KombatWombat

Yes, people often overlook that evil (in the form of suffering) exists in our world without free will as a cause when trying to respond to the problem of evil like this. Why would our world be designed to require suffering? And even if we were willing to concede that the ideal world should have some suffering, surely it should have less than this one, right?

Also, this response takes for granted that free will exists when most people in my experience concede that we live in a deterministic world. So if some version of free will exists that people nonetheless act predictably, and have their nature pre-determined rather than chosen, why would an omnipotent, all-knowing, benevolent god not choose a nature for them that would avoid inflicting suffering in their expression of free will? I haven't found a good answer to these, if one is even possible.

I still upvote it, but now it's ironically.

This doesn't even need to be for a crime if you consider eminent domain. And all industries still face regulation in a capitalist nation like the US, meaning industry is only given as much leeway as the state allows.

Private "ownership" is an exaggeration for convenience; the office building you own may still be searched without permission or notice if you are suspected of a crime, it may be seized if you are late with paying taxes or simply do not maintain it, you may not own mineral rights or the right to restrict aviation above it, and you need the approval of the local government to make certain construction projects on it.

The definitions I hear for socialism could often apply to the US or any other capitalist nation.

You understand the person they were replying to used their own anecdotal observation to characterize liberals in general, right? They were providing counterexamples.

You can rebind a/d to strafe left/right instead. Most players do.

For me, we primarily spent time bagging groceries until a decent number of wayward carts built up. Then we would collect them until there were only a few stragglers that weren't worth collecting by themselves and go back to bagging. Nowadays it would probably be gathering stuff for instacart orders instead.

Yes, and actually with low amounts of money to work with you can make your contributions very efficient. To best spend save for retirement, choose the first option from this list that applies to you (and if you are able to save more later, go down the list after exhausting each option):

• 401k up to maximum company match
• pay off high-interest (>4%) debt
• IRA up to the contribution limit
• investment-type HSA up to the limit
• max out 401k contribution
• personal investment account without tax advantage

For most people, it's recommended to use a traditional 401k and a Roth IRA, but it varies by situation. As for what to invest in, I would recommend a popular low cost ETF or index fund, like Vanguard or SPY. You can also look into ESGs if you want to do good with your money, but your expected earnings may be lower. I'm in ETHO and TICRX.

You might check out [email protected] or [email protected] if you have questions about getting started.

They charge that much because you're willing to pay that much. If it isn't worth it, don't buy it. Simple as.

Yup, this and some spicy potato soft tacos are my regular order. Comes out to around 200 calories per dollar, which is pretty good value.

People should be appointed based on what the people elected you to do, anything else is a betrayal of the constituents. If someone voted for you because they believed you would reschedule cannabis, and you don't get it done, that is a betrayal of your voters.

Yes, but "what the people elected you to do" isn't as straightforward as you make it out to be. Yes, in this case, it means working to get cannabis legalized. But that doesn't mean by any means necessary. You would certainly lose supporters if you specified legalizing it would require jeopardizing future access to other prescriptions or undermining the procedural standards set by Congress and earlier administrations. The people are electing a president to influence the direction of government, not a tyrant to remake it.

And then they will face electoral consequences.

Re-election prospects represent a deterrent, but only a purely reactive one in a system of checks and balances. Constitutional restrictions are better since by design they preemptively address overreach. Namely, the president has to work with other branches to get policy changed. Also, particularly drastic action can result in ending their current term early through impeachment.

Israel instigated the conflict by...

I was not trying to say history started on Oct. 7. In fact, my point was that the history of it started long before Biden's administration and limited how much control he had over it. And you may argue that completely withdrawing support would limit Israel's options. I frankly think that giving Israel nothing to lose would make them attack with less discrimination than they do now, assuming Biden was even willing to face the massive amount of pushback for that in the first place. Because calling back to your earlier point, that would definitely be against the will of the majority of his constituents.

The western allies who gave up Austria and Czechoslovakia were expecting consequences; they were expecting Hitler (and Poland, who also got territory from Czechoslovakia) to invade their common enemy, the USSR.

Is this true? It's hard for me to believe that two major European powers wanted to stand idly by while a rival power (especially for France given their history) conquered much of Eastern Europe just on the hope it would end up fighting another rival power. Especially since they already had justification to keep Germany declawed from the Treaty of Versailles, and later chose to go to war when it came to the invasion of Poland, which the USSR was much more likely to care about and start a war over.

But this is in support of those people. The tweet is responding to people who believe these behaviors are something that is considered worthy of judgement, and are advocating that they should be exempted. This tweet is instead saying they already are and have been. So no validation has ever been needed, and if you felt otherwise, you were wrong. So you can feel free to do this and likely other things you felt self-conscious about because nobody cares.