u/LazySlobbers

It’s rain puddles on a traffic bollard in Sydney

Somewhen about that time

Thank you

Oh, right! My misunderstanding.

Thanks for the nice compliment 😊

Eh? What do you mean? I took it this morning.

Scrolled through Reddit FOR THE EMPEROR!!!

Losing the supermarket right by the station is a serious loss of amenity for god only knows how many people.

There are already clear spaces in town that can be used for public functions e.g. the domain, Martin Place, Botanic Gardens etc so this new plan is not actually needed

It’s very costly - I think I read it is about A$90m (I could be wrong) with another $150m budgeted.money that could be better used.

Current design is not good. Could be ringed with bars restaurants etc big mall underground, more shade etc

https://preview.redd.it/7bx33okh8fth1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c0bf5c0be92d9074be46aa80165e2d1c3d49a20c

So I did it. And it called me an “absolute bastard” 🤣

Seems like a good idea to spread the pain around a bit more equitably albeit with some guardrails.

Would suggest e.g. RBA be given an amount they play with e.g. up to say X percentage points extra into and never allowed to reduce it to less than the legislated 12%.

Maybe also have it not apply for anyone earning less than a given amount.

Would suggest thinking about a few other levers e.g. an adjustable land tax, an adjustable wealth tax, an adjustable import tariff, and so on.

Idea would be to have different levers that work in different ways on different sectors of the public.

Me too!

A common soldier, in my opinion (which could be wrong) is enrolled to the care of his commander not to waste his life and wasting life despite such a promise (whether given explicitly or implicitly) would be a breach of fidelity (although the king could argue they were his lives to waste, especially if the troops are chattel slaves).

People also are moral beings which means we should treat them morally. Beneficence says we owe a duty of compassion to other living people. Bioethics suggests all living things have value and we owe it to them to care for them.

Deontology- duty based ethics - suggests we should treat people according to the duties we owe them. Plus it forbids treating people as a mere means to an end and this king has not taken into account their needs or welfare. Deontology also uses the categorical imperative… if it is right one then it is right in all circumstances. If it is not right in all circumstances, then it is not right. This king would clearly not drown himself for the purpose of avoiding war.

Deontology: unethical.

Consequentialism is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences. Net consequentialism looks at disadvantages vs advantages and would suggests the kings actions were ethical… however we would have to know whether the war really was avoided by that act? So ethical, maybe.

Under Actual Consequentialism, whether an act is morally right depends only on the actual consequences (as opposed to foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences), and the actual consequences here are a lot of unnecessarily dead soldiers, so not ethical here.

On the whole… in my view… unethical and highly so.

I don’t think I would ever agree with that category of sentiment.

I think it is reasonable to argue that if reproductive capability is a reason to exempt a person from a war, then we should look to see if there can be a separation of that capability from conscription.

If all men between say 20 and 60 have to fight, then it can be reasonable to require the same of women say 35 to 60 to do the same.

High creatinine numbers are a wholly expected and safe outcome of consuming creatine. Creatinine is broken down into creatinine by the liver.

Unfortunately high levels of creatinine are generally regarded as a biomarker for liver or kidney disease (I forget which).m because in normal non-creatine eaters, it is a symptom of dysfunction.

You should be able to now see the problem of stopping creatine consumption to let your creatinine numbers drop. When you go back in creatine then your creatinine numbers will rise.

How do women over 40 get pregnant? Why can they not be conscripted?

Women over 35 are much less likely to get pregnant and to carry to full term. Should they therefore not be conscripted too?

If we accept the premise that women are needed for repopulation more than men, then, is it moral or immoral if any of A1 to A3 below apply in conjunction with B AND C

A.

a1) draft women into military service who are generally regarded as post-fertile e.g 45 years of age;

Or

a2) draft women into military service who are generally regarded as less likely to conceive and carry a child to full term e.g. 35 and up;

or

a3) draft women into military service who are still fertile (30 and over) and who are in the later-end of the fertile period but have had twelve years of high fertility, do not currently have children and are not in a documented long-term relationship (e.g. married); or

AND

B.

Your nation is in a long-term war for survival

AND

C. You have compulsory military service for males from X years to Y years of age.

I would argue if B and C are true the all conditions from a1 to a3 are also moral on the ethical principles of horizontal equity and egalitarianism i.e. it is morally right to treat like people in like situations the same way so it is ethical to draft all mentally and physically able persons into military service under conditions B and C.

However, A person who is female and at the peak of her fertility (18-29 years) could reasonably be granted a temporary exemption from military service on the grounds of necessity (as it is necessary to have more women to help re-populate post conflict). That is not really an argument of morality, more an argument of practicality.

A further exemption could be given to one of two parents of a child for the purposes of child-rearing, but that need not be gender-specified.

So, under this view, we would be operating a practical, but unethical, exemption policy for persons who are female and aged between 18-29 inclusive.

UNCLOS is saying it’s not terrorism if it’s for private gain

Went into comms & policy advocacy, heading more into policy advocacy/ policy now with less comms.

Journalism has directly transferable skills for comms (obviously) and also for policy.

That said, if you want to go into policy, why not go directly into policy?

Although from what I have read on Reddit, getting into policy in the USA is hard right now. That might be different in other countries.

Pirates are by definition not terrorists. Article 101 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea states that piracy is an illegal acts of violence, detention, or depredation committed for private ends on the high seas or outside any State's jurisdiction.

It’s the “for private ends” bit that makes them not terrorists.

Whohooooo!

If only…

^{Chose: Credit card that magically gets paid off + But the monthly limit is | Rolled: $1 mill}

Good luck

Mate, I am sad to read this. I had a similar situation. Going home at the end of the day was one of the worst parts of the day.

I removed myself from the situation.

My life is miles better. I am glad I left.

I do agree.

I am currently a Masters degree student.

For the price of one Masters’ degree in Australia, I can literally get three Masters’ degrees overseas plus one industry qualification at about 1/2 the price.

Plus the overseas degrees are a lot more friendly to working students.

So I paid for an overseas degree.

The fridge beeps loudly and constantly if the door is open. So I don’t believe it needs to be checked if it is shut.