dbsmith83

Missed opportunity for an "on the lamb" pun

You're basically advocating that someone should be on one pole or the other. I think your premise seems dishonest:

First you gave an assumption about an 'unjust' system and explain why not choosing a side is bad, but then later on you say that not choosing a side isn't 'inherently wrong' to try to not seem judgemental. It comes across a little manipulative tbh.

This is a great point. Look at how united America was after 9/11. George W. Bush's approval rating soared. While politics are bitterly divided here, when it comes to an external threat, those divisions will still get put aside (at least for a while). Not much unites a country like a (non-civil) war.

Probably because obesity isn't contagious...

> that principle is a hostility to ID cards and demands from the state to provide them in various circumstances

Can't a bartender legally obligate you to show your id to prove you are old enough to drink? Your argument makes no sense.

Do you know what economic value means? If there was no economic value, then it wouldn't be used.

Your comment sounds like one that will be hilarious in the not-so-distant future. It's analogous to the whole trope "X technology is useless" or "People will never need more than X amount of memory" type of thing.

I don't think you really interpreted my statement fairly. Perhaps I should have chosen another word instead of aging, but I was thinking in the traditional factory sense where there is a correlation with age and performance doing manual labor. Age should not be the indicator, performance should.

> Hm we live in structured societies in which laws are used to restrict individual liberties to protect collective ones. It's not that hard to grasp

Sure, there may be restrictions on certain things you can put on a website generally (illegal content), but I think the GP's question is about this specific case. No laws were broken, and the website is not a government venue. It is a business, which also has rights/liberties regarding what they choose to allow. For instance, if I goto a a subreddit and start talking about something completely off topic and it gets removed and I'm banned, who cares? That should be allowed.

> Because you live in a society

This might be a relevant response if you take the GP's question in the most general way possible, but applying it to this specific case it is not really adequate.

> Why do courts have the power to tell me who I must serve in my restaurant?

I don't think this really applies to the situation here. It's more like if you went into a restaurant and started acting rude (but not doing anything technically illegal) and the restaurant decided to throw you out, which is totally fine and normal to do. Also, at a restaurant you are a paying customer doing 'business' (trading money for food), whereas at Facebook it's more like you are the product. You aren't really trying to make a business transaction with Facebook.

Maybe one or two, but not a large proportion of an aging workforce riding purely on the protection of the union

So many sites down... and unfortunately not one of them is Twitter

Funny, especially when contrasted with some S.D. work:

> "A world become one, of salads and sun" Only a fool would say that

It makes formulating more complex queries easier when you can just say it out loud

> "The system is not necessarily to please anybody," Diller said, suggesting Prime Video's primary purpose is to get more customers to sign up for Amazon Prime.

> So I regret to inform you that Mr. Buffett is actually the most dangerous kind of billionaire we have. The worst billionaires are the Good Billionaires. The sort who make it seem like the problem is the distortion of the system when, in fact, the problem is the system.

It's also obvious by what they don't say. The author very breezily mentions that Buffett has donated some money, but no amounts or anything.

side note: India Times, please get rid of the silly copy and paste override. It is just plain obnoxious

Forget Protestants, how about Mother Nature? You better reproduce and increase entropy of the universe, and who cares if you enjoy it? It's just reality (unfortunately for us).

> This totally ignores the carers who don't get paid, but look after their relatives (and if they didn't, the state would have to either pay for that care, or let them die and confront some nasty truths). The volunteers who do god's work and never get paid (I'm an atheist, and I think it's horrible that we as a secular society depend on this, but I recognise the work of people of faith supporting our needy). This whole unpaid system of "work" that isn't "work" because we don't pay people to do it.

I actually agree with you here. It is a shame they are not getting paid or some other advantages. UBI could help in this case, but I think there are other solutions that could be more targeted OR society itself could make this more efficient so that either they are paid or it's cheaper to have a service take care of it.

> No-one should hate their job. Why do we do this to people?

Economics explains why people will take on opportunity over another one. It's all about what they are willing to do for a price. And you know what else? If people are able to freely choose any opportunity they can have in a particular place and choose it, it means that it is (in their eyes) the best one available for them.

And it's also relative. There will literally always be people who are dissatisfied with their job if not just because everyone else has a better one (in their eyes).

Is the system perfect? No--hell no. We can help people change careers if they want to and increase social mobility etc., but UBI is not the only way. I think a targeted approach is more efficient than just giving everyone money

Why do you wish the author was named--so you can have their head? You sound like the people in the article trying to stifle debate