Hardeehar @ Hardeehar @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

119

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's kind of the mystery, isn't it?

America is special. There's no country with this amount of diversity of culture or people. It's an experiment that works and has kept working.

Prior to having a family, I wasn't nearly as scared. I was absolutely invincible. After having one? You bet your ass I'm scared and willing to protect them at all costs.

I don't think there's any weakness in admitting that.

Edit - also belief has nothing to do with religion in the context I'm using it here. To frame it another way: I have accepted that there is nothing that can be done to remove guns.

I do not believe it's possible to remove the "tools of violence" from the ones who want to cause it. You would only remove them from me, making me less able to defend myself.

I do agree with going after the "root cause" which is exactly as you said it is. Poverty, lack of opportunity, inequality, mental health, etc. These should be addressed as priority. I believe we would see a decrease in violence in general as a whole if proper care was achieved for everyone.

There is a medium somewhere that satisfies (or dissatisfies) both sides of the argument.

I will agree that no guns = no gun violence if you can say it also = no gun defense. If guns take lives, they also preserve and defend them even without firing a shot.

I dont want hurt to come to anyone but it can happen regardless of the best intentions. Media and politicians happily ignore this because they have people with guns standing next to them at all times. I don't have enough money for a personal bodyguard. I do not live across from the police station. I only have myself same goes for my family.

But it doesn't matter.

If you could remove all guns, would you? I wouldn't because I know we would still be faced with the same level of violent people. It'll shift from guns to something else but now, my elderly parents, my wife and I wouldn't be able to defend ourselves apparently. I'll say that children in schools will still be targeted by violent people even without guns.

I lament the loss of life that has been brought by the use of guns. But there must be a way to allow law abiding citizens unrestricted access for defense while removing access to would-be criminals for violence.

If you get your way, I'd like to know how you propose I defend my kin from a person or persons who wish me harm? Because I know you won't be there for me, personally.

I guess, after an instant, all nerves responsible for pain are just vaporized by the lava so it would feel numb or like nothing at all.

I'm guessing he still feels quite dumb, though. Nothing will help that pain go away.

Well...does it matter?

Well, I'd argue that the medical professionals are not the direct cause of death of the patients and are in fact trying to help the patients survive.

This is the opposite of that.

Gorgeous pictures regardless!

Is that a different kind of flute? It's not like one I can recognize.

My grandma called it the doodely-woodely music.

Thank you for the information. I needed some brushing up on all of it.

Finally a good argument, thank you.

I agree that premium splits the percentage of my cash equally and easily but only 55% bugs me. That's an arbitrary number based off of some black box calculation.

I do not trust YouTube to have my or the creators best interest in mind.

If this number was 90% for creators I would consider it fair. The majority of the work comes from creators and is the reason YouTube has any people at its doorstep.

In the meantime, I can still far less effectively make use of my money the way I want to until a better alternative comes around.

I'll just have the sweat it and try harder to be a better consumer, I guess.

What phone or service is this? Not in the states right?

I would be fine if YouTube crumbled and was put into second place by a better platform or two.

Yes it's the best option currently which is why they can do such ridiculous practices.

But once they have actual competition, I expect them to bend over backwards for my attention. Because if they don't change the current trajectory, they'll go the way of the other digital giants of the past.

Do not worry about having a viable platform in a future without YouTube. I am 100% sure there will be one.

I'm not saying you didn't, but your previous comment was about supporting premium which equals supporting a business model that thrives off of hurting creators.

It helps them, sure, but giving to creators directly is the higher road here and that's what should be done instead of buying premium.

I'm just pointing out the vibe in the room here.

Why not pay creators directly through Patreon PayPal or equivalent instead of Google as well?

Oh wow I haven't heard Ebaums in such a long time. So many good laughs on that site during my senior year and undergrad.

Great movie, BTW. What a concept!

Which side did you fall onto, the people keeping the evil at bay, or the ones fighting to live even if it meant the end of the world?

100%

There's absolutely ground to wriggle on here. Maybe let's try to make up a society where this is okay.

I would like to assume in this "perfectly ok to do this society" that the choice is fully open and known to all. As in all people in the society are subject to it. Like a complete random draw.

But then what about innocent people? I would define an innocent as a person who is sinless or hasn't broken the law. Maybe if you try to do something evil you're pardoned from this choice? That doesn't seem right because everyone would do the least minor thing to be considered evil. And children or the neuro diverse might be left out on a huge disadvantage because how would they know what to do to be considered skippable.

Maybe it's an external force working to destroy the planet. Someone has to be killed to stop it. So maybe innocent could just mean has no power over the process, no ability to affect it, no way to be skipped. If it's seen that way, I would be kind of satisfied.

How often does this happen? Once a year? A decade? Every day? Eesh what a thought. What would society be like knowing that you might be randomly chosen to just end on a daily basis. It'd be like winning the anti-lottery.

If someone was chosen, in my model, they would be made known to the planet a while ahead of time, maybe 24 hours. And they would be given a huge life altering sum of money to do with however they please prior to being un-alived. Give it to their family, a charity, whatever.

Their name would be known as a hero of some sort, even if unwillingly so.

The death/torture can't be painless, as the hypothetical implies so maybe there can be like a time limit here? Is this a long time torture thing? That sounds horrible.

Right now, if really feels like I'm trying to make my least favorite thing slightly palatable somehow.

While I see your point, I don't ascribe to the nihilistic point of view that life has no meaning therefore no reason. I find it dark and disheartening. To me, the fact that we can even have this conversation is a miracle and there's a certain happiness I get from knowing that despite my suffering and yours, we are still strangers who can engage in a conversation and have fun with it (I hope this is how you feel, too!).

I'm more of an absurdist. While there may be no end to the suffering, we can still derive pleasure and satisfaction from life. We can enjoy it if we want find ways to, because that's our natural desire, to seek happiness.

If you want to try looking at life like that, then this question becomes MUCH more interesting. Because despite suffering, this society found a way to continue. The question of whether or not it's moral, or how it's moral, depends on if life has meaning.

All questions kind of depend on that, no?