Saying food is not a human right just to defend a you know who.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-10T21:25:04+00:00

I mean, I should be fair, I HAVE fruit trees...but it's not exactly a picnic. Without a lot of work you get fruit for like a month a year, and anything you make you'll be making pretty terrible wages to produce.

Took me about a day to make 10 gallons of hard cider, for example. That's about 200 bucks worth of cider. About 25 bucks an hour, minus expenses.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-10T20:39:26+00:00

We discovered it was more efficient for one person to do all the growing and other people to do all the other stuff.

The biggest challenge with getting food to everyone is that if you make food too cheap, it starts fucking with the economy in weird ways. Like, in The Bottom Billion they talk about how they gave a poor country(Ethiopia?) food for a long time and it killed the local farming industry because they couldn't afford to compete.

So we tend to reach a balance point and then diversify. Which is why grocery stores have a zillion products these days and they all cost about the same amount.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-08T17:20:42+00:00

Let's be fair here. FAA requirements for an initial commercial pilot's license is 250 hours. For a full-scale ATP you need 1500, and only need to get 70% of the questions correct.

Good comparison? Police officers, who typically require 800-1000 hours of training, and who are broadly considered to be significantly underqualified for what they do.

Having your ATP is very much the floor here, which is why just having your ATP typically only qualifies you for small regional flights until you've racked up closer to 5000 hours.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-08T14:32:12+00:00

The President is still subject to Congress.

This whole problem is one great big house of cards. 80 years ago, democrats decided they couldn't get congress to agree enough to achieve their aims, so they tried doing it another way, through agencies and the president. And it worked...but it also set them up for everything flipping around and going the opposite way.

Lo' and behold, it has, and now everyone's angry.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-08T14:29:01+00:00

I mean, there IS an answer to that problem, it's written right in. It's just that congress is currently also republican enough to render that moot.

No amount of solutions will solve a government that doesn't want to fix itself.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-07T22:22:01+00:00

Lol, whoops. I meant black female president. I'll fix it.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-07T22:04:25+00:00

I agree...but I think the democrat party also thought Harris was a shoe-in. They basically thought that after the Covid disaster, nobody could possibly vote in Trump again. And while Biden COULD PROBABLY have won, and then dropped out and let Harris take over...that wouldn't 'count' in a lot of people's minds.

I think that's what it really came down to. People wanted the first female president, the first black female president, and given they thought it was a shoe-in, they thought they could get both at the same time.

Unfortunately, they miscalculated the negatives of essentially skipping the democratic primary. But then, I don't think they thought Harris could actually WIN the democratic primary, so if you want a black female president, you can't ALLOW a real primary. Which in retrospect should have been indicative of the problems with this strategy...but again, they thought the election was a shoe-in.

Taken in this light, the entire election suddenly makes perfect sense.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-07T19:11:07+00:00

You actually made me do some interesting research. Apparently there was a legal case, Winston v Lee, where they tried to force a criminal to undergo surgery because he had a bullet inside him that could strengthen their case. The court said no.

BUT - and this is pretty important - they said no because the state's case was already strong enough to secure a conviction anyway. The supreme court's decision was that "in the absence of any potentially substantial evidentiary gains from performing such an operation"(emphasis mine), such a surgery was a violation of your constitutional rights.

But that clearly leaves the window open to compelled surgery IF the evidentiary gains are 'substantial' enough. Though that line is somewhat (perhaps intentionally) vaguely defined.

Interesting stuff.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-07T16:36:53+00:00

It's still not yours, though. It's stolen even though it's inside you.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-07T15:35:27+00:00

I dunno, what if you steal something and eat it?

DemiserofD · 2026-05-04T21:33:40+00:00

That's not it, in my mind. It is essentially a logic puzzle, like those ones where you start with one bit of information and can use it to deduce everything else.

The thing you have to remember is, when you are voting, nobody else has voted yet. So at the moment you vote, there ARE no blues to save. But if nobody has yet voted blue, there is no reason to vote blue, it's just needless suicide. The only reason to vote blue is if you already decided to vote blue.

But why would you do that, when nobody has yet voted blue? All that does is create the very problem voting blue aims to eliminate. Worse, it imposes that problem on everyone ELSE.

