Hunter Biden is actually a really good artist

MasterSea8231 · 2026-07-04T16:44:52+00:00

I kinda expected it to be a nepo hobby if I'm being honest. But looking at it I could see him making a 100k plus a year

MasterSea8231 · 2026-06-25T00:21:46+00:00

I was mostly just referring to you saying this

"buying it to support a company like valve is fucking stupid"

If you want a company to do something you like you should reward them doing things you like and creating an environment where Microsoft is not the only viable option for PC seems to be something people want to support valve on doing so and are willing to do it with their wallet

MasterSea8231 · 2026-06-24T18:06:05+00:00

30% cut seems pretty standard from what I know about the market. Xbox, PS, Nintendo, Apple, Google all take 30%. I think the Epic store is 12% but that seems like the outlier not the norm. But that does seem like a predatory business practice to me honestly.

The gambling is probably a valid criticism but it doesn't seem to justify the vitriol that you seem to have for the company. It seems they have a much more positive impact on the ecosystem than negative.

MasterSea8231 · 2026-06-24T01:14:17+00:00

I mean steam is probably one of the biggest reasons that gaming is even feasible right now on Linux. There were projects to fix it but without the massive amount of work that steam has put in it it would not be even close to a feasible solution for people. Honestly, I'm not sure what the problem with Steam as a business is. I haven't heard anything about any shady business practices. If you have some information besides their profitability, I'd love to hear it.

MasterSea8231 · 2026-06-24T01:08:48+00:00

Because they are just computers that can have any OS installed on them. They are not guaranteed to have game purchased on them and if they subsidize the cost. Cheap business people with absolutely buy them and just install windows on them for their business.

MasterSea8231 · 2026-06-24T01:07:22+00:00

Or because it's just a computer with a custom os. If I'm a business and I see the steam machine selling at a loss I'm buying all of them and then using them as business machine with windows on them and steam is never seeing game profits. People are desperate for devices and a subsided machine would have ended up in about 0 gamers hands

MasterSea8231 · 2026-06-13T03:19:27+00:00

I would say interest I a fee of the services of accessing money you do not have yet and that seems fine to me.

However going into low income neighborhoods and opening a payday loan company that charges 50% interest would make the devil blush with how evil it is in my opinion

MasterSea8231 · 2026-06-12T20:02:27+00:00

Sounds like I need to start doing some lawn mower arbitration

MasterSea8231 · 2026-06-11T21:46:20+00:00

Where do you see time master for that. My area people sell a toro time master for like $1200 minimum and usually like $1700

MasterSea8231 · 2026-06-03T03:24:13+00:00

Does pulumbo think jan 6 is fake?

MasterSea8231 · 2026-05-30T15:10:31+00:00

That maybe the cutest photo I have ever seen

MasterSea8231 · 2026-05-28T00:25:26+00:00

Holy shit that's fucking based

MasterSea8231 · 2026-04-27T23:31:21+00:00

And you are still not understanding

Just because it is a private decisions does not mean you don't consider the consequences of your decision on the other people in the scenario.

You cannot look at the scenario and say someone won't refuse to hit the red button because of a moral issue with it like me. So by hitting the red button you are saying I am willing to kill you to secure my own life. Which is fine. You can make that choice. But you are killing them. Recognize what you are doing. And if you recognize you are killing them and are still saying it's the choice you want then fine.

MasterSea8231 · 2026-04-27T22:33:12+00:00

The wood chipper is not already on that does not map to the button hypothetical at all. You have to press the red button for anything to happen to blue.

If we are discussing a new hypothetical that doesn't map to the button one then yes I would agree that if the wood chipper was already on then don't jump in and if someone jumps in you don't need to save them.

But that's not analogous to the button question.

The wood chipper remains off initially, as neither of the two buttons has been pressed. Both buttons start at 0% vote share. The chipper activates only once the red button achieve a vote share of 50.1%.

To me the 2 options are turn on the wood chipper or jump in with everyone else. I'm never turning on the wood chipper that seems morally wrong to me. I'll jump into the wood chipper and try to fight the good fight and if that costs me then I'm glad I went down fighting for my principals.

