The population is subsidizing you. Everybody subsidizes everyone. That’s how society works.

UBI raises everyone’s standard of living, both in practice and in theory.

deleted by creator

if morality were dictated to rational agents through an external source, we could not be sure of its objectivity (i.e., universal and necessary validity). Moreover, the notion of an external source that dictates morality conflicts with our being free moral agents. Hence we must legislate ourselves through our own faculty of reason such that the moral law holds objectively for rational agents such as us.

I agree with everything here until the “must” of the last sentence, as it seems to be based on the implication that said free agents care. There are people who do not care for their own wellbeing, or the wellbeing of others. On a subjective basis, they lack the values that objective reasoning would be built on.

To them that “must” is meaningless. Or worse, they view statements such as that as being dictated to them from an external source.

On top of that, we aren’t completely rational, or able to make completely rational conclusions at all times. We can make attempts, sure. But we have biases, we fall into fallacies without realizing, and like I said some of us just don’t care.

Morality can’t be objective if we can’t be objective.

but I’d rather not recapitulate the entire work. If you’re interested, I would read the following entry page on the issue.

I understand not wanting to do that, so all good.

Though. I’m more interested in a discussion than anything else.

Kant thought that the moral law is a duty that is imposed upon the self by reason.

What is the evidence that this thought is true? How do you objectively prove this?

Kant thought that the moral law is a duty that is imposed upon the self by reason.

So how do you evidence that this value is objective?

if everybody lied all the time, then lies would lose their effectiveness.

How does effectiveness of lying have anything to do with the morality of lying?

If I am ineffective at providing for my family (disability/sicknese/other means for which I cannot control), is that immoral?

I do the same, but not because of sales, but because it takes 2-3 years for the high seas to swell with jolly rogers.

10/10 I love this shit

It’s sad that something like it can never happen again because of how everything is streamed/torrented now.

Java is inherently cross platform, and works well on linux. So assuming the phone is powerful enough, you should be good to go even if it’s linux.

Definitely worth checking out Minetest/Luanti though, it has promise.

Switching cost gonna switching cost

Been steeling these from work forever. 10/10 they work great for the kitchen.

Assuming every hinge there is motorized, that’s 6 servos. That looks like a nightmare to calibrate, which it will need to do a lot of if it’s shoved in some backpack for travel on a routine basis.

And the print head looks like a bitch to take apart to service if you get a jam.

yeah im just saying one show does not mean anything.

Nor have I said so. I was giving an example of how the boomers have valued cops, and how they view them.

heck andy griffith was more a small town show than a cop show

Sure, but the underlying effect and message of the show was “hey cops are the good guys, they’ll look out for your family”

I would say cop vs general emergency responder vs hospital/doctor show ratios are not that different today than back when boomers were the main television audience

That’s far better argument. Though I’d say it still misses the mark because even modern cop shows are still meant for an older group. Gen Z isn’t watching those shows. The closest is Brooklyn 99, which is closer to pornography than reality, or an attempt at reality. There’s also true crime, but often the value there is morbid curiosity, not “cops are good”.

Sorry i misread the description of emergency. Let me start over.

Emergency showing how boomers value other emergency services doesn’t negate the point that they value the police, whereas newer generations tend to reject the police.

That’s a nearly 50 year old show. Not exactly the best choice.

If folks got promoted by working hard then folks would value it now but it does not happen

Hence why they loathe it.

Honestly I don’t think the police were valued over firemen or emts.

Things like The Andy Griffith Show seems to suggest otherwise.

How do you ensure people give up their turn?

How do you handle the complexity of providing for millions?

Again I agree. This has been a long time coming, and the two party system isn’t the only cause.

But by and large, the failures of checks in balances within the U.S. has been a result of the failure of implementation, not the core idea.

That’s where they fucked up the implementation. It’s being ignored because 1 party controls all 3 branches of the federal government.

They implemented a voting system that naturally devolves into a two parry system. Checks and balances don’t work when you are the one checking yourself.

Agreed