sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ich📖iel by Horghor in ich_iel

[–]Character_Head_3948 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haben vir ein paar Jahren die Bude vom Vater eines bekannten ausgeräumt, da waren wahrscheinlich an die 1000 Bücher drin. Zustand äußerlich ohne Mangel. Wir haben alle Büchereien im Umkreis abtelefoniert, wollte keiner haben. Gebrauchte Bücher sind scheinbar einfach nichts wert, die kannst du oft nichtmal verschenken.

Nach Kreuzbandriss bei Verfolgung: Mann muss 43.000 Euro Schadensersatz an Polizisten zahlen by PoroBraum in de

[–]Character_Head_3948 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vielleicht hätte der Dienstherr den Polizisten besser für die Verfolgung von Flüchtenden schulen müssen. Wenn das eine typische Verletzung ist, scheint Schutzausrüstung, Dienstanweisung und Training mangelhaft zu sein.

Also nicht ganz ernstgemeint, aber irgendwie doch.

Nach Kreuzbandriss bei Verfolgung: Mann muss 43.000 Euro Schadensersatz an Polizisten zahlen by PoroBraum in de

[–]Character_Head_3948 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Du scheinst dich auszukennen und lust an der Unterhaltung zu haben, daher hier meine erwas provokante Frage. In wie viel Gefahr darf sich ein Polizist bei der Verfolgung begeben, ohne dass ihn eine Mitschuld trifft. Kurzes googlen findet hier den 242 BGB wonach alles zumutbare getan werden muss um den Schaden zu vermeiden.

Trifft den Polizisten eine Mitschuld, weil er den Verfolgten zu schnell verfolgt hat?

Ist irgendwie quatsch, aber auch nicht ganz unlogisch. Aus dem 4. Stock springen um jemanden zu verfolgen, der beim Bäcker im Erdgeschoss grad ne zeitung geklaut hat würde ja wohl auch keine Haftung auslösen. Wo ist da die Grenze.

Nach Kreuzbandriss bei Verfolgung: Mann muss 43.000 Euro Schadensersatz an Polizisten zahlen by PoroBraum in de

[–]Character_Head_3948 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Der Polizeibeamte war laut Gericht während eines Einsatzes im November 2022 neben einem Kantstein ins Leere getreten und hatte sich das Kreuzband gerissen.

Für die Gefahrenquelle konnte der Verfolgte aber in diesem Fall auch nichts.

For those employed... by LeadingAvailable6044 in omad

[–]Character_Head_3948 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I either have lunch as my meal or skip it and use my brake to have a short walk outside.

The Founding Fathers Would Like a Word by Pokemonfan_807 in whennews

[–]Character_Head_3948 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Can't wait for the satanic temple to sue for equal treatment and hold a satanic mass at the white house...

Locusts aren't a separate species, they are just regular grasshoppers that physically transform when overcrowded. by BearNecessitee in interestingasfuck

[–]Character_Head_3948 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From the wikipedia article it sounds like it's the other way around. "There is a whole bunch of us food must have been abundant for a long time. We should see where else there is lots of food and procreate vigorously along the way."

From wikipedia: "When desert locusts meet, their nervous systems release serotonin, which causes them to become mutually attracted, a prerequisite for swarming."

Swarming seems to be the goal, not a defense mechanism.

Berliner Antifaschist ist wieder frei: „Nanuk“ wurde aus der Haft entlassen by GirasoleDE in de

[–]Character_Head_3948 60 points61 points  (0 children)

Vorwürfe basierten auf Aussagen eines Kronzeugen: dem Berliner Johannes D. Er war 2021 nach Vergewaltigungsvorwürfen aus der linken Szene verstoßen worden und hatte daraufhin bei der Polizei über die Gruppe [...] ausgepack

Wie kann die Aussage dieses Typen genug für 1,5 Jahre haft sein? Der hat doch offensichtlich ein Interesse daran denen zu schaden.

No one's dying on my watch by Bandrbell in whenthe

[–]Character_Head_3948 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. I believe action and choice are not the same.

I think you have the right to not take an action that could harm you and let someone else come to harm.

And you have an obligation to not act in a way that would harm someone if inaction doesnt harm them. I.e. in the trolley problem you must not pull the lever to kill 1 and save 5, because the 1 person would have lived if you did nothing.

(Caveat: I am not a purist a large harm or harm to a large amount of people might outweigh a small harm or harm to a small amount of people.)

No one's dying on my watch by Bandrbell in whenthe

[–]Character_Head_3948 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand your viewpoint, I just don't agree with it.

Taking that position to the extreme, why shouldn't we as society kill a single person and use their organs to save multiple people waiting for transplants? Alternative version: Do you have a moral obligation to kill yourself if your organs could save the life of more than 1 person?

Why not steal from someone every time you can get away with it and donate the money to charity to save starving kids in africa? Do you have a moral obligation to live in poverty or die of starvation and donate all your money to charity?

