Here's an interesting thought: if you're against the death penalty, what if there was a maximum security prison for people who would have gotten the death penalty but didn't because it's immoral, and the prisoners are treated very well and everyone is protected from violence but there's an unlimited supply of strong opiates available?
I'm opposed to the death penalty, so it was an interesting thought experiment for me.
I'm opposed to the death penalty, so it was an interesting thought experiment for me.
I'd argue both are unrelated to outlawing abortion.
There may be people who want to ban abortion because they just want to control women, but my moment was seeing my 10 weeks in gestation son kicking on the ultrasound. I saw this human with arms and legs moving around on its own, and I watched that little human and watched his beating heart and the thought that popped in my head was a sardonic "it's just a clump of cells" -- it clearly wasn't just a clump of cells. That was a tiny living human. Wilfully killing such a thing because it's inconvenient or defenseless or because you can't see it since it's behind a layer of skin didn't seem acceptable at that point. My right to swing my fist ends before it hits your face.
On a completely different track, historically there are examples where different cultural values led to completely different outcomes. For example, in imperial Japan, babies weren't considered people at all and children came to exist in the real world on a spectrum as they aged, so there was an extremely common practice of killing babies when they were born for the good of the community. In one famous story, a person who was considered moral had a relatively grown child and his mother, but not enough food to feed both, and killed the child so the mother could eat and that was considered just because the mother could have more children in the future. That goes to show that changes in underlying cultural assumptions does make a big difference in the outcomes of the moral calculus.
That being the case, we reach an ought-is problem. We can largely agree on the objective facts, but our interpretation of those facts, and the principles upon which the facts are judged against change, and so similarly two people in the same society can come to wildly different conclusions. In my case, I spent 12 years trying to have a child fully ready to have one, finally succeeded, and raising my son is one of the most deeply existentially fulfilling experiences I've ever had. Of course I'll come to much different conclusions than someone who doesn't want a child, can't support a child, is sure they'd be miserable if they had a child, and has no idea what that baby looks like.
It's important to realize that just because you deeply disagree with someone doesn't mean they're necessarily evil people. The moment you start dehumanizing people by making them into the personification of evil, that's actually when you start seeing things like the Nazis because when you're fighting pure evil the ends always justify the means.
There may be people who want to ban abortion because they just want to control women, but my moment was seeing my 10 weeks in gestation son kicking on the ultrasound. I saw this human with arms and legs moving around on its own, and I watched that little human and watched his beating heart and the thought that popped in my head was a sardonic "it's just a clump of cells" -- it clearly wasn't just a clump of cells. That was a tiny living human. Wilfully killing such a thing because it's inconvenient or defenseless or because you can't see it since it's behind a layer of skin didn't seem acceptable at that point. My right to swing my fist ends before it hits your face.
On a completely different track, historically there are examples where different cultural values led to completely different outcomes. For example, in imperial Japan, babies weren't considered people at all and children came to exist in the real world on a spectrum as they aged, so there was an extremely common practice of killing babies when they were born for the good of the community. In one famous story, a person who was considered moral had a relatively grown child and his mother, but not enough food to feed both, and killed the child so the mother could eat and that was considered just because the mother could have more children in the future. That goes to show that changes in underlying cultural assumptions does make a big difference in the outcomes of the moral calculus.
That being the case, we reach an ought-is problem. We can largely agree on the objective facts, but our interpretation of those facts, and the principles upon which the facts are judged against change, and so similarly two people in the same society can come to wildly different conclusions. In my case, I spent 12 years trying to have a child fully ready to have one, finally succeeded, and raising my son is one of the most deeply existentially fulfilling experiences I've ever had. Of course I'll come to much different conclusions than someone who doesn't want a child, can't support a child, is sure they'd be miserable if they had a child, and has no idea what that baby looks like.
It's important to realize that just because you deeply disagree with someone doesn't mean they're necessarily evil people. The moment you start dehumanizing people by making them into the personification of evil, that's actually when you start seeing things like the Nazis because when you're fighting pure evil the ends always justify the means.
I vaguely remember hearing some really shocking metrics, that despite the billions of dollars they spent on the place, there's only a few hundred to a few thousand people there.
No matter what you did this year, no matter how badly you fucked up, you probably didn't fuck up as bad as Mark Zuckerberg has by betting on the Metaverse.
No matter what you did this year, no matter how badly you fucked up, you probably didn't fuck up as bad as Mark Zuckerberg has by betting on the Metaverse.
For real, a nice ring is nice, but people need to remember that your life continues after the wedding. Some of the more expensive rings are a down payment on a house, so which would you want for your marriage -- a ring that lives in a box, or a house you can make a home together?
https://thepostmillennial.com/minors-given-safer-snorting-kits-at-canadian-school
So the Canadian government banned straws.... except for use by kids when snorting cocaine.
So the Canadian government banned straws.... except for use by kids when snorting cocaine.
The sort of people on the fediverse run the gamut, there's all kinds. Really nice people, really rude people, and everything in between. One of the best things about the fediverse is the diversity in that regard, because lots of people want to engage with it in different ways (and a lot of the people along the whole spectrum find others to engage with who want to play the same game, and no algorithm to push people together who otherwise would mostly ignore each other).
