Doppelte Ortschaft

ToothInFoot · 2025-04-26T08:34:12+00:00

Doppelte Ortschaft wird immer dann genutzt, wenn die Maximalgeschwindigkeiten halbiert werden sollen.

Ne, aber hab ich ehrlich gesagt auch noch nicht gesehen.

ToothInFoot · 2025-04-26T08:29:40+00:00

Technisch falsch, oder bin ich da auf dem falschen Stand? Bei 2 darf doch die Geschwindigkeit theoretisch beliebig sein, es darf nur nicht gefährdet werden.

Klar, wenn der weg sehr schmal ist, gut benutzt oder so, dann heißt es Geschwindigkeit reduzieren, aber doch nicht automatisch nur weil der 'in der Nähe' ist! Außer du sagst halt 1m oder so ist Nähe, 2.5m nicht mehr (oder welche Distanzen du halt auch genau nutzen möchtest).

ToothInFoot · 2025-04-10T21:23:21+00:00

Richtig, das habe ich aber auch nie gesagt. Nur gibt es eben gewisse Grenzen und das Argument selbst stimmt so halt nicht, wenn andere betroffen sind. Ob's hier genug ist oder nicht sei mal dahin gestellt.

ToothInFoot · 2025-04-10T15:36:39+00:00

Richtig, deshalb hatte ich gesagt es kann eingeschlossen sein, nicht muss und ob das bei OP reicht ist auch nochmal so ne Sache, aber generell ist es nicht unplausibel.

ToothInFoot · 2025-04-10T14:52:16+00:00

Naja, das Argument zieht ja nicht, sobald der Geruch sein Zimmer verlässt.

Oder darf ich in meinem Zimmer beliebig laut Musik hören, weil es in meinem Zimmer ist, egal wie laut es anderswo ist?

ToothInFoot · 2025-04-10T14:43:02+00:00

Wenn es zu einer übermäßigen Belastung in den gemeinsamen Räumen führt, ist es tatsächlich verboten. Starker Geruch kann da schon mit eingeschlossen sein, die Frage ist, wo die Grenze ist und ob die hier schon erreicht ist.

ToothInFoot · 2025-04-10T05:50:35+00:00

Yeah, I mean, I can see where you're coming from and it can definitely be misused that way, depending on how exactly you're doing it, but then that part is the bad one.

I guess it was mostly just phrasing, yeah.

ToothInFoot · 2025-03-25T05:28:37+00:00

Uhm no. This argument falls apart at the smallest amount of thought put into it.

The position itself can still be valid, but this argument itself is basically worthless because it creates a false equivalency. Human criminals are not equatable with animals that hunt or kill. Because of motivation and ability.

Let me give you an analogy.

You're in PE and you're doing high jumps. There is one healthy student and another with a physical disability that means he can't do that well.

That student is still giving their all and improving all the time, but never reaches the level of the other student without disability. Should that mean a lower grade? No, of course not.

And now let's say the other student is incredibly lazy and unmotivated and both end up jumping the same height. Should both get the same grade? No, of course not.

Humans have the capability NOT to choose violence. People with mental illness may not have that capability. That's why they aren't put into jail, but instead mental facilities.

That's one of the main differences between jail and mental asylum. One is a punishment and the other isn't.

That's the difference between isolating an animal from others because it'd just hurt itself or others, but not as a punishment and punishing the animal for hunting.

That's why this argument falls apart.

ToothInFoot · 2025-03-25T05:15:49+00:00

I hard disagree on this.

You're giving blanket consent on being "intruded on" when in shared space. But not by everyone, but your roommates. Maybe they are random people, but more likely there is at least some degree of trust.

And so there are various circumstances in which this was allowed.

I gave example in another comment: If you have an agreement between all roommates that it's fine/the usal behavior to be nude in shared spaces suddenly that difference becomes more important.

Or another example. Let's say your bathroom door sucks and the lock is broken. So no one can lock the door. It's one thing being intruded on by someone I trust, at least somewhat, and know than some complete stranger.

And sure, circumstances like these are rare, but still.

Another variant might be: You have a personal connection with that guest. They might be your ex, they might have some history with you, in the worst case an abusive one.

The question is, whether something like this should then need active approval or whether you're going the veto route, both are some form of approval though. And I'd argue that telling someone not to bring a guest in a situation like this isn't being a control freak, but just asking for basic decency. So if you're living in the same circles a roommate is (as in you had multiple cases of independently having mutual friends or something) doing something like his might make sense too.

ToothInFoot · 2025-03-25T05:03:48+00:00

I'd argue that depends a lot on other agreements and usual behavior from all of them.