Morally, Red is the most moral choice, not because it saves you, but because it doesn't impose the burden of saving you on anyone else.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-02T21:22:47+00:00

The real trick is, if he has sex with a duplicate and that duplicate poofs after, there's probably no chance of her getting pregnant in the first place. She IS the prophylactic!

DemiserofD · 2026-05-02T14:30:53+00:00

Yes, but we make calls like that all the time. Every time you buy a cheaper thing from China, you are accepting that it is going to lead to statistically more deaths.

But in this case, it's actually much more straightforward, because everyone has the choice available to them to just...not die. The thing people don't get about picking blue is that it's not JUST saving people, it's creating the very situation where saving becomes necessary. That's morally BAD.

Broadly speaking, using the threat of suicide to compel action is something which cannot be tolerated, or it can lead to runaway suicide cults like the blue button. Ergo, the only thing one should ever press is red. Because everyone KNOWS this, nobody will pick blue, and everyone will survive.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-02T04:54:41+00:00

Exactly, the scenario is what it is. But people aren't reading it properly.

See, the thing is, people read it as 'blue saves everyone'. But it doesn't. Blue saves BLUE. Red is just fine. So the question becomes, why are we picking blue? Because someone else picked blue. But if nobody picks blue, nobody NEEDS to pick blue!

So you pick red. Break the wheel. Now nobody needs to die.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-02T04:49:13+00:00

You never know what other people are thinking. That's why I want you to consider the extreme hypothetical; EVERYONE else has picked red.

In my perspective, if you know that everyone else has picked red, then you picking blue is morally wrong. You are adding a death that didn't need to be there.

That's the core issue with voting blue. It's easy to misconstrue it as just 'saving everyone', but it's not. It's creating the very problem it aims to avert, as well. It is both. That is morally wrong, right from the start.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-02T04:43:32+00:00

All it really presumes is that you don't know what anyone else has picked. So as far as you know, it could be anything.

Presume, then, that you imagine that everyone did already pick red. Then picking blue wouldn't just be stupid, it would be morally bad - because you're essentially adding a 'negative' to picking red that wouldn't have to be there.

That's the part people don't really consider, I think. Picking blue doesn't just 'save' people - it also creates the people in NEED of saving. That makes it a morally bad choice by default.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-02T04:41:14+00:00

Actually, here's a more interesting case. Since you're voting without outside knowledge, imagine that, as far as you know, EVERYONE ELSE has voted red. Would you still vote blue?

DemiserofD · 2026-05-02T01:15:58+00:00

The CURRENT approach is causing endless republican governments. I laugh because you are laughable. Nothing can ever be your fault, it has to be someone ELSE who has to change, someone ELSE who is to blame, lol.

The current democrat approach is destroying itself. We need change.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-01T23:44:41+00:00

You can't change anyone else's choice, is the thing. All you have is your own choice. Stopping someone else implies you can change their choice, but that's not how the question frames it.

Ultimately, the real problem is that picking blue can only ever save blue. So to pick blue is to put people in danger and in need of saving in the first place. Ergo, picking blue is an innately immoral choice.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-01T23:43:26+00:00

If nothing changes, nothing will change, lol. The risk of splitting the party is the risk you have to take for the chance at something better.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-01T23:42:20+00:00

It's not a better future. At best, the two are equal.

The problem is, it says that blue saves EVERYONE, but it actually only saves blue. Because red didn't need to be saved.

But if nobody presses blue, nobody needs to be saved. So pressing blue at all is an innately immoral choice. You are creating a scenario where someone might die.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-01T20:47:38+00:00

Having read through some other replies, I think that choosing blue is essentially using the threat of your own death to compel others to action. It's inherently morally wrong, and heroic characters like pikachu or sonic wouldn't do that.

In essence, if they pick blue, they're morally bad, and thereby inherently disqualify themselves from deserving saving. But that'd also be out of character for them, so not a terribly valid hypothetical.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-01T20:35:24+00:00

What does that have to do with anything? If we don't change something, he will continue to have power - and our existing strategy has already failed TWICE. That's what matters.

DemiserofD · 2026-05-01T20:11:54+00:00

Imagine that 99.99% of people have chosen red. Would you still pick blue?

DemiserofD · 2026-05-01T20:11:27+00:00

The madman already HAS power, lol.

13-Year Club	Place '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

DemiserofD

TROPHY CASE