The thing is, on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog, until you tell everyone and remove all doubt. A lot of twitter users come over to the fediverse and start acting like the old stereotype of American tourists -- walking in like they own the place, telling everyone what they're doing wrong as if there wasn't a culture here before they showed up and that will exist after they leave, and letting everyone know exactly where they came from and why that makes them important.
The thing is, on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog, until you tell everyone and remove all doubt. A lot of twitter users come over to the fediverse and start acting like the old stereotype of American tourists -- walking in like they own the place, telling everyone what they're doing wrong as if there wasn't a culture here before they showed up and that will exist after they leave, and letting everyone know exactly where they came from and why that makes them important.
C'mon man, sell your kids into slavery man! It feels great! You don't gotta pay for nothing! And they smell great, man!
Lol It wouldn't be that hard if they wanted to. But they don't want to. That's why they pretend to care about alphabet people, so they can keep on doing slavery.
Honestly, if you actually look at what they say, it's clear they have some horrendous attitudes towards people they claim to represent.
The feminine urge to threaten not to have sex with men who don't want to have sex with you in the first place
Ah, finished the latest volume of 100 million year button on the day it came out. Now I need to wait until October for the next one! (Le sob)
One thing I'm a bit annoyed at is there's a character who can lock the MC in a dimension for 100 years, and he can train in there happily. I keep wishing the MC would take advantage of that and train for another 100 years after advancing all his skills through plot progression!
One thing I'm a bit annoyed at is there's a character who can lock the MC in a dimension for 100 years, and he can train in there happily. I keep wishing the MC would take advantage of that and train for another 100 years after advancing all his skills through plot progression!
Another book of 100 million year button released today! I enjoy the stories of this guy and his superhumanly autistic dedication to hard work to make up for the fact that he's superhumanly shitty at the thing he wants to do.
Every time someone calls something verifiably true a far right-wing conspiracy theory, it cements "far right conspiracy theory" as a code phrase for "true statement".
Do what you want, but consider that there are consequences to tying those two phrases together. Some things in that box should not be legitimized in such a way.
Do what you want, but consider that there are consequences to tying those two phrases together. Some things in that box should not be legitimized in such a way.
Trudeau's mental healthcare plan: "kill urself lol"
Trudeau's homelessness plan: "kill urself lol"
Not even a joke or a meme!
Trudeau's homelessness plan: "kill urself lol"
Not even a joke or a meme!
Unfortunately, that's the thing with debt: it feels great when you're racking it up but feels like shit when you're paying for it.
The most evil thing is when people go "so it'll hurt so let's never balance the budget or pay down the debt ever". Because there's no such thing as never in this case. If we don't do it, our kids will have to do it, or our kids kids. This is why I call going into debt the way we do "selling our kids into slavery", because they have to work and suffer because we refuse to.
Whether we like it or not, when dealing with deficits as large as any given western country operates under, it is a requirement that not only should the spending be cut, but also that taxes rise. People don't want to pay higher taxes (I sure don't), but it's the consequence of excess government spending.
The most effective way to implement a tax immediately that would bring in the sort of revenue required that wouldn't be immediately dodged would be a sales tax. You could exempt many basics such as groceries, rent/homes, and bills for personal consumption, but leave it for everything else. In that way you can try to limit the immediate impact on people's essentials despite it being a broad tax. Such taxes do bring in massive revenue, which is good because that's what's required to get back to 0.
The most evil thing is when people go "so it'll hurt so let's never balance the budget or pay down the debt ever". Because there's no such thing as never in this case. If we don't do it, our kids will have to do it, or our kids kids. This is why I call going into debt the way we do "selling our kids into slavery", because they have to work and suffer because we refuse to.
Whether we like it or not, when dealing with deficits as large as any given western country operates under, it is a requirement that not only should the spending be cut, but also that taxes rise. People don't want to pay higher taxes (I sure don't), but it's the consequence of excess government spending.
The most effective way to implement a tax immediately that would bring in the sort of revenue required that wouldn't be immediately dodged would be a sales tax. You could exempt many basics such as groceries, rent/homes, and bills for personal consumption, but leave it for everything else. In that way you can try to limit the immediate impact on people's essentials despite it being a broad tax. Such taxes do bring in massive revenue, which is good because that's what's required to get back to 0.
The threat on the table with respect to the debt ceiling is default on the national debt.
There's no need to default on the national debt.
Let's say your credit card company calls and says they're freezing your card and you can't spend more money on credit. What happens then? Well, you can decide you're going to default and not pay your bills, but for me, that happened, and what I did wasn't defaulting, I cut my phone, I cut my Internet, I cut my food bill, and then I was able to make my critical payments and pay my debts.
There's no need to default on the national debt.
Let's say your credit card company calls and says they're freezing your card and you can't spend more money on credit. What happens then? Well, you can decide you're going to default and not pay your bills, but for me, that happened, and what I did wasn't defaulting, I cut my phone, I cut my Internet, I cut my food bill, and then I was able to make my critical payments and pay my debts.