toebert

@toebert@piefed.social

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  They absolutely were, without them there’s no rhetoric of “oh the other right wing party left us without money so we need to raise taxes to pay back debts”, they’re then also free to do all the unpopular shit to make sure they’re not re-elected and there’s money again to steal. It’s a back and forth team effort.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Do you preorder games?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I never pre-order, there is no benefit.

  Early access is misleading, there are games which are “released” and would barely count as early access and vice-versa, so I just treat them equally.

  The criteria for me is that based on reviews or some gameplay footage it seems like I can get £1/hour worth of enjoyment out of it. I tend to look for how many hours do people have when they leave reviews and how many have they played since, rather than just what they say. If I’m unsure if I’ll like it and there is not enough videos or reviews to give me certainty, i may take a risk on £10 and below games depending on how bored I am at the time.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Teenage Jehovah's Witness can receive blood transfusion, judge rules⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Sure, but they have reported that the child is capable of making their own decisions and fully understand the consequences:

  A report submitted to Lady Tait assessed the child as having “capacity” and having a full understanding of the implications of her decision.

  So it seems they assessed it, found that the child can make the decision, then made the decision themselves instead.

  The point I made is that for them to decide about this case the outcome of the assessment should have been something more like “established that the child is not developed/mature/whatever enough to make a decision that can potentially end their lives until they reach 18y of age” or “the child has been exposed to harmful religious propaganda for years…..” instead. Basically, anything that’d clarify the reason and criteria that enables them to make this decision on the child’s behalf against their wishes (even if they are illogical).

  Worrying when they start making the decisions you don’t agree with sounds like worrying once the milk is already spilled, especially when precedents are a thing. They are a lot easier to make than overturn.

  I disagree with this being a “slippery slope fallacy”, I think there is already something wrong here even if the outcome is still agreeable, hence my conflict.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Teenage Jehovah's Witness can receive blood transfusion, judge rules⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I find it difficult to tell how I feel about this. On the one hand it seems in this case the health board is trying to ensure the child survives the operation while trying to honour their wish to avoid the transfusion unless it’s clearly necessary, which all sounds good. I also recognise that the reason the child is refusing it is due to religion which they probably had no choice but to be indoctrinated in from birth.

  On the other hand, all parties recognise that the child is capable of making their own decision and understand the consequences, but yet still gets ignored. This seems like a slippery slope. Where is the line when the court can decide what happens to someone’s body against their will? I could understand it if they also claim the person is unable to make the choice for themselves (e.g. too young to understand the consequences, or under the influence of propaganda), but they are not claiming that.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Water shortages could derail UK’s net zero plans, study finds⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Nah, we just let half the country flood once a year instead.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨UK digital ID plan gets a price tag at last – £1.8B⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m just so tired of paying taxes and then having to spend more money to support various organisations to fight the government using my money against me. Even sending representatives emails about these issues just feels like spending 5-10 mins of my time to write it, then paying for 5 mins of their time to get back a long version of “yea sure”. I might as well just start setting money on fire instead, same outcome less effort.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why isn't it considered vegan to harvest animals who die naturally?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m not vegan myself but I had asked a similar enough question to a vegan friend a while ago and liked his answer:

  He said for him it’s 2 parts, 1 is that while the animal that died may not have been harmed by humans, the ecosystem that relies on scavenging carcasses will be hurt if humans effectively start removing their entire food source (same way we have driven species to extinction by hunting).

  The 2nd part is that with humans everything with even the tiniest loop hole will get abused.. Imagine that we say this is okay. Today it may be the odd naturally deceased animal, in a month it’ll start including animals “killed accidentally”, in a year it’ll be someone farming animals with some weird way of culling them so they can claim it’s still natural causes by some twisted logic.. at the end of it we’d just not be able to trust any of it anyway so it’s easier to not even entertain the thought - the energy to figure it all out would be better spent on improving alternatives.