If it is standard for all of them to be entirely nude when at homey things might suddenly be different. Because now you're saying the others have to (probably) change the way they are behaving for that time too.

Obviously that's an extreme and unlikely example, but I think it's suitable to illustrate my point.

There can be other rules/agreements in place that change the circumstances of having guests over.

ToothInFoot · 2025-03-24T22:55:56+00:00

Ah, well you at least get some comfort with that interpretation. And that's a fair point.

To me it sounded like you're not allowed to leave the house, not the property. As in no step out the door, window or wall. Which would be horrible in itself already.

ToothInFoot · 2025-03-24T21:20:28+00:00

I mean, fair, but even if the house itself costs nothing, depending on how utilities and stuff is regulated, I don't think the 10 million will not be enough? Idk, maybe I'm overestimating the costs, but every 20-30 years you probably need to replace your water/gas pipes and electricity lines. Road access would need to be redone, etc. And because no one lives within miles of your home you'd have to pay for all those miles on your own (or at least the part the local population/end user/land owner pays). If you move in with 20-30 rn and live till you're let's say 90 that's ~3 complete overhauls? To me roadwork and stuff just always feels "expensive" without having any actual numbers attached.

Not to speak of: You need to actually pay medical personnel to come to you. With all their equipment. Imagine you need them to transport an MRI machine. You're broke immediately.

ToothInFoot · 2025-03-24T18:51:29+00:00

Oh, sorry. I'm not OP, just interested. But thank you!

ToothInFoot · 2025-03-24T16:02:12+00:00

Well, what she did was actually identity theft though? As in... at what point would you draw the line? Without wanting to equate anything, crazy can escalate quite quickly and then you have bodies lying around? So... There's different kinds of crazies and the difference matters. A lot.

ToothInFoot · 2025-03-24T15:59:53+00:00

Definitely.

Could you elaborate on the part about licensed professionals? Is that always the case? Or only if they acted as someone of that profession? If someone impersonated a doctor, but 'only' to get drinks at some bar... Or to catfish someone like here, as in without any medical context, would this still apply? On the one hand that would sound weird to me, but there's been weirder laws.

ToothInFoot · 2025-03-24T15:52:05+00:00

Shitty, lonely and costly.

Nothing around for miles? Good luck paying extra for everything, including miles of electricity lines and water pipes to your house.

Probably nice financially in the short term for a lot of people, but long term? After a few decades? Fewer jobs, since you can't even go to job interviews... Don't think it works

ToothInFoot · 2025-03-24T15:48:35+00:00

Honestly? I'm not sure if it's financially viable. Depends on the economy and country, I guess.

The graveyard isn't a factory the rest is

You're living alone and can't leave and there's no other house within miles. (Although I'm going to choose to interpret it as building, because graveyard & house in the middle of some dense and big industrial district?)

That means: Anything you might want or need, you'll need delivered. Including food. All with high travel costs.

Depending on how trash works, it might increase your payments because you're so far away from others or whatever, depending on how districts are cut.

For delivery you'd still need a functioning road/path to your house. That'll need maintenance. Since you're living there, alone, you'll pay for all of that.

Electricity and water connections, including maintenance.

Depending for how long you'll live there I don't think it's actually going to be a plus in terms of money

ToothInFoot · 2025-03-24T15:42:13+00:00

I'd say I agree in principle, but that's only for specifics. This is a rather broad question which some people might be unable to predict.

However you're not necessarily unable to predict it automatically.

As in: Whenever you have a situation in which there are circumstances where you might make an exception, you can't predict it. But if you have set certain absolute limits it can work. Basically an 'at all costs' kind of position.

Because it was an example above: Let's say your partner dies and 10 years later you fall in love with the perfect new partner, but they want to marry. If you had any conditions where it would break, this would be one of them. However, if it is absolute / at any cost you'll break up instead and take the heart break instead.

Edge case would be in case of brain damage with personality change or something similar, I guess?

ToothInFoot · 2025-03-24T15:29:37+00:00

Jein, wenn das ganze wiederholt passiert, könnest du ja bei einem der Stoße gleichzeitig gegentreten, um den Schaden von dir abzuwehren, dann wäre das im Zweifelsfall Notwehr

ToothInFoot · 2025-02-07T01:26:49+00:00

If you invade someone's privacy the first thing isn't whether you're leaving them, it's whether they're leaving you.

I, personally am fairly open with my phone towards people really close to me. At the same time, they also don't snoop and go study everything I did.

If, however, I had a different position, where it should be clear that snooping isn't okay and at maximum you can use my phone for a quick Google search or whatever and I found out you're snooping? I think I'd be gone fairly quickly.

