Yea, it can take your life, your children, your freedom, and your dignity right along with the wealth. You harbor a view of "positive rights", that you are entitled to property that belongs to someone else; positive rights stand in direct conflict with negative rights, things that you are free from, like censorship, or search and seizure. Negative rights create economic cooperation and create robust societies with diverse opportunities, positive rights create bread lines and mass murder.
Hmmm, from a manufacturing prespective this is probably the safest way too, because you have already scaled production, you arent suddenly trying out all these new manufacturing processes when starship enters production. All your processes have been continuously validated already.
Possibly. People tend to speak more callously on the internet than in real life, but I asked a few coworkers about this, all were uncomfortable and one was visibly distressed; I guess thats what happens when someone that hasnt experienced this kind of behavior growing, then suddenly gets a full dose. Its hard to imagine winning anyone over leading with that.
Though, the strategy isnt so much about winning in that arguement, but just trying to get an ugly response, so you are probably right.
Well the bit about bin laden and alqueda is certainly true to my knowledge. The government will only admit to funding the Taliban, not alqueda, but they are on record contributing quite a bit to one of the highest ranking members in alqueda, and its hard to imagine things don't get messy when you start delivering weapons to guerillas.
Unfortunately not off the top of my head, but I know scott horton has discussed it at length, "Enough already" probably has the sauce. I wasnt trying to correct anyone, thats just how I remember the events and was curious if anyone had any input.
you might be right, you should collect more data points, try this class of jokes out on more people and see how funny they find it, you could call women walking birth canals. It should be easy to formulate this comedy; take a broad category of people based on some immutable quality, like skin color, find the least charitable insult you could possibly imagine, like parasite, and see how funny they find it.
I never said you shouldnt engage in humor, I said you shouldnt dehumanize people. Its possible to make a joke without equating an entire population as less than human. Its not productive to nitpick my analogies, I never claimed there was comedy about blacks during slavery, nor jews during the holocaust, you missed the point completely, its not funny to dehumanize people, and its corrosive to your own senses as well as society.
Im on my 4th electric car, every single one has been remarkable in terms of cost, build quality, innovation etc.
If the cybertruck was out a year earlier, I suspect I know a few people driving "gas guzzling" trucks that would have bought that instead, because it would have been cheaper, faster, and in almost every measurable and unmeasurable quality, better.
Why do you think people will forever hold on to ICE? It strikes me that electric cars are a step change in almost every way, maybe the reason people still have ICE is they didnt have a compatible electric alternative at the time.
There are people that legitimately and fully consider babies to be a parasite, maybe you arent one of them. I understand the biological parallels you draw, I understand the need for comedy in dealing with stress; however, I would advise anyone against making jokes that dehumanize people over immutable qualities, I caution you that this behavior is morally corrosive. It may seem acceptable based on current standards, but so would have dehumanizing comedy about blacks in the era of slavery or jews in the holocaust; I wouldnt want to have regrets about how I would have acted in those times.
I get it, based on a variety of medical phenomena, you can draw parallels between an unborn baby and a parasite. If thats your point, then fine, fair enough.
If you seek to use this analysis to push a political agenda, then I am having trouble differentiating the morality between that and slave owners pointing to the shape of skulls based on race. Your explanation is an analogy, parasites dont grow up to eventually provide care for the host, it doesnt sound scientificially accurate to call a baby a parasite based on some of the characteristics. Further, calling a baby a parasite, or anyone for that matter, is an attempt to dehumanize them; dehumanization has been followed by violence in a number of horrific tragedies, but the violence is committed by people who find it justified, because whoever they are killing aren't really people.
Dont take it as derision. Id much rather a cultural exchange with you. I have many friends/family that are pro-choice, in conversation I have never gotten the impression that they would call an undesired baby a parasite, I would say thats rare.
I have a theory as to a clustering of ideas, you could call it a worldview, but its hard to pin down or narrowly define. However, some aspects appear axiomatic; and when you call a baby a parasite, that is an indication that you may share this worldview.
Id be interested in discussing it further. What are its fundamental predispositions, what do you have to assume is correct to adopt this view? What is the point of society?
I would be happy to exchange information on anarchocapitalism if you are interested.
I didnt, and I knew the answer ahead of time. I think thats an insane way of thinking about things, barbaric and cruel, but I would rather parent spells it out and I leave it at that. Its the internet, people can and should say what they really think, im just helping parent get there.
Pick me! I think it would upset people, at least until after dinner has passed. After that, and once people have figured out who has a functional ice maker and whos cars still run, I think its back to the grind.
Is there anything more to your point than "I dont like them so we should steal your money and give it to someone we like more"? I am inclined to agree, these universities are trash, but you not liking them doesnt justify stealing from them.
If it makes you feel better, its credit and debt all the way down. Your money can only be created through the creation of a corresponding debt, for which the money for interest was never created. Its not only the bottom 40% in debt, it's the entirety of human civilization.
An interesting point, I remember hearing of the janissaries, who were slaves, but well trained and equipped; there appear to be instances of those janissaries seizing political power. Relying on a military to maintain power is like a mouse keeping wolves chained up, and using the wolves to control lions. Its far more reliable and economically feasible to control the minds of the populace, as long as you have control over what they see/hear.
I think this is a thing in certain industries. Game development for instance; I feel like the more money a publisher has, the worse the result, and I would argue that one of the factors is an increase in corporate types. There hasnt been so much the implosion of those companies yet, but id wager in the next 5-10 years they will have to majorly trim down or perish.
The corporate influence is too constricting for creative works. I imagine there are many businesses where MBAs make sense, and that any large company needs them.
If you googled kias at any time ever you would have seen they are absolutely riddled with issues. People on HN seem to think buying a car is like designing a CPU or investing in a portfolio of stocks, you could try doing some research.