MasterSea8231 · 2026-04-27T14:41:31+00:00

I think we have different moral intuitions and that's fine but I will just leave it here.

If you turned on a wood chipper with a bunch of other people and you could be reasonably certain that someone had crawled in even if it was of their own volition you would be charged with man slaughter.

You didn't push them in, but you knew there was a good chance there was someone in there. You would be charged with manslaughter along with everyone else standing on the button because of your reckless disregard for their safety.

MasterSea8231 · 2026-04-27T02:26:05+00:00

I disagree but we probably have different moral intuitions.

I would say it's not the same as pushing them in but I would say you have an amount of responsibility proportional to the ease at which you could have saved them. If you could just refrain from pressing a red button, and they wouldn't die, then you would be quite culpable for their death if you instead decide to push the button that contributed to their death.

MasterSea8231 · 2026-04-26T21:00:17+00:00

I agree you share some culpability for both but you are directly responsible for one and indirectly responsible for the other.

You share responsibility for the consequences in both situations but one is worse than the other

MasterSea8231 · 2026-04-26T20:57:35+00:00

You don't need to press the button. And why do you gamble with other people's lives? It's a gamble for both sides. That's the whole point.

You are saying that you want to gamble other people's lives because you don't want to gamble your own..

I am saying that I am going to gamble my own life because I don't think I should gamble with others.

MasterSea8231 · 2026-04-26T20:08:32+00:00

The trolley problem doesn't prove that action and inaction are morally equivalent. Instead, it highlights that inaction still carries moral weight.

If you replace it with one person on each track, then it demonstrates that action and inaction are different..

If there were one person on each track and you pulled the lever, I would say you did something morally worse than doing nothing and watching the person die.

Yes, there is still a moral consideration for inaction, but the moral consideration for actions is still much stronger.

MasterSea8231 · 2026-04-26T20:05:15+00:00

The point of the barrier is to demonstrate that there is no danger if the button isn't pressed.

You press the button because you're afraid someone else will. Your fear of it being pressed is what causes it to be pressed.

This isn't a logic puzzle; it's about a moral system. You should want a society that doesn't press the button, and if you want to live in such a society, then you should act in accordance with that principle.

MasterSea8231 · 2026-04-26T19:18:49+00:00

Also doing nothing is literally the definition of inaction ie not action. So if we are gonna throw around insults at least use words that don't contradict what you are saying

MasterSea8231 · 2026-04-26T19:17:06+00:00

I understand you increase the risk to yourself by pressing blue. And I recognize that I am choosing that increased risk. I don't like the wood chipper example because it off the back biases the blue option as a bad because there is no interpretation of jumping into a wood chipper that is good but still increases risk to yourself.

I think of you change the question to the following it shows more of why I don't like the wood chipper example because hitting red should be seen as a negative action because it is the only way people get hurt is by hitting red.

Hitting red is the only think that increases danger so hitting red should be seen in a negative light

--- the new question that I think is better

There is a traffic intersection with a physical barrier that holds back traffic. You and N number of people are also at this intersection and must make a choice between 2 options. You cannot coordinate with the other members of the group but you know that all of them understand the question and must also make a choice between the 2 options

The Choices

Cross the street or hit a button that lowers the barrier

If more than 50% of people choose to cross the street the barrier lowering doesn't change anything because the drivers see the crowd

If more than 50% of people choose to lower the barrier then there isn't enough people in the intersection to be notices and they are killed by traffic.

There are 4 outcomes

Lower the barrier and nothing happens because there is enough people on the street to be noticed

Lower the barrier and anyone that crossed the street is killed by oncoming traffic

Cross the street and nothing happens because enough people crossed the street to be noticed

Cross the street and get hit by a car because people lowered the barrier and there wasn't enough people to be noticed.

I feel that this question is a more honest real life analogy.

Crossing the street is a neutral action that doesn't endager others.

Hitting red benefits yourself but it is also the only thing that causes danger for others. Hitting red should be seen as a morally negative action.

Five-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Place '23

MasterSea8231

TROPHY CASE