ComradePenguin

joined 3 weeks ago
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, I am very aware of it being like death. My point is that we were never alive at all. We have no consciousness because of determinism, we follow a path that cannot be changed. That's why teleportation is not a problem from a deterministic atheist standpoint.

However I do fully acknowledge that I can not live like that. I live as if I have free will, because that is the easiest and most comfortable way to live. Beside nature / nurture arguments of course, I don't dismiss those.

[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago

You should check out the movie Hardcore Henry ๐Ÿ˜‰

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Well the person being teleported would cease to exist. If life is deterministic then there is no consciousness, just a predetermined path. So my argument is basically that you don't exist anyways, and by that extension teleportation is not a problem, because the copy is not alive either.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

What is death? If everything is deterministic, then there is no consciousness. If there is no consciousness, then no death and a copy is pretty much exactly the same

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Can you elaborate?

[โ€“] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (21 children)

I think teleportation is a really interesting philosophical question. If life is deterministic and there is no soul, then there should be no problem with teleportation. From a deterministic atheist perspective it should not be a problem, I wouldn't teleport myself though ๐Ÿ˜…

[โ€“] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Not christian, but I would assume the cross is a reminder of Jesus dying for our sins.

[โ€“] [email protected] 21 points 3 days ago

I grew up with The Legend of Zelda. "Well excuuuuuuse me, princess"

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago

People sometimes cheat, not okay, but it happens. Most likely the marriage wasn't going so well, and he got some attention he wanted from someone else. Your mother is hurt and angry. But she does not have the right to deny your continued contact and bond with your dad.

There is no good reason mentioned in your post to end your relationship with your dad to end.

However, how the divorce is handled is more important in my opinion. If he in some major way makes sure she gets a bad unfair deal, then things are different. If he not only cheats, but also does not share in a fair manner, then he is really hurting your mother in a way that is harder to accept.

[โ€“] [email protected] 31 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Most importantly, consenting adults. She is not even just barely an adult anymore. Not letting a 30 year old woman decide for herself is infantilizing.

Have fun and enjoy yourselves!

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It depends as most things. I think ultimately a divorce should make sure things are fair. Unless there was attempts to hide funds or something like that, the wealth acquired throughout the marriage should be split 50/50. A cheating spouse or anything like that is no reason for an uneven split. There should not be any additional financial pressure to stay in a marriage, than losing the advantage of having twice the wealth. (Bigger house etc)

If one party made more money than the other, still 50/50. That's what is actually fair. A socialist/communist approach. Everyone knows deep in their heart, what is fair. Capitalism and wage differences already sucks, don't bring it into the marriage and the divorce, especially if kids are involved.

If there is kids involved, then It is also extremely petty to try to cheat your spouse out of a fair deal during divorce. It's the parent of your children for fucks sake!

Cheating sucks, but is not a reason to retaliate financially.

Edit: Alimony / Spousal support is one of the many ways to make things continue to be fair afterwards. I am positive if children is involved

[โ€“] [email protected] 45 points 6 days ago

To not support USA financially

 

Reminder: If this is unpopular, then upvote!

Every argument against socialism can be dismantled and solved somehow. It just requires that you dream, imagine a better world. That you are a little idealistic and optimistic.

If you think it would reduce innovation: State funded startups, requirement is that the company is democratically controlled by the employees, and that the employees own the company, or that the state owns 49% of it. Or some other split between state, founder and employees.

If you think this is a bad idea, then maybe you can imagine something else? Or some middle ground between today's brutal capitalist solution and the thing I proposed?

People would just use up all the resources even if they don't need it. Okay, then we limit the consumption per person. Or we still have some money, and you buy the luxuries with that money. So that people still have to prioritize.

Also, if you think a planned economy is bad, what would you call the logistics and planning of Amazon, or even Temu (Just the logistics and planning part, not quality)? It is possible to plan for needs. You just start with making the basic services free, and gradually adds more options of products and services. You track trends in consumption and increase or decrease based on demand.

Socialism or communism isn't a finished ideology, we don't have a template. Establishing systems would take creativity and thorough planning. So yours and everyone else's imagination would shape that future.

 

As fascism is rising in parts of the world, I have begun to wonder how China considers socialists/communists from other countries, as a contingency plan if all else fails.

Communism is barely within the overton window in many western capitalist countries, this can change in the future.

I am from a northern european country, so the country is a social democracy, but slowly becoming more right leaning and economically libertarian.

Edit:I highly doubt I would have any reason to move in the future, but I am kinda curious by nature. I also have it really comfortable, and do not fear any political prosecution.

 
 

I have always been a leftie, and sympathetic to socialism.

I live in a social democratic nordic country. Capitalism is the economic system.

I have thought that I should act like an economically rational entity, and make good financial decisions. Regardless of my beliefs.

I have bought an apartment with my wife, and we have started invested a significant portion in index funds to prepare for retirement in the future.

We both work ethical jobs that contribute positively to society. This was a requirement for the both of us.

Our rationalisation is that we should not sacrifice our own lives that significantly, but instead be politically active, donate a significant amount of money to the socialist party and educate people. We can contribute to change, but by not participating in the capitalist economy, we will hurt ourselves in the long run, without actually changing anything.

We have no plans of becoming "rich" by our country's standard. But the end goal is living off the pension from the government and our investments in the future.

I just feel that it is a contradictory way of living life, but we at least try to support socialist causes a lot more financially.

 
 
 

Yes, I know there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.

I still need material gods and services. How can I make the necessary purchases more ethical?

Edit: I live in Northern Europe, if that matters

view more: next โ€บ