It’s not hard to clock a thesis as wrong and ignore the rest of the essay. Pretty arrogant of you to assume the problem is me.

Either way, have fun yelling at people on the internet how wrong they are about something abstract and purely theoretical.

^ did not read past the question. Guarantee it’s alarmist garbage about how we’re definitely going to die because of some imaginary numbers were living fine with.

Hey man, get off your high horse a little and I might start taking you seriously.

You really like the black and white arguments, don’t you?

Controlling a source of money doesn’t mean the only option is to print so much of it that inflation eats the whole economy.

Let me ask you this: if the US is so bad at managing the debt it owes to its people, how come we have functioned as an economy under that debt for the last several decades?

That’s the point. It’s entitlement when poor people do it. It’s “the fair share that they deserve” when they do it. If conservatives didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have standards at all.

I recommend lemmy.world to my low tech friends and lemm.ee to everyone else. Lemm.ee is great. Only reason I’m on my lemmy.world alt right now is because lemm.ee is having some server issues that are getting resolved this weekend

Not for the corporations that make money off of extorting a basic necessity from poor people! Won’t someone think of the corporations?

News used to be 60 minutes just after prime time. Now they have whole channels with news 24/7/365. Have to fill all that air time with something

There is a voice I consciously control, and there is one that I don’t. They kind of intermingle into a single monologue, but I can still hear the one I don’t control when I consciously turn off my monologue. It’s still a quiet presence almost in the back of my mind.

One way I’ve rationalized it, it’s like when you meditate and your thoughts still flow over you. You don’t actively control those thoughts, that’s kind of the point. I’m finding that those thoughts have a coherent voice for me. They speak through my monologue, but they are still there when I shut my monologue off. Under the surface, quieter, with the rest of the thoughts I don’t control.

One of the “constantly” group here. It’s a bit more like having someone to talk to all the time who is also me. I can turn it off, but it has to be a concentrated effort and as soon as I’m not concentrated on keeping it silent it comes back.

I’ve spent many years wondering at the nature of the little voice, especially after I learned that not everyone has it. It’s not controlling or contradictory, it’s a bit more like a narrator for my feelings and a driving point for logic.

I’ve come to the conclusion that what it actually is is my subconscious manifesting as a conversational partner. Kind of like an avatar that represents the part of me that isn’t the literal point of consciousness inside my head. Make of that what you will.

Don’t get me wrong, I still think in pictures and non-verbal inclinations. That doesn’t really go away either. But it’s like having a narrator alongside it that also speaks in the first person.

I know you’ve probably heard this about a dozen times by now, but…

Don’t join Facebook.

They track everything they can about you, down to how long you spend looking at something on your screen. I’m fairly certain they listen to what’s going on around you if you put the app on your phone. An ad for something I’ve mentioned in passing has popped up on my feed shortly later too many times to be a coincidence.

They follow you around on your browser, too. They know what you shop for. It’s all specially tailored to sell you their ads.

I keep an account to stay in touch with my family, and it’s appalling how much more information they get from you than any other app. Not to mention the heavy prevalence of MAGA hats and I’ll-kill-you-before-I-consider-your-opinion conservatives.

Instagram isn’t much better, but at least the people there are nicer.

Anyone reading this thread and genuinely interested in it should go listen to the dollop podcast. It’s American history, mostly between the 1500’s and now. But the different episodes they do are stuffed full of this kind of faulty logic from the past.

Look into the death of George Washington. His doctor responded to what could have been a mild cold by taking a liter of blood 4 separate times from him. Washington very well could have recovered if he was just left alone.

Oh, and the doctor somewhat realized his mistake and tried to put some of the blood back after(!) Washington expired, with the logic that if blood loss killed him giving it back should revive him.

So yeah. Pumping blood back into a dead man. That was done on the founding president of the United States.

Was listening to an American history podcast (the dollop) about the radium girls. They wore uranium infused lipstick because it glowed and they thought it was cute. They licked their fingers regularly to help apply uranium dust to things.

While their male supervisors were wearing full lead suits totally for no reason and let those girls do that.

Many of them lost their jaws. There was a suit filed that they won, but every single one of those girls died before they could collect the money.

The suit led to a law establishing workers’ safety rights, so it wasn’t all bad. But that law was definitely written in those girls’ blood.

My argument was that you can’t claim the moral high ground based on legality alone. I understand that nuance exists in the context, but moral high ground does not come from whether or not it’s legal.

I see what you’re getting at, but I think ‘moral high ground’ might not be the phrase you’re looking for.

Laws and morals are explicitly different. That’s why juries exist, so that a law may be put against the morals of a situation and the morals may prevail if need be.

Breaking the law isn’t necessarily immoral. It’s just illegal. So it isn’t like someone breaking the law is seeking to take the moral high ground in the first place, nor does that mean that someone who only ever follows the law always has the moral high ground. Lawful-evil does exist.

Ok, I understand this now. The reddit post this post is based on came on the heels of another post where an actual father disowned his actual daughter and then took the money he promised her for college and left her out to dry, while giving all of her siblings the same amount. There are several people discussing that incident on the linked post, but this is not that. It’s just a post about fathers disowning their children.

I guess that’s my bad. That guy was an asshole. I’m not trying to say all dads who do that are assholes. I guess based on the first two comments on this thread chain, I thought we were talking about that guy.

I’m tired of words being put into my mouth. I could clarify my stance again, but I don’t think I care enough.

I didn’t say boundaries shouldn’t exist. I’m was actively arguing that we are not all the same. I understand perfectly what he meant by the difference between love as a feeling and as an action, and feel that the distinction is irrelevant in the context. You don’t have to agree with me, I’m not looking for approval.

Besides all that, none of it has to do with the original purpose of this thread before it went off on a tangent, which is that the situation in question is fucked. No interpretation of boundaries or conditional love fits into the fact that he rescinded a life changing gift upon learning she wasn’t his, after he loved her like a father for 19 years.

I sympathize with his situation. What he did was misdirect his pain at his kid, which is shitty either way.

Insisting on your own definition doesn’t really do anything other than show (again, for the third time now) that you believe love has limitations as to who deserves it.

You love differently. I’ve already made my points. You’re free to love or not love your children as you wish, but stating something as broad as ‘all love is conditional’ is getting into the territory of deciding what love is for everybody. If you can’t grasp why that’s ridiculous, I can’t help you.

I’m not interested in continuing this increasingly circular argument. Agree to disagree.

Regardless of what either of us defines love as, it’s pretty hard to argue that what that man did to a child he spent years raising was justified. Even if love is conditional, there’s still a line where it turns from simply not loving that person into active spite. That girl did nothing to lose his love except discover at the same time he did that they weren’t related. If that’s his condition for loving her, as I said to begin with, he didn’t actually love her.

In any case, I try to make it a point to not say the same things over and over when arguing on the internet, because it just leads to a lot of wasted time. So if you’ve got nothing more to add than insisting on the same points you’ve made multiple times now, you’ll forgive me if this is where I stop responding.

You are a god among men

This is the natural progression of the games-as-a-service model. Any game that relies on online support of some kind just to function will eventually cease like this.

Is it stupid that a vr game about a pet relies on online support to function? Absolutely. But it is what it is. Buy more offline games.