Honestly, what it takes to do IVF such as freezing embryos kinda does change my mind...
If you artificially create 100 lives and 99 of those lives are doomed either because you succeeded and they're no longer required or because there's a massive failure rate and you're throwing these lives you created into a meatgrinder hoping one of them doesnt die in a deadly process, isnt that kinda morally reprehensible?
But I'm like one of those ex-smokers who can't handle smokers anymore. I used to want abortion to be as wide open as possible before a number of things made me realize how selfish and evil that desire was.
People will go on all day about a mother's right to choose to end a life without considering the baby's right to not have it's life ended. This moral calculus can be equally applied in many situations and once you can see the person you're killing it becomes clear it's not acceptable.
All that being said, reality is that the overwhelming majority of people who are against killing babies are willing to compromise. If you make it super early on when maybe it actually is just a clump of cells and you have cut-outs for life of the mother or reprehensible situations like rape or incest, you still get like 85% of the population willing to take that deal, even if they don't like it entirely.
Thing is, a big key to liberal values isn't just freedom; it's having a cognizance of the moral implications of your actions and acting accordingly. Pure liberty with no responsibility and no moral framework isn't liberty but nihilistic anarchy. In that sense, the most important moral point is when two people agree to take an action that has the likelihood of creating life. Just because it's fun doesn't mean it doesn't carry serious weight. If you're going to do that thing, are you ready, willing, and able to care for a life you create? If not, then it may be more just to not do that thing rather than beg for the liberty to take an inconvenient life while it's helpless and hopefully you won't have to hear it's feeble death rattle.
If you artificially create 100 lives and 99 of those lives are doomed either because you succeeded and they're no longer required or because there's a massive failure rate and you're throwing these lives you created into a meatgrinder hoping one of them doesnt die in a deadly process, isnt that kinda morally reprehensible?
But I'm like one of those ex-smokers who can't handle smokers anymore. I used to want abortion to be as wide open as possible before a number of things made me realize how selfish and evil that desire was.
People will go on all day about a mother's right to choose to end a life without considering the baby's right to not have it's life ended. This moral calculus can be equally applied in many situations and once you can see the person you're killing it becomes clear it's not acceptable.
All that being said, reality is that the overwhelming majority of people who are against killing babies are willing to compromise. If you make it super early on when maybe it actually is just a clump of cells and you have cut-outs for life of the mother or reprehensible situations like rape or incest, you still get like 85% of the population willing to take that deal, even if they don't like it entirely.
Thing is, a big key to liberal values isn't just freedom; it's having a cognizance of the moral implications of your actions and acting accordingly. Pure liberty with no responsibility and no moral framework isn't liberty but nihilistic anarchy. In that sense, the most important moral point is when two people agree to take an action that has the likelihood of creating life. Just because it's fun doesn't mean it doesn't carry serious weight. If you're going to do that thing, are you ready, willing, and able to care for a life you create? If not, then it may be more just to not do that thing rather than beg for the liberty to take an inconvenient life while it's helpless and hopefully you won't have to hear it's feeble death rattle.
The thing you need to understand about Canada is it's not reeeeally a democracy. I mean, there's members of Parliament whom are elected, but the head of the ruling party is also in charge of the executive, so there's an overwhelming amount of power in one man. That can be bad, as we've seen with Trudeau, but it can also be really good if you get a leader who is willing to do the right thing, and it does happen.
Is Poilievre the man who will do the right thing? I don't know, but I sure hope so, because I'm putting my money where my mouth is.
The one thing is that things aren't going to immediately get better. If he's doing his job things will immediately feel way worse because he needs to unbreak a lot and that process will hurt in the moment (it hurt back when Mulroney did it too after the first Trudeau), but then things start to get better in a virtuous cycle.
Is Poilievre the man who will do the right thing? I don't know, but I sure hope so, because I'm putting my money where my mouth is.
The one thing is that things aren't going to immediately get better. If he's doing his job things will immediately feel way worse because he needs to unbreak a lot and that process will hurt in the moment (it hurt back when Mulroney did it too after the first Trudeau), but then things start to get better in a virtuous cycle.
