ideonek

Great argument agianst army, healthcare, roads and bridges, electrification, police, firefighters…

“The gov that is doing its job, can stop doing its job” scary music

By that logic we should ban umbrellas.

All reasoning must crumble before one prime directive: The richest can only get richer. No matter the cost.

Oh, they learned. We thought them that no one will be accountable and that the greediest will be bailed out and continue to get richer and richer. We are keeping jackals in our house, and we are giving them a pat on the head and a tasty treat every time they bite our children.

Hm? I feel like a lot of people said he did a lot of fucking things wrong.

1. I would be very cautious with min-maxing charity. It’s a path to Effective Altruism logic, which is a trap that lead to some weird trolley-problem-like eugenic-happy-pseudorationale. Stay away.

2. In a lifetime timeline I think that tremendous positive change could be created by teaching children recognize they emotion and regulate them. It have proven impact on… Well basicly everything. From addiction,/suicide/self-harm preventrion to things like akademic/work/artistic/cognitive performance or self-motivation or overall level of happiness. There is no area that wouldn’t improve and all those amazing people would generate amazing outcomes.

3. in shorter horizon, and for people who already are adults… And I think about it a lot, we should create an “audio-first learning platform”. Start with open source lectures and quality courses. Maybe ad an app that show you visuals or test only when absolutely necessary. But we need something that will easli slow you to learn WHILE, you are doing meaningless task that you need to, do to survive. Something that you can use while doing house chores, work on assembly line or as delivery person, something you can listen discreetly in your non-suportive envirement… Podcast and audio books are on massive raise. E-learnign was on a.massive raise (until they all went public or private and turn to shit in a chase for profit). There is a need and there is a demand. Technologicaly it’s very achievable. And “any phone and any headphones” is as small entry threshold one could ask for. We have the ships that could get as to the stars allredy, we just need the crew.

4. eddit: or help Hank an John eliminate tuberculosis completely - its fucking embaresing to have those.

With a few exceptions, you’re confusing cause and effect.

They drew QR code by hand. Do we realy think the ease was a factor here?

Well, I was against the idea, but now you got me thininiking.

Bro…

That’s why “Silence of the lamb” is so funny.

If you wonder what word is behind the pipe, it’s “cock”.

False dichotomy.

Also, read Witcher. It have like 9 books about it.

Wow, dude. He’s your elected representative.

Things Trump do to stop people from talking about Epstein…

Personally? It was based on things you said. We allready discused it, right? And it was the only thing to.me that made sense. At least than you’d be understandably wrong, instead of stubbornly wrong. If you understand that before the campaign walking on the streets was normal and perfectly leagal and the capaign stigmatized it as a simpletons behavior of irresponsible people, than I honestly don’t understand what is the hill you chose to die on.

Yes, those are not the same and that’s exactly the point.

2nd one is me trying to understand your perspective and assumimg that you asses the irresponsibility of wondering into trafic must comr from the modern perspective in accordance with modern standards (existing traffic laws and road culture) - reality after PR campaign.

1st one is pointing out that that traffic laws and road culture were different back then, and.we.can’t even talk about “wondering into” traffic anymore than we could talk about “wondering into sidewalk” - reality before PR campaign.

Those two not being the same is the result of PR campaign changing one state of round culture to another by stigmatizing being a pedestrian on the street. That’s the problem we are discussing.

Come on.

(Man, I’m regretting biting after it was obvious this conversation is going nowhere. This time I’m truly out. Feel free to have your last word, but - hopefully - I’ll not address it)

Hmm? Now I’m honestly confused. What is the thing I said that I claim I didn’t say?

We are clearly not moving toward convincing eachother to anything even a bit, so let’s stop here. Have a great day, Ulrich.

To be clear, your position is that “stupid person walked into the traffic” and “it’s that person fault” are two different things? You grasp the tiniest of straws. (You accused me of ad hominem, look up motte-and-bailey)

But even beside that you miss the point entirely. What I tried yo explain you there was that there was no “into the traffic” there. People didn’t “wonder” on the streets. They were just there. Like today they are on the sidewalk. People were the rule cars were the exception. If electric scooter run into the pedestrian, you don’t defoult into “the pedestrian was likely ignorant”. Imagine scooter manufacturers start to call people involved in the accidents like this something like “loonies” or “zombies” until the legislation that people can walk only directly beside the curb is passed… And 10 years from that somene like you will argue “but skipping across the entire sidewalk is ignorant and careless. Term loonie sounds accurate to me”.