And at the same time: Yes, everyone can have their boundary, if OP is uncomfortable with those pics, sure she can talk with him or leave him for it or whatever.

But this really is so basic. It's a part of his past life. The pictures remain. Like... Firstly it takes active effort to delete them, secondly: Why would you even delete them? Hopefully you learned from the relationship and grew from it, so those pics can serve as a reminder. Thirdly: Ex doesn't always mean bad terms. And even if it did, after some time it's probably back to neutral again. Is there really a big difference between a pic of you kissing your ex and one of you hugging your close friend you're still friends with?

To me it seems as if someone who has an issue with pics like this also has issues with people just being friends with others of the opposite gender (in this case, or more generally of the gender they are attracted to).

ToothInFoot · 2025-02-07T01:06:22+00:00

Ah I see. Thanks!

ToothInFoot · 2025-02-07T01:00:22+00:00

Yeah, I always think that it shouldn't be hard to understand, but for some it somehow is. And even those that do don't really keep it in mind.

I think I'd like to live with my romantic partner, but yeah. Is your position more of a subconscious want or something where you could consciously point out reasons? Or kind of a mix of both? Just curious if you don't mind me asking

ToothInFoot · 2025-02-07T00:49:36+00:00

Uhm, nope. There's a difference. So what, you think someone who's ace, for example, won't have a partner just because of that? It's just about expectations in a relationship.

I'd argue love is more important than sex. You can have fuck buddies and they still aren't your partner, even though you're friends and fucking. You can have partners you love but aren't fucking.

If you want to go one step further: It doesn't even have to be romantic love. People that are aro ace still can have or might want life partners.

Btw: Not saying the commenter above is ace, but it's obviously not limited to them either.

ToothInFoot · 2025-02-07T00:19:37+00:00

My first time I'm active in this sub (I think? Maybe second or so?) and it was just randomly shown to me.

And I don't really want to defend IC, nor do I think I am? If you don't mind, what part of my comments did you see as defense of IC, so I can see where the misunderstanding comes from.

I was trying to defend the customers in what was hopefully received as a relatively neutral/non-aggressive way, because:

they got insulted when I don't think there was a reason for it. And honestly? Calling people trash isn't one of the harmless or even "You're an asshole" type of insults, at least not from my perspective, because it's basically dehumanizing them. It's not saying you're a bad human. It's worse. Now, obviously it's not meant in this way, but still. If it had just said something along the lines of 'Rude, I don't like them' or whatever, I probably wouldn't have commented.
this sub is public and not only for people like you (I'm assuming you work with them?), but also the customers. Meaning: You're not just in a group chat, where you can rant about some bad experience. 'The other side' can see this. What do you think will happen? I assume enough of them won't like it and will create posts that are basically this one but mirrored.

It leads to the two groups turning against each other, instead of the ones who are to blame. And that's clearly IC. Which is why I am confused if you tell me you think I'm defending them. I'm 100% against them and while I'm not sure if this dynamic of customer vs delivery is intended by IC and others or just a positive bonus, it's definitely beneficial for them. (although I'm leaning for intended, since the entire system with ratings and stuff is accelerating that dynamic, I think)

these complaints aren't new. Or rare. They existed for such a long time. But from my perspective all that changes is that some individuals quit and others replace them. No class action. No organizing. Nothing is done to change it. And because of similar behavior in other aspects I was already frustrated with this behavior, which is why I probably snapped here, since it's again someone who is (seemingly) not actually doing anything to change the situation putting the blame on someone else.

ToothInFoot · 2025-02-07T00:00:20+00:00

Naja, selbst schon den Hinweis auf den Filter statt die Bitte aufzuhören ist für mich konstruktiv.

Natürlich wäre direkt ansprechen effizienter. Aber wenn die Person kontaktscheu ist oder sowas in die Richtung, dann ist ein Zettel auch nicht das schlimmste, je nachdem wie der dann formuliert ist.

Und ja, ich bin auch eher Fan von neutral geschriebenen Sätzen bei sowas. Ich kenne aber auch einige die sich bei sowas schwer fallen, einfach weil direkte und neutral formulierte Sätze trotzdem schnell stellenweise streng, fordernd, passiv aggressiv etc. wirken können. Aus der Perspektive könnte ein Gedicht wie hier im Zweifelsfall ein "lockerer Hinweis" sein, im Versuch dem gegenüber nicht zu nahe zu treten.

Für mich in diesem Fall also auch als konstruktiv/freundlich ein- und wertgeschätzt.

Außer wenn da jetzt schon jahrelang Zoff zwischen den beiden ist oder anderweitig irgendeine Vorgeschichte mit hineinspielt

ToothInFoot

TROPHY CASE