Lurker123 [he/him]

What? The reason I ask is to try to get a better understanding of the principal backing up the stance you took. I was trying to understand if it was life-maximizing with no qualifiers (i.e. irrespective of whose life was risked), which is how it read to me in your other responses in the thread. But I wasn’t sure, since you also said like 99.99% of the time, the burglar wouldn’t attack you if you announced, which could mean there was a heavily qualified principal.

So, I asked the hypothetical to try to figure out what your underlying motivating principal is here, as it filters out the noise of the 99.99% example. It was in no way meant to “entice fascist sentiment.”

Me personally? No, I would lock my door and call the police. I would not go out and try to confront the burglar, but I wouldn’t also call out to them and say “oh btw I’m here and armed.”

I think you are confusing yourself by thinking of a typical burglary - I.e. a burglary where the burglar has done what they can to make sure people aren’t home (e.g. struck during work hours, saw the mail piling up and came when the person was on vacation, etc.)

But that’s not the situation being contemplated here. The OP specified a nighttime break in. This is the opposite of your standard burglar - they’ve struck when people are the MOST likely to be home.

Of this subset, what percentage have doing something bad to you in mind? Or more to the point, at what % are you morally obligated to not take actions against them? Let’s say 49% of the time does the nighttime breakin burglar actually intend you physical harm. Do you have to eat it at those numbers? (I’m asking genuinely, since you seem to have a strong moral intuition here. From your other post, you said you couldn’t put a value on human life, so the only other value I have here is the resident’s life. In the 49/51 example, since it’s more likely than not that there’s no harm intended, this maximizes the amount of lives).

This saga is boring drama.

Here, let me link it to the previous drama: shouldn’t this be in the dredge tank? I think this is a violation of rule 8 to be posted here.

I don’t think descriptivist is really operating on a normative level. It is not taking the position people/society ought not try to shape the language. It is simply recognizing the reality that the meaning of a word in language is (*insert specific branch here - but often it is something like “common usage”).

Wow OP, you’re telling me that a rule that, per your Wikipedia article, originated in a 2019 paper, has had a “near” perfect record since 1970? That’s crazy!

The crazy part is, of course, that the record isn’t actually perfect.

I wonder if the people commenting on these Internet forums would be slightly older than the target demo for SpongeBob.

This was not a good comment to read directly after sipping coffee

Idk why the movies cut out the part where the empire sent semen retrieval droids to the wreckage of the Death Star.

Uphold BNB thought.

I feel like the bigger a company is, the easier it would be to nationalize. A nationalized Ticketmaster/livenation would be pretty cool I think.

That’s just the dying gasp of the miasma leaving your body. The migraines are how you know it is working.

Has plastic surgery gone too far??

No, but seriously, microplastics are horrifying.

Sorry, I’m not sure I’m following. Are you saying “if, in exchange for its cash, the government receives real property, it is not a bailout. In contrast, if the government receives securities, then it is.”?

To be sure, I think China’s bailout of the real estate sector is good here - if developers are slow rolling the construction of homes because they need to sell their inventory first, then purchasing the inventory (or having SoE do so, as the case may be) is good. But that doesn’t have anything to do with whether it is a bailout.

Apologies, I’m not sure I’m following your point here. Please correct me if I’m misinterpreting you (which is definitely possible). Are you saying “the government purchasing inventory from a business (for the purpose of helping that business/industry) that is struggling to sell that inventory is only a bailout if that business would have gone bankrupt but for the government’s purchase. If that business would have survived, then it is not a bailout.”?

You don’t actually believe what you wrote, right? Because back in 2008, the US bought 60% of GM’s stock and over a trillion in mortgage backed securities (the bad debts that destroyed the bank’s books). Yet, this was clearly a bailout, despite the fact that the US received property in exchange for its cash.

Won’t landlords simply pass through this increased cost to tenants?

Are people still commissioning expensive art? I would have thought AI would have eaten their lunch.

What is the tax advantage of the holding LLCs? Is it some state tax thing? For US federal income tax purposes, assuming these were wholly owned, they would be disregarded entities.

Colorful fabric fluttering in wind = neurons activate.