meta_gunslinger

Exactly, as also evidenced by the guy who was brutally murdered just because he was the CEO of a company someone had an axe to grind against.

> My contention is that the consequence of a bad decision shouldn't be condemnation.

Who said that? To pre-emptively respond before you misrepresent my position again, nobody said that the solution to people making bad decisions is condemnation. But when you go out all guns blazing and blaming everyone else (the system) - like the author of this blog post is doing - at least be prepared to receive some pushback.

> You've had the opportunity to actually take accountability and correct your bad decisions no?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

> What gave you that opportunity?

Sometimes luck, sometimes good risk mitigation, other times a mix of both.

Mind you, I'm not claiming all misfortune can be overcome, you might be struck by lighting tomorrow and there was nothing you could have done about it. But there are cases that some sacrifices (either financial or lifestyle) can lead to statistically better chances of overcoming hardship. If you haven't made any and hardship hits you then its unfair to make demands of the people that have made those sacrifices, that's all.

> And if society is not meant to help people when they're down, what's it for?

Identity & meaning, voluntary co-operation, exchange of goods and services. Protection against misfortune could be one of the components of a useful society, while you said "What's the point of society if not being a buffer for bad individual decisions?" which directly implies that someone cannot find any other point to society if it's lacking this property.

> You still haven't given your take despite calling everyone else out on theirs.

Why do you believe that everyone else has the same position as you do?

Moreover, why do you think that what I said has anything to do with your position? I only called out as a psychopath anyone who believes they are entitled to somebody else's labour - do you actually believe that yourself or do you consider that particular belief as a logical extension of your position? If the latter, please logically demonstrate and if convinced by your reasoning I'll apologize.

Then I called your view of society selfish (not you a selfish person as a whole), why do you tink everyone else believes the sole point of society is a buffer for bad decisions? I haven't seen anyone on this topic claiming this except you.

I make, have made, and will most definitely make plenty of bad decisions. The difference is that accept responsibility for their consequences rather than electing to yell at the clouds.

I don't know man, if your position is that the only point of society is to bail you out of bad decisions, you are too far gone for me to have the energy to get into a discussion. You are entitled to your opinion I'm not going to attempt changing that.

Sounds like a very selfish viewpoint.

I only need a valid argument when responding to a valid argument. You have made none thus far therefore I’m entitled to respond in kind.

Don’t know, just just made an argument from authority and I’m discrediting said authority.

Yeah and then when something bad happens to you, have no money and be a burden to society! Extremely responsible.

I am not poor but I am not rich either, why do you make assumptions?

Sartre was a nihilistc pdf-file and a prolific liar. I don't have any respect for his ilk either.

Ad-hominem is what you resort to when having no argument ;)

No, making policy out of your personal preferences is a dictatorship. Making policy by taking a representative majority of preferences is a democracy.

> instead of traveling and having fun when you are able bodied

Are you having trouble with reading comprehension? Jesus.

We don't care about your personal preferences to make policy though.

You can speak for yourself, because you know nothing about my background and your ideological bias leads you to embarrassing assumptions.

My family until my parents generation were dirt poor in one of those countries you would also call piss poor.

I mean that the people who brought the person to life are responsible to make choice that will ensure theirs long term survival.

e.g my grandmother had a brother who their brain stopped developing at a very young age (afaik 5), the parents ensured and my grandmother ensured that my uncle lived a full (but sadly difficult) life living and been taken care of by them and then my grandma after they passed.

> "you made bad decisions in the past so now you deserve cruelty"

Somebody will have to endure cruelty when someone makes bad decisions. The question is whether the cruelty will be received by the person making the bad decision or somebody else.

> It's rarely "you are making a bad decision right now so you should stop that before you deserve cruelty in the future".

So it's the economic system's fault that you weren't stopped before making a bad decision? It's the economic system's fault that schools teach gender theory instead of personal finance, economics and rational decision making?

The wrong decision is not being insured for disaster and not saving enough when you were able to work, electing to spend the money instead. Not being unlucky with your health or having an accident. That's clearly stated in my original response if you care to read and not knee-jekingly respond.

For someone who has been born disabled, the conversation should be moved to the people who brought them to life and are responsible for their survival.

A mindset like this has led to my TV taking 40 seconds to boot and glitching/lagging just during simple navigation, even though its hardware is about 10,000x better than what got us to the moon.

So much equivocation that it makes this article unreadable.

My statement was self-contained.

No, my position is that you cannot follow the law a la carte.

Moreover, morality is not objective, therefore anyone can claim that any particular law is against their morality and think it's justified to break it.

The law does not state "you have to pay for this, unless it's inconvenient".

Virtue signal received.

I was using the word 'sacrosanct' in a figurative way.

That's not true. Roman citizenship was sacrosant, there was even a war during the late Roman Republic time between the Romans and allied Italians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_(91%E2%80%9387_BC) fought over it. During the Roman Empire, Caracalla extended citizenship to everyone mainly to spite the Senate.

I’m not sure what you’re aiming for here. You’re making an assumption that in an alternative history that unions did not exist working conditions of that kind would not exist. This assumption does a lot of work and needs substantiation.

e.g in the tech industry you have high salaries, flexible schedules and generous vacations and unionization is virtually non existent

Worker here, with no aspiration of being a millionaire, a manager or an owner:

I hate unions. They always end up being led by parasites that have no idea how to do the actual job, looking to rent-seek on the backs of people who do.

It's the scientific slash managerial state brought to you by Anglo-German leftist thinkers of the 19th century. Enjoy utopia.

The functionally correct code could be rejected in PR for many reasons other than style:

1. Solution under-engineered/over-engineered. 2. Code is hard to read or comprehend. 3. Design/Archtecture lacking. 4. Principles decided upon by team not adhered to.

These are just some of the reasons I've rejected functionally correct code before.

To summarize, in any software engineering course you learn that there are other metrics used to evaluate code other than correctness (maintainability, readability, scalability, portability, efficiency etc.)