Tbf a couple Republicans wanted to take that W of overturning roe and turn it into an L by immediately trying to ban it federally after years of wanting to leave it to the states, but overall it seems like this compromise is commonly accepted at the moment.
If you're ever in a room with a bunch of people, look at their shoes. In spite of shoes being a mass produced item, virtually everyone has different shoes on. Somebody paid a human being to design all those shoes, and even for the cheapest ones the design is constantly changing.
My question for such people is: "people you like said the following untrue things. What punishment do you think your favorite people should receive?"
It always ends up being the same, they don't want to do the things that they talk about, they just want you to do the things that they talk about. Then they wonder why the common man thinks it's all a conspiracy against them.
Huh, crazy! Putting gang rapists up against a wall is also a means of venting frustration and.will also create identity a s strengthen group feeling.
Let's goooooooo
Let's goooooooo
Besides the story itself, I appreciate the connection you make with deterioration of the society and the people.
The wealth of nations isn't just stuff, and it can and will disappear in a heartbeat if that fact is neglected.
The wealth of nations isn't just stuff, and it can and will disappear in a heartbeat if that fact is neglected.
"Pantyhose being good looking on a pretty lady, the state is not allowed to kill anyone"
The first is a nice factoid, but really the second part of the second would be the operative part of the sentence and of course the first half would be ignored because of the way it was written.
The remark about pantyhose is incidental to the more crucial assertion that the state should not have the authority to execute anyone. Nobody would interpret the above and say "obviously it means the state is not allowed to kill anyone only when it relates to pantyhose"
It's also notable that both the left and the right obviously disregard the constitution as an absolute statement regularly. That's why strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis tests exist for laws, so that you can violate enumerated rights but only if you really want to and it's done according to the law.
The first is a nice factoid, but really the second part of the second would be the operative part of the sentence and of course the first half would be ignored because of the way it was written.
The remark about pantyhose is incidental to the more crucial assertion that the state should not have the authority to execute anyone. Nobody would interpret the above and say "obviously it means the state is not allowed to kill anyone only when it relates to pantyhose"
It's also notable that both the left and the right obviously disregard the constitution as an absolute statement regularly. That's why strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis tests exist for laws, so that you can violate enumerated rights but only if you really want to and it's done according to the law.
Lots of Canadians have central air, and according to this map, most of Europe is warmer than most of Canada.
My first 2 vehicles were manual. I switched to automatic when I moved to the big city because the big city is set up like shit and driving a manual just doesn't make sense when you're crawling forward every 15 seconds.
To be fair, it isn't boomers whose votes are being bought....
But most boomers are starting to die off of old age, they literally don't have any stake in what happens now. They could quadruple the debt, who cares? They'll be dead.
But most boomers are starting to die off of old age, they literally don't have any stake in what happens now. They could quadruple the debt, who cares? They'll be dead.
I think I've figured out why I feel so much differently than a lot of people who are calling for student loan forgiveness. I saw one post the other day saying that student loan forgiveness would just be an advance on social security which future generations are unlikely to receive but pay into their entire lives.
One of the greatest tricks that the government has played on people is pretending that it has money. The only money it has is either money that it took from people, or money that it stole from future generations.
So where would billions of dollars for so-called student loan debt forgiveness come from? The majority of government income comes from the income tax, and much of the income tax is paid by the middle class. On the other hand, new spending is not paid for with taxes, it's paid for with debt.
We've already established that the governments today have no intention of ever paying down the debts they run up today, so what we're doing is the equivalent of running up all our credit cards and leaving them for our kids to pay off, which most people would consider evil.
The moral reasoning fails miserably. "The boomers stole from us by setting up social security which we pay into but are unlikely to get, so we should steal from future generations by getting our outstanding student loans paid for" -- it's sort of works as an appeal to inertia, but somebody doing you wrong really doesn't justify you doing wrong to somebody else. Moreover, some people point out that student debt is an investment in the future. The problem is, there's always going to be that particular investment in the future. Once this generation's education is complete, the next generation will also need to have their education paid for, and the next generation after that. Intending to run perpetual debts to pay for recurring payments just isn't fiscally prudent. We are in the verge of several sovereign financial crises exactly because people don't care about where the money is coming from. Part of the reason they don't care about where the money is coming from is that Congress is 11 billion years old and they're all going to be dead within 10 years.
