Badass_panda @ Badass_panda @lemmy.world

Posts

10

Comments

245

Joined

2 yr. ago

You can just say your parents gave you an entire apartment building when you turned 18.

I moved out and went no contact with my parents on my 17th birthday... but I would love to be able to give my kids the kind of help my parents didn't give me.

The idea is that Karen doesn't get veto power over construction and we have enough housing for all.

That's a very good idea, it's what I've been harping about in my other comments. You don't fix this issue by demonizing people for buying houses, you identify the reason there aren't enough houses in the first place and go after that.

San Francisco allowing property owners (whose houses have skyrocketed in value) to block any kind of dense housing being built is the reason SF is so utterly fucked.

I mean, it's a bit tough for me to see it that way. Having wealthy parents who can use the leg up they intend to give you in life as a way of manipulating you into doing and being what they want, and that's gotta suck.

At the same time, you can cut ties with them and you end up in the same position a lot of us start in: having to do it on your own. You've got a choice that other people don't, it's difficult for me to see that as a disadvantage.

I listed them in another comment in reply to the question... i wasn't even including the Lisbon protocol, wild.

Yes of course... Russia acknowledged Ukraine's borders and territorial integrity when:

• Ukraine was admitted to the UN in 1945 with its current borders (which Russia could have vetoed).
• Ukraine's sovereign status and territorial integrity were guaranteed in the Belovezha Accords in 1991, which recognized the dissolution of the USSR and the borders and sovereignty of the former member states.
• Ukraine agreed to transfer control of its 4,700 nuclear weapons to the Russian Federation in exchange for guarantees by the US, UK, and Russian Federation that they would not threaten to use (or use) military force against Ukraine... in the Budapest Memorandum in 1996.
• Russia specifically recognized Ukraine's sovereignty in Crimea when Ukraine agreed to lease it military bases there (and split the Black Sea fleet, stationed in Crimea, 50/50 in 1997) in the Partition Treaty.
• The two countries agreed not to declare war on one another, to treat each other's territory as inviolable and to prohibit the use of military force to resolve any future territorial disputes in the same year's Treaty of Friendship.
• Russia agreed to "final borders" in January 2003 (which include Crimea, Kherson, etc)
• As you know, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014; they signed a ceasefire in 2015 once again confirming Ukraine's territorial integrity, but this was almost immediately violated, so I'm not sure I'd even count it.

Hope it helps. The three that were top of mind for me were 1991, 1996, and 2003.

I mean... I can't see any issue with NATO not stopping Ukraine from invading its own territory... the territory the UN recognizes as part of Ukraine... and which Russia signed three separate treaties promising to respect as part of Ukraine.

Is it unfair that having wealthy parents gives you an advantage in life?

Yeah, it is... buy that doesn't make it unethical for parents to help their kids, it means the society has to improve the safety net.

Market speculators are a symptom of the problem, not the root cause. God knows "people giving their kids money for a downpayment" certainly isn't the root cause.

The foundational issue is that many high demand markets have artificial limitations on the amount of housing, and it's easier and more profitable for real estate developers to shit out mcmansions in the suburbs than denser housing where it's needed.

Demand keeps going up because the population keeps going up, while supply is focusing on fulfilling only the luxury end of the market.

That's really not technically true. The term "nepotism" originated from Catholic bishops and popes granting their unqualified nephews lucrative positions in the church ... it's always been seen as unethical, and has only been used to describe behavior perceived as unethical.

The dictionary definition of nepotism is "favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship."

This is a troubling signal of income inequality and social immobility, sure -- but it isn't nepotism.

I hate this term ... giving your kids money to help them start out on their own isn't nepotism, it's parenting.

Nepotism is when you violate a responsibility you have to a third party (e.g., your employer) to act impartially in their interests, in order to benefit your family.

Is the idea that parents should donate their money equally to everyone's kids? This makes no sense.

It's potentially worse than useful and actively confusing.

Welcome to philosophy! I'd recommend reading Spinoza, he lays it out very intelligently.

It's simultaneously a way of disproving the existence of God (he was kicked out of his Jewish community and hounded around Europe by the Catholics for his atheism), and a way of replacing it with the concept of the infinite / of the universe. Lends itself to meditation and contemplation, but not to any kind of religious dogma.

