u/PiLamdOd

And how does that change any of the obvious parallels between Saren's Synthases plan the the Star Child's?

By that logic no one can consent to anything.

First, this is why we have laws to ensure all contracts are fair.

Second, you can choose which stores to shop at, you cannot choose your insurance provider or which options are available to you. Your employer does.

Truly fair contracts only exist when all parties have infinite options and equal negotiating power. This is not possible with employer provided healthcare.

I should be allowed to negotiate my own health insurance the way I want it

But you cannot. Your employer negotiates the plans based on their self interest, not yours. So we have to enact laws to protect people from their employers and the insurance companies.

Plans used to be very cheap for very low risk people.

And I'm sure you're too young to remember how high risk people were completely screwed over by insurance rates, or locked out altogether. The ACA fixed this. There is no reason why someone with a chronic illness should pay more for healthcare than someone who doesn't go to a doctor.

Mandated minimum coverage does the most good for the most people. Which should be the number one goal of legislation.

please understand that if you are hellbent on saying that static friction cannot possibly be overcome

Per the description of the question, static friction has already been overcome because the wheels are spinning.

As soon as it moves even the tiniest bit, the wheels go faster than the treadmill (say the plane moves at 1 m/s, and the treadmill too. The wheels will go 2 m/s, so the treadmill will too. But then 2 + 1 = 3, but then 3 + 1 = 4, etc etc.

There is nothing about that which is different than a normal takeoff. Runways always move opposite the aircraft's direction of travel at the same speed. So why do you claim it a problem in this case?

Consent only applies when both parties have equal power. A massive corporation and an individual do not have equal power in a contract, therefore we have laws to curtail what a corporation can force into a contract.

This is why indentured servitude is illegal. There is no meaningful consent in a power imbalance.

Your previous plan was only good if you never required more coverage. You were being taken advantage of because the insurance company wasn't required to offer full coverage. Just like they were taking advantage of everyone who could not afford better plans and never had other options.

Self centered is the best description of your argument. You're choosing to ignore everyone else who could not afford full coverage, or any coverage before. Now companies are forced to cover people and treatments they otherwise wouldn't

You're going to need to cite some sources if you want to say insurance companies are denying more claims, and are only doing so because they have to offer better coverage.

And to answer your question, should you be allowed to sell yourself into slavery if both parties agree to it?

Just because two parties agree to a contract, doesn't mean it is fair or equitable. The insurance company has unfair leverage in this deal because more often than not customers' employers are the ones who choose the providers and available plans, not the customers. As such, customers have no barging power in this contract.

Therefore the government is stepping in to ensure providers have offer comprehensive coverage.

You keep acting like the plane is bolted to the treadmill until the plane falls apart while the treadmill magically stays intact.

Because the plane wheels are rolling, the plane and treadmill are disconnected by free spinning wheels. there is nothing happening which is different than a normal takeoff.

The ground is always moving at the same speed the wheels are rotating. That's how free spinning rollers work. The treadmill could accelerate to infinite speeds and never increase the friction on the axels.

It's like standing on a treadmill while wearing roller skates. No matter how fast the treadmill is going, the force required to hold onto the handles never increases.

So there is no reason why the plane wouldn't accelerate to a normal takeoff, which happens within a few hundred feet of travel. Even if we assume all the parts experience wear and tear, aircraft takeoff distances are so short it wouldn't matter.

Wild that you are angry at the government because the insurance company is punishing you because they're no longer allowed to screw people over.

Forgiveness has to be earned.

Freeman never tries to earn forgiveness for any of the times she hurts other people.

Not by himself. Not by a longshot.

While Shepard wasn't trying to enslave the galaxy, we have no reason to think forcibly turning everyone into half machines wouldn't effectively do the same thing.

Freeman has flaws, but she never recognizes this fact. Unlike every other main character, there's never a moment where Freeman takes responsibility for her mistakes or realizes she is capable of them.

She never learns she isn't perfect.

At no point does Freeman ever admit she has flaws or take accountability for her actions. She is introduced as the self absorbed, egotistical captain. But there's never a moment in the show where she faces repercussions or has to recognize her flaws.

Freeman just suddenly becomes altruistic out of nowhere in the season 4 finale.

That just means Saren wasn't naive enough to think Synthesis would lead to bright future.

Whether or not the person choosing Synthesis is indoctrinated doesn't change the fact that both choices were to merge organics and synthetics.

The fact that the only difference between what Saren/Illusive Man were planning and what Shepard chooses to do is that it's somehow ok because Shepard is the one doing it, should be a clue that those two endings are not good.

The fact Saren was trying to achieve Synthesis should be proof it is a bad ending. Just like how The Illusive Man was trying to achieve the Control ending.

The two main franchise villains were each trying to achieve one of the three possible endings.

Saren was arguing for Synthesis.

The Illusive Man for Control.

This makes Destruction the only right answer.

That is never stated in game. Synthesis is merely stated to be the act of fusing organics and synthetics.

That's because the wealthy had to exist in the same world as the rest of us.

Before telecommunications, the wealthy had to work in the same building as the rest of their employees. Before highways and private cars, the wealthy had to live in the same cities as their employees. Before private helicopters and planes, the wealthy had to walk the same streets and use the same mass transit as their employees. The wealthy had to use the same libraries, parks, and plazas as the common man.

And most importantly, they interacted enough with the common person enough to want to flaunt their wealth to them.

Nowadays, the wealthy cut themselves off from the rest of the world and never need to care about what the rest of us think. Nor do they share the same public spaces, and therefore have an incentive to improve them.

Are you joking? Programming, infrastructure, sales, marketing, etc, everything that Meta is is built by other people. Mark just owns the company that pays them.

Man, if only they gave such an arc to Freeman. The way she suddenly turns into a good person without ever acknowledging or addressing her flaws, just did not work.

There's far more to healthcare coverage than just dollar value of cancer treatments. Legally required more comprehensive coverage is the excuse insurance companies gave for the price hikes across the board.

The person making the claim needs to support their argument with evidence. Otherwise it can and should be dismissed out of hand.

The issue isn't the cut corners, it's the fact parts are in the wrong place. Like the front half of the drive pods are inexplicably cut off and attached to the side panels for some reason.

Those are all but impossible to get in North America.

It's the most realistic and interesting route for them. Revolutions rarely change the culture and systems of power that lead to oppression in the first place, after all.