It also fails miserably as a class argument because the only people who end up getting this supposed "advance" are people who made a number of very specific decisions. Rather than it being sort of reparations for a class containing generations that have been screwed over by poor decisions, it ends up becoming reparations for a very narrow class of people who have large amounts of unpaid student debt.
Among the supposed beneficiary class of millennials and gen z, you have:
-A large number of people who didn't go to college at all.
-a number of people who went to college without ever accruing student debts for example by working to pay for a state school tuition and living frugally at home.
-a number of people who went to college, I crude small debts, and didn't pay them off but the debts aren't meaningfully enough to really be relevant if they are paid off.
-a number of people who went to college, accrued small debts, and paid them off.
-a number of people who went to college, accrued larger debts, and paid them off.
So the major beneficiary of a student loan forgiveness program would be people who did go to college, likely went to an expensive enough College to justify large student loans, took out those student loans, and then didn't pay them back. What exactly privileges this particular group of people?
Now some people might think "well it's just the schools anyway", that's not really true. Student loans often pay for people's cars, they pay for people's rent, they pay for those big kegger parties you see, and there's even people who use some of their student loans to pay for fancy vacations to exotic locations.
Some people think that the problem is that tuitions are too high. There are options for college with relatively low tuition costs. In the us, you can attend a state school very little money. Up in canada, I attended a community college which I was able to pay my entire tuition using a less than minimum wage job I worked in a dying rust belt town. The thing is, the people who end up racking up giant debts often don't want to go to a state school, they want to go to a fancy School. In other words, these people who are trying to enter the upper classes by and taking courses above their station in life want regular working Joes and future generations to pay for their entry into the upper class. It's kind of messed up when you think about it.
If you have two students, going to the same school, and one of them used their student loans to help buy a car, and to go to parties, and buy nice food, and to go on fancy vacations, and the second student took the bus, studied instead of going to parties, ate inexpensive meals, and didn't go on any vacations, why should the first student ultimately have all those frivolous costs paid for, while the second student who sacrificed to make it through college sustainably does not?
So I have only one way I think would be acceptable to everyone in order to deal with the excess loans: every year private schools get billions of dollars of taxpayer funds, so just take that money and put it towards paying down a certain number of student loans, and stop giving any public money to private schools. Then, once all the student loans are paid back (of course this would imply there would be no further government subsidized student loans given because if they need to be forgiven then obviously people can't be trusted with them) we can take back that several billion dollars every year and reduce the total budget.
A lot of the private schools receiving public money are sitting on massive endowments, so for some reason for example Harvard gets something like 800 million dollars a year from the federal government. With their billions of dollars of endowments, they can run their own institution.
It's also key, my argument that if we do forgive student loans and we should end government funded student loans. At that point student loans can either be doled out by the Banks based on the likelihood of people working in certain majors successfully getting jobs and paying off the loans, or by having a parent co-sign for the loan and if the student fails to pay back their student loans then it will be the responsibility of their parent. Unlike the massive risk of putting all of society on the line for a few people's student debts, then it would leave the responsibility on the banks or the parents to ensure that loans are paid back.
One of the greatest tricks that the government has played on people is pretending that it has money. The only money it has is either money that it took from people, or money that it stole from future generations.
So where would billions of dollars for so-called student loan debt forgiveness come from? The majority of government income comes from the income tax, and much of the income tax is paid by the middle class. On the other hand, new spending is not paid for with taxes, it's paid for with debt.
We've already established that the governments today have no intention of ever paying down the debts they run up today, so what we're doing is the equivalent of running up all our credit cards and leaving them for our kids to pay off, which most people would consider evil.