BTW, the concept has nothing to do with love, or the fundamental aspect of humanity, etc. It's just infinite extension, which encompasses every aspect of humanity, and of everything else.

No, I'm an atheist... I hear what you're saying, but this kind of person pops up all the time, some even on this thread iirc.

Think of the kind of person who, without thinking critically about it or making any attempt to understand it, blindly starts sentences with, "Science teaches us ___". No ability to differentiate scientific theory from pseudo scientific nonsense, and glad to half-remember something they learned poorly in high school to justify "through science" whatever crappy thing they want to do.

Think if many an intel screed about "females" and "evolutionary psychology" or the pseudo scientific racism of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

"Yes, but that's not actually science," I hear you say. Yes, that's the point; it's jumbled up dogma in service of being a dickhead, which is what I mean by "treating science like religion."

I have a more complicated answer these days than I used to... the short answer is "no," but the caveats make it longer.

I don't believe in a god in the sense of an all knowing human type being that has thoughts and wishes and passes down commandments -- basically, not the religious kind of God.

At the same time, I appreciate a lot of the Jewish traditions I grew up with, and Judaism has a lot more lassitude around what "God" means to you. To me, it's Baruch Spinoza's conception of God ... basically, just "the universe," of which each person is an integral part.

So in a "college freshman on acid feeling one with the universe," kind of way, sure I believe in God. In a, "He got upset I masturbated way," then no, not at all.

It became the de jure culture war issue. People who didn't care before, do now -- because now it's a team sport.

Yeah, prickly pears are tuna fruit, from the tuna cactus

Ditto

Yeah, I did a bit of poking around, check this out. Till the tuna canneries started showing up in the early 1900s in California, "tuna" was just as likely to prefix "cactus" as "fish".

Mystery solved I think

There is, yes ... that's the main Spanish name for prickly pear.

Up until around 1907, your odds of encountering the fruit by the name "tuna" were about the same as the fish, when the first commercial canneries started to pop up in California... hence, a habit of clarifying between the two that stuck, even though most folks outside of the southwest had never heard of a tuna cactus.

I order a tuna salad sandwich or a tuna sandwich, but I grew up hearing tuna fish... specifically in reference to the stuff that came in a can.

Both were equally common years ago but over time, "tuna" sans fish has won out... likely because fresh, non canned tuna is very common.

I read an article a while ago that theorized the reason for Americans calling it "tuna fish" was that it rose to prominence as a canned staple good in the 1940s, and many Americans who didn't live on the coasts had never heard of tuna before. Its light meat, when canned and cooked, was very mild and chicken-y compared with the heavily salted, oily canned fish folks were familiar with, hence both "chicken of the sea" and the precaution of labeling the can with not only tuna, but "fish".

I think an alternate explanation is probably more likely... the 1919 Oxford English Dictionary describes "Tuna" as an alternative spelling of "tunny", the old name for the fish (still used in a culinary sense in Britain) ... not coincidentally:

• Californians would also have been familiar with the other tuna... tuna fruit, the prickly pear.
• Possessed of both a fruit and a fish of the same name, distinguishing one from the other when canning fish seems reasonable
• The largest canneries of tuna (e.g., the one that ultimately became Chicken of the Sea) were all based in California.

Ok... "science" is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

So it requires empirical data, a theory you can test (and disprove), attempts to disprove it, and the ability to use that theory to correctly prove future events.

Philosophy and historiography are studies; they seek to explain and understand systematically, but without predictive power or falsifiability. They aren't sciences.

Morality is a subjective, personal and interpersonal phenomenon; it's not something you can have a science of. You can study the way people think about morality, but there is no science of morality.

There have, however, been lots of pseudo-scientific movements and appeals to "science" by people who want to make their goals seem "scientific" and therefore non-evil and totally rational. Eugenics is a good example.

Sure, science is amoral, but that's got nothing to do with truth.

I mean, it does from a moral philosophical standpoint I suppose, insofar as using science to justify your actions as moral is usually as misplaced as using religion to do so.

The issue with OP is that more or less any clever religious person is able to retain their belief that their religion is valid and instructs them to do [whatever they wanted to do anyway] while accepting the validity of science, too.