Southkraut
A tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
All alliterations are accidental.
User ID: 83
Certainly the best in terms of writing. Could have been for gameplay, but even ignoring its age-related issues (mostly poor UX) it seems like a lot of potential was wasted by questionable balance and pacing and underpowered AI.
True, but who will admit that they were wrong?
If only it actually worked. Doesn't for me, anyways.
Prorussians: "We told you the Ukies did it!"
Proukrainians: "And they were right to do it!"
Nothing changes.
I think you have a point. There should be some normalization of our cultural relation to death. That we struggle against it so unconditionally probably makes us more afraid of it and worse at dealing with it than we otherwise might be.
But with that said, I wouldn't want to actively encourage the elderly to die. In my view we owe them a debt of gratitude for their lifetimes of hard work and self-sacrifice, and if they don't want to die, we shouldn't push them.
We all probably have at least one friend or relative who is an all around good person, but just awful at managing money. I don't think that person should end up so destitute that "dying from exposure" is a real risk.
They aren't. And outside of soviet republics, true shitholes or countries undergoing historic catastrophes, nobody fitting that description ever was. Dying from exposure in the middle of the street takes multiple levels of failure, requires burning every safety net there is one by one. Just failing at money is not enough - friends and family are still there. Unless someone lost and/or alienated all of them, which is even more massive a failure than going bankrupt.
But that's just a nitpick; I'm not disputing your larger point.
Which country is she from?
That's certainly a good view for most women to take, but many don't. Many do want irresponsible adventure and indulgent self-actualization and whatever the hell it is that social media has made them want, consequences be damned (or studiously ignored/denied, more likely).
The women who have the foresight to strive for long-term security...are doing fine, as far as I can see. And so do the men they end up with. Stable, reasonable individuals of both sexes abound, as they always have. But they're not universal, and possibly proportionally fewer than they used to.
So does the view that society is endlessly tolerant and supportive of destructive behavior, and the view that society owes a debt to each meritless individual and deserves destructive behavior as a sort of retributive justice. And right now I'm fairly certain that various western societies are failing on the side of being excessively tolerant and enabling.
However, your position of being the one who takes the risks means you deserve additional authority to make up for that. Higher risks, higher rewards; that's just basic fairness.
Not really how the trade works.
Men give the physical self-sacrifice and commercial value, women give the ability to bear children in the first place plus additional care work. Depending on how good either of them are at these things, and how much demand there is for them, the balance of value may favor either party. The willingness to risk life and limb isn't worth a terrible lot in a safe, peaceful first-world country (or one that actively penalizes men who take physical action), noble as it still is when it comes to it. And a deadbeat man who doesn't work won't earn much respect either. Similarly, a woman's biological abilities aren't worth a damn when she doesn't put them use, say through contraception, and her care work needs to actually happpen for it to be counted in her favor.
I think it's entirely fair to look at each case individually to determine whether the man or the woman is more worthy of authority and/or better-suited to exercise it. In most cases it may well be the man, especially in this postmodern age in which most women seem to have been eaten by social media and social contagion.
I suspect that there is a missing demographic on the Motte: married with children. They are too busy to comment here. But I'm guessing that they want the junkies gone.
No, there are many mottizens who are married with children. Myself included.
And yes. I hung with a drug-happy crowd in my youth, though the heroin users were only peripheral to it. Enough people I knew on some level ruined and/or killed themselves through drugs, including an actual friend (of which I never had a lot).
Would I say that the most catastrohpic of them should have simply been made "gone"? Yes, absolutely, before they drag anyone else with them. Sad as it is, those individual lives are not worth the damage they cause. There are certainly edge cases where it may be worthwhile to have a conversation, but it's also by all means possible to drug oneself far beyond salvation and any reasonable expectation of tolerance by others.
And my thought there is not even "it would suck for my friends to have been Duterte'd", but "if only their predecessors' druggie careers had been cut short and the dealers strung up from lampposts, they might not have ruined themselves". I'm certain there will always be some level of drug use regardless of what society does, but a society that tolerates heroin junkies would better be some degree of libertarian. For a nanny-state, it's an embarassment.
I don't. Political opinions are simply social signals. What signal do you want to send? "I am your enemy."?
Truly ethics for dead people.
A gun nut fantasizing about using his collection so badly that he feels the need to bring that much stuff around just shoots himself without actually using much of the hardware? How does that add up?
Crazy people do things that make no apparent sense to outsiders.
Keep him. He's unique.
True enough. There is plenty of low-level bitching and "I sure know better than those ivory tower politicians", but nothing that would have any practical effect.
Serious question: does Europe understand that regulations have costs?
No, it does not.
Any alternate hypothesis has less explanation power.
Depends slightly on whom you ask. There certainly are enough leftists who will tell you to defer to the greater wisdom of the migrants, who after all do not share in our German sins. But generally very much the authorities.
We might, but we know better than to contradict our betters.
Happens in Germany, too, but we don't riot.
Gang fights and urban violence, for what I know, aren't conducted by well-organized militias armed and trained to maximize combat effectiveness. The ready availability of the weapons and their presence in consciousness - what people instinctively think of when thinking of a weapon to bring - will play a much larger role than their actual usefulness in a given fight.
Plus, polearms are fantastically cumbersome to carry around, doubly so indoors or in vehicles.
Pretty wide range of sized available. Depending on your bulk, the bagginess of your clothing and the option of bringing a backpack, I'm very confident most people would be able to conceal something identifiable as a machete on their person, under most circumstances.
Some people like their red meat actually dripping red. Maybe it's similar with fish; though it's by no means necessarily the same people. For myself, it's fresher and juicier and there's less to distract from the taste of the thing itself.
Obviously I do not appreciate sushi soaked in sauces and toppings.
IV is amazing, but I've played it so damn much that every time I launch it, what issues it has just jump right into my face to scream "DOOMSTACKS WILL RUIN YOUR FUN AGAIN!".
Mods for IV are great, but again...the AI just can't keep up with many complex mechanics they add, and the UI can't keep up with the amount of added content, most of the time.
More options
Context Copy link