The moral reasoning fails miserably. "The boomers stole from us by setting up social security which we pay into but are unlikely to get, so we should steal from future generations by getting our outstanding student loans paid for" -- it's sort of works as an appeal to inertia, but somebody doing you wrong really doesn't justify you doing wrong to somebody else. Moreover, some people point out that student debt is an investment in the future. The problem is, there's always going to be that particular investment in the future. Once this generation's education is complete, the next generation will also need to have their education paid for, and the next generation after that. Intending to run perpetual debts to pay for recurring payments just isn't fiscally prudent. We are in the verge of several sovereign financial crises exactly because people don't care about where the money is coming from. Part of the reason they don't care about where the money is coming from is that Congress is 11 billion years old and they're all going to be dead within 10 years.
It also fails miserably as a class argument because the only people who end up getting this supposed "advance" are people who made a number of very specific decisions. Rather than it being sort of reparations for a class containing generations that have been screwed over by poor decisions, it ends up becoming reparations for a very narrow class of people who have large amounts of unpaid student debt.
Among the supposed beneficiary class of millennials and gen z, you have:
-A large number of people who didn't go to college at all.
-a number of people who went to college without ever accruing student debts for example by working to pay for a state school tuition and living frugally at home.
-a number of people who went to college, I crude small debts, and didn't pay them off but the debts aren't meaningfully enough to really be relevant if they are paid off.
-a number of people who went to college, accrued small debts, and paid them off.
-a number of people who went to college, accrued larger debts, and paid them off.
So the major beneficiary of a student loan forgiveness program would be people who did go to college, likely went to an expensive enough College to justify large student loans, took out those student loans, and then didn't pay them back. What exactly privileges this particular group of people?
Now some people might think "well it's just the schools anyway", that's not really true. Student loans often pay for people's cars, they pay for people's rent, they pay for those big kegger parties you see, and there's even people who use some of their student loans to pay for fancy vacations to exotic locations.
Some people think that the problem is that tuitions are too high. There are options for college with relatively low tuition costs. In the us, you can attend a state school very little money. Up in canada, I attended a community college which I was able to pay my entire tuition using a less than minimum wage job I worked in a dying rust belt town. The thing is, the people who end up racking up giant debts often don't want to go to a state school, they want to go to a fancy School. In other words, these people who are trying to enter the upper classes by and taking courses above their station in life want regular working Joes and future generations to pay for their entry into the upper class. It's kind of messed up when you think about it.
If you have two students, going to the same school, and one of them used their student loans to help buy a car, and to go to parties, and buy nice food, and to go on fancy vacations, and the second student took the bus, studied instead of going to parties, ate inexpensive meals, and didn't go on any vacations, why should the first student ultimately have all those frivolous costs paid for, while the second student who sacrificed to make it through college sustainably does not?
So I have only one way I think would be acceptable to everyone in order to deal with the excess loans: every year private schools get billions of dollars of taxpayer funds, so just take that money and put it towards paying down a certain number of student loans, and stop giving any public money to private schools. Then, once all the student loans are paid back (of course this would imply there would be no further government subsidized student loans given because if they need to be forgiven then obviously people can't be trusted with them) we can take back that several billion dollars every year and reduce the total budget.
A lot of the private schools receiving public money are sitting on massive endowments, so for some reason for example Harvard gets something like 800 million dollars a year from the federal government. With their billions of dollars of endowments, they can run their own institution.
It's also key, my argument that if we do forgive student loans and we should end government funded student loans. At that point student loans can either be doled out by the Banks based on the likelihood of people working in certain majors successfully getting jobs and paying off the loans, or by having a parent co-sign for the loan and if the student fails to pay back their student loans then it will be the responsibility of their parent. Unlike the massive risk of putting all of society on the line for a few people's student debts, then it would leave the responsibility on the banks or the parents to ensure that loans are paid back.
It's got to be tough going from getting paid to send annoying emails bothering the only people who are still at work every so often to actually having to go to work like everyone else.
I feel for them. Sounds like a real tough life.
I feel for them. Sounds like a real tough life.
It's ironic that a lot of these people think that they're going to be on "the right side of history", when anyone with an eighth of a brain would realize just how stupid all of it is.
History will remember this era as the dumbest era in all of history, and at the rate we're going, it may look at it that way through the lens of fundamentalist Islam.
History will remember this era as the dumbest era in all of history, and at the rate we're going, it may look at it that way through the lens of fundamentalist Islam.