had and used for real without worrying about it that much.

  28. different clue

    On reading the post I thought . . . well sure . . . I too would absolutely never rape or torture. Then I read all the comments and thought . . . well . . . if Life Itself plunged me for real into the world of Soredemos Scenarios . . . what would I do? Probably still not rape or torture, but that is not because of Inner Moral Absolute but because of Inner Squeamishness-based Incapability.

    So at the pure morality level, what do I have? Some very firm dashed-red line moral near-absolutes. I can look back on what I have done when Life Itself offered me a choice and realize what I would/ wouldn’t do based on what I have/haven’t done in a few strange real-life scenarios.

    Would I take passive silent secret advantage of someone else’s unknowing mistake in my favor? One time a new-and-learning bank teller gave me $400 too much when giving me some cash-back out of my account. I gave the $400 back and noted the error. One time when visiting someone in Astoria, New York City, I was walking a hundred or more feet behind someone. A big chunk of money fell out of his pocket. I picked it up and yelled out to him “you dropped something”. He didn’t hear me so I ran up to him to get his attention and gave him back the chunk of money. At times people have mistaken me for homeless ( looking homeless is a talent I apparently have sometimes ) and tried to give me money. I have noted that I am not homeless and don’t actually need the money, but then thanked them in principle. But I can’t promise I wouldn’t let such an error in my favor go by if I “really needed the money”.

    Would I make an implicit promise while being tempted to break it later to my own benefit? I suppose that could be considered putting oneself in an “occasion to sin”.
    I do remember when first reading the website and reading all the rare and unique heirloom corns they sold, often sourced from a single or very few Mexican growers, that I could buy some of them and then try growing them here in Michigan to see what would happen. But every variety description said something like “buying this corn carries the implied promise that you will not do ANYthing with this corn except EAT it, in compliance with the Biodiversity Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol”.
    I realized that was an implied promise I could not/ would not keep, so I never bought any of their corn. ( I see that lately they have dropped that phraseology from their corn-type descriptions, and I suspect they were self-preventing so much business that they realized they should just stop saying that.)

    I suppose the closest I come to a moral-behavioral absolute is to not abuse children.
    And it doesn’t have to be physical to be abuse. Brilliant intellectuals can leave their children damaged for life with forms of abuse that no policeman or social worker will ever spot. Don’t ask me how I know that.

    Am I prepared to benefit from the past crimes of others? Of course. I benefit every day from the settler colonialist conquest and creation of MexAmeriCanada and I have zero intention of ever going back where I “came from”.
    Putting oneself in that position

  29. different clue

    . . . ” Putting oneself in that position” . . . where did that last phrase ever come from?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén