• 0 Posts
  • 389 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle
  • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.catoMemes@lemmy.mlChoice
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 days ago

    Doing something that demonstrably doesn’t work isn’t how you get what you want. If you want an option besides Democrats and Republicans, voting for someone else where those two options have a lock on winning does nothing besides vent some spleen.

    I’m not saying doing nothing is the solution, or even voting for the two main parties is the solution, but doing something that has been shown to be completely ineffective is not the solution.


  • Not a problem. It’s essentially rolled into our taxes for the most part in Canada. You may have health insurance on top of that, but that isn’t a guarantee and usually is a top-up of our universal coverage. This usually covers things like drug prescriptions, glasses, and hospital conveniences such as semi-private or private rooms. I agree with the general idea, though, that we as a group pay for everyone who is covered. My original point at the top of this thread is that removing people’s eligibility simply because of risky behavior can be very tricky and likely harmful to society.









  • So I drink more pop than I should. Why should I have to pay more for my healthcare than my buddy who had a habit of timing running green lights as soon as they turned green. That isn’t illegal, either, yet it’s very risky behavior. It didn’t work out for him just one time, and he nearly died. Why should taxpayers have to pay for him?

    The answer is because the vast majority of us engage in risky behavior, or just have the bad taste of passing on our poor genetics to the next generation, and the social cost for penalizing people for not agreeing with societal norms are too high. This includes drug use, even legal ones like alcohol. Sure, don’t spend limited resources such as donated livers on people who aren’t willing to make the lifestyle changes required to make it worthwhile, because someone else will probably have to die for that to happen. But if we could make new livers and the price was reasonable, I wouldn’t even be against that.




  • Because the way to get rid of angry, desperate people is to kill them. A better way is to get rid of the desperation, which usually gives them something to lose, which gives them less desire to engage in actions that will lose them. That’s why the War on Terror ended in a withdrawal, and not a victory. Sure, education and economic improvement isn’t very fast, but some governments seem to be more than okay spending a couple decades doing something different.

    No, this won’t get rid of all of the terrorists, but how many of the wealthy, educated, married extremists with families are actually willing to risk their lives for their beliefs?



  • There are a handful of commercial sailing vessels for both cargo and cruises, although they are hard to find. Here is one I found that still seems to be in service. A fairly complete list of sailing vessels can be found here. Some that are listed as currently sailing actually aren’t, but it’s still a place to look. The Royal Clipper seems to do the occasional transatlantic cruise, so that could be relevant for the OP. I didn’t take price into consideration, they could be quite expensive.