Domestic abusers shouldn’t have guns…this is true.

The problem is that responsible people get protection orders issued against them all the time (and what’s being discussed are protection orders, not convicted abusers)…because many states require no proof other than the word of the accuser…which inevitably leads to people weaponizing the process out of petty revenge or anger solely to make life hell for their ex. People convicted of domestic abuse would still lose their guns. What the article is discussing is whether people who’ve been accused without evidence should continue to have their rights stripped or not.

What’s the strategy in that? Claiming she was never his attorney forfeits what shreds of privilege might be left of their communications and is also one less person he can blame “advice of counsel” on.

Corporations should be held responsible for the emissions caused by their employee’s commuting.

This would really change the discussion about return to office.

Your comment is textbook sealioning.

Your employer is ALWAYS looking for a way to either get more work out of you for the same compensation, or replace you with some one or some process that produces the equivalent output for less cost. The entire idea that employees should be loyal to their employers is one of the most successful propaganda campaigns ever spawned by capitalism.

Non-human predators that hunt, kill, and eat other animals…do you consider them unethical, or is it only unethical for animals capable of inventing the concept of ‘ethics’?

You really should be directing your angst at the bastards who respond to advertising. If it weren’t for them, there would be no advertising at all because it would be completely unfeasible. Nobody would be willing to pay for something that has no return on investment.