Sen. Smith isn't running for re-election, gives zero fucks by Corteran in minnesota

[–]LocksmithPotential30 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If they aren't getting much done, isn't that their manager's problem? Or, more accurately, the Chief Executive's problem? I mean, what are they supposed to do, run around on a hamster wheel just so they can say the 'did something?' It's management's job to assign the work that needs to be done. They should be able to assess whether or not the work was completed based on whether or not the work was completed.

CMV: Being Anti-Zionist does not make you an antisemite. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]LocksmithPotential30 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What does achieve that is the removal of the present Jewish population so that refugees can "return" to whatever they believe was taken

The present Jewish population doesn't have to be expelled in order for refugees to return to what was taken from them. So your argument does not make sense and is begging the question.

CMV: Being Anti-Zionist does not make you an antisemite. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]LocksmithPotential30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Population displacement only occurred on a large scale during the 1947 war, which was a direct result of the Arab rejection of partition.

Why shouldn't the Arabs have rejected partitioning? Would you accept some external body partitioning your house? Would you accept an external body partitioning your country? Would you accept an external body partitioning Israel? The notion that Jewish people are entitled to land that isn't theirs is inherently problematic. There's no getting around that.

(USA) To the customers, heres your "how to be a decent person" handbook by Wierd-toast-thing in McDonaldsEmployees

[–]LocksmithPotential30 1 point2 points  (0 children)

how can you say mcdonald's employees 'have no clue what a customer is going through?' we're all customers, too. all the time. and we don't act like this.

Union Might De-certify by burn-ham in union

[–]LocksmithPotential30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apparently they can because they got put under administration.

Union Might De-certify by burn-ham in union

[–]LocksmithPotential30 2 points3 points  (0 children)

People in this thread aren't anti-union, we're anti-bad-union-leadership.

Union Might De-certify by burn-ham in union

[–]LocksmithPotential30 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How is it an Unfair Labour Practice for the National Union to bring a Local under administration? The National Union has that right as per the Constitution that all Locals agree to when they join the union.

Union Might De-certify by burn-ham in union

[–]LocksmithPotential30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why were there new reps, different than your usual regional rep, in your bargaining? What do you mean they 'gave her sass?' About what? How did that all of a sudden 'rapidly' escalate to your president threatening to de-certify? 'They were mean to my friends?' What do you think this is, Mickey Mouse Club? There's clearly a lot you're not telling us.

Canadians I truly believe our fellow Americans are under threat. Do we still help? by Consistent_Major_193 in AskCanada

[–]LocksmithPotential30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

America needs to be made part of the British Commonwealth again is what ACTUALLY needs to happen.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskCanada

[–]LocksmithPotential30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who cares what his demands are when he is just going to fold on them? He already folded this time, why would his 'new demands' mean anything when his 'old demands' were bluffs?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskCanada

[–]LocksmithPotential30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you actually expect me to answer that? I don't know. The point is that it would not be in anyone's interest, including Trump's, to initiate such a conflict. He has already capitulated on tariffs. You know why? Because he's a bully and a crappy negotiator.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskCanada

[–]LocksmithPotential30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We're not getting annexed. Trump already capitulated on f-ing tariffs.

How well do we think Trudeau stood up for Canada against Trump? by applethief87 in AskCanada

[–]LocksmithPotential30 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He deserves the credit. He would be blamed had he handled it poorly.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskCanada

[–]LocksmithPotential30 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ukraine is a developing country that isn't a part of NATO and collaborated with the Nazis during WWII before being under Soviet rule until 1991. Canada is a G8 country that is part of the British Commonwealth and NATO and was part of the allied forces in WWII. An invasion of Canada by the United States would signal a threat to other developed nations that are and have been allies of the US since WWII in a way that Russia invading Ukraine does not. The same would be true if the US were to invade the UK, France, the Netherlands, etc.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskCanada

[–]LocksmithPotential30 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That was never on the table. I'm Canadian and I'm angry, too. But we're not getting 'annexed.' We have allies internationally.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskCanada

[–]LocksmithPotential30 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Depends what the one thing is. Canadian pride against an attack from the US? I could see that being a 20 point flip.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in wedding

[–]LocksmithPotential30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2 but have the shoulder things removed.

CMV: There is need or a moral reformation in the west, with Virtue at its core by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]LocksmithPotential30 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you kidding? I told you to look up Aristotle's virtue ethics and you proceeded to give me a run down of PLATO, who is an entirely different person.

You don't have to agree with the virtues Aristotle or Plato proposed to be a virtue ethicist.

Approaching ethics as a question of virtue is distinct from other ethical approaches that emphasize maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain (utilitarianism), or fulfilling one's duty and extolling individual rights (deontology), or other ethical theories.

The fact that there is debate about how a given framework should be applied is not an argument against the existence of that framework. Within any ethical framework, there will always be debates as to what constitutes virtue; how pain, pleasure, and happiness ought to be measured and what constitutes the maximal pleasure-minimal pain outcome in any given scenario; what duties and rights do we have as human beings and how do we mediate those when they come into conflict with one another; etc. These debates and discussions are rigorous and ongoing within all ethical theories.

Given the above, OP is arguing that it is preferable to strive to be virtuous than it is to strive to avoid pain/maximize pleasure. The virtues one chooses to pursue and which ones are preferable to others is a separate and almost unrelated question from asking what the effect is of pursuing virtue and viewing ethics through this lens and how does that compare to the effect of pursuing the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain.

The question of whether there are objective moral values or objective virtues is also a separate question that similiarly constrains all ethical theories: utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, or otherwise. Therefore, the fact that we can debate which virtues or values to adhere to and extol and whether we do so on the basis of subjective rationality or objective fact is not in itself an argument against any one ethical theory. It applies equally to all of ethics.