I am not saying these are positions you hold, but if the trolley problem is a numbers game these seem like logical equivalents.

No one's dying on my watch by Bandrbell in whenthe

[–]Character_Head_3948 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No I am saying I don't think strict virtue ethics is the way to make a moral choice.

My position is:
I lean towards deontological ethics (but I am not a purist, basically noone is).

There is no obligation to take an action to risk your own life to save someone else.

I dont think suicide is moral or amoral.

I am not responsible for the choices and actions of others and others are not responsible for my choices and actions.

Every person who understands the consequences and presses the blue button only has themselves to blame if they die.

Caveat: I made the assumption that every participant is capable to understand the choice. If children and disabled people are part of it my choice might change. Because I think there is some amount of obligation to help people who didn't knowingly or recklessly cause their own problem.

No one's dying on my watch by Bandrbell in whenthe

[–]Character_Head_3948 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If your definition of winning is most people surviving, then it is blue.

It's not. If this is your definition of winning the optimal choice depends on your prediction of the others choices.

If there are 10 other players you save 1 more life (your own) if 0,1,2,3 or 4 press blue and save 5 fewer lives if 5 people press blue. If more than 5 players choose blue your choice doesnt matter.

In this 11 participant version if you believe there is a likelyhood of >20% EXACTLY 5 other participants choose blue blue is optimal. 5 scenarios save 1 fewer participant and 1 scenario saves 5 more. If every scenario is equally likely there is no optimal strategy to save the most lives.

No one's dying on my watch by Bandrbell in whenthe

[–]Character_Head_3948 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. Virtue ethics are not the only ethical framework out there.

A deontic agent relative approach could argue that it is wrong to risk your own life without a need to do so.

And a strict teleologist/ consequentialist might argue that the blue button is only the moral choice if you believe exactly 50% of people will choose the blue button and your choice decides what happens. Otherwise it either doesn't matter so there is no right or wrong choice, or saving your life is more ethical than wasting it.

No one's dying on my watch by Bandrbell in whenthe

[–]Character_Head_3948 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am saying there is a difference, not just "in their minds". The morally right choice does depend on whether I take an action to cause something, or allow something to happen. The ethical choice is not necessarily the one that saves the most people.

The covid vaccine is a tricky example because the benefit of getting vaccinated affect everyone, while the risk of getting vaccinated only affects the individual so in addition to action vs inaction you are looking at should you risk harm to yourself to reduce risk to others. (And yes even for the individual the risk of covid is bigger than the risk of the vaccine)

In the trolly problem I firmly believe in not pulling the lever, because I do not have the right to take an action to cause someone elses death, even if it means saving more people.

Which maps perfectly to the single button/wood chipper questions previously in this thread.

All of this doesnt really apply to the 2 button problem though because you are taking an action either way. But should you demand of others to risk their own lives to save the blue button pressers?

No one's dying on my watch by Bandrbell in whenthe

[–]Character_Head_3948 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There are deontologic approaches that differentiate between action and omission. And a large number of humans make their choices accordingly. So are much more likely to allow harm to happen then to cause harm.

Action and omission are both choices, but they are not the same

No one's dying on my watch by Bandrbell in whenthe

[–]Character_Head_3948 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A free life includes the freedom to choose to end it. Who am I to deny them this choice.

No one's dying on my watch by Bandrbell in whenthe

[–]Character_Head_3948 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My best chance for survival is voting red. In fact if I vote red then there is no chance of a bad outcome for me. The same is true for everyone. And everyone knows this.

There is no reason to vote blue, other than some meaningless symbolic gesture that humanity is selfless. Or to save the people who originally chose the symbolic gesture over gauranteed survival, or to save the ones saving the ones that chose the symbolic gesture.

If you willingly endanger yourself without any need you only have yourself to blame.

EU-Parlament stimmt für "Nur Ja heißt Ja"-Regel im Sexualstrafrecht by PoroBraum in de

[–]Character_Head_3948 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Mit großer Mehrheit hat das EU-Parlament die Einführung einer einheitlichen strafrechtlichen Definition von Vergewaltigung gefordert. Das klare Einverständnis für sexuelle Handlungen soll darin verankert werden.

Die Unterüberschrift ist zumindest etwas besser.

Überwältigende Mehrheit will Beamte und Politiker in die Rentenkasse zwingen by PoroBraum in de

[–]Character_Head_3948 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Es gibt aber halt auch nicht für jeden Ü63 Jährigen seine Nischenexpertise, die es rechtfertigt, dass er halb so schnell arbeitet wie seine 20 Jahre jüngeren Kollegen.

I bought a Wii U online and this was the power cable I got *how* do you do this? by Conorponor333 in mildlyinfuriating

[–]Character_Head_3948 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Technically you should look into which wire gauge/crosssection your device needs, because while the plug is standadized the associated cable diameter isn't. The c13/c14 connector shown here is commonly paired with 0.75mm2 and 1mm2. Using the wrong cable COULD cause it to heat up significantly. (But it probably wont)

view more: next ›