I have a 10KV electric fence. 5KV to 15KV is typical electric fence voltage in a farm or bear prevention fence. Can’t feel a thing unless you actually touch it.

They are also not lethal. Very low current, just very high voltage. So it only hurts like fuck, but won’t kill a human, cow, or any other mammal that touches it.

I wonder how many people on lemmy knows that singer is a sewing machine brand.

I think feelings and personal beliefs should stay as far as possible from philosophy. Philosophy should never evolve around subjectivity such as feelings; philosophy is an attempt to be as rational and logical as possible in albeit a very subjective world. Much of philosophical arguments are made in same manner as discrete mathematics because of this but with words rather than formulas and rules. Even religious medieval philosophers attempted to be as logical as possible in their approach to explaining religion rather than relying on belief (though often fail despite their best attempts). So the “feeling of unsafe environment” isn’t something I see as compatible with any philosophical discussion as a basis of reason. There needs to be an objective as possible pivot.

We see plenty of vastly different feeling of unsafe in social media. Some of which even do so with the intent of not actually feeling unsafe but to garner views and likes. If someone is scared by everything, can we start intolerating everyone else? We don’t know where the line can be drawn between being a just society that tolerates freedoms and the one where tolerable can no longer exist.

This is why Popper proposed the entire dilemma. The violence being the pivot of intolerable intolerance isn’t his opinion. It is that with violence, tolerable objectively (as much as we can be objective) cannot exist.

Even in your example, you attempt to separate objectivity vs subjectivity in are/is versus believe respectively for the sole correctness of the former. (Even though in my view, proof of what is is going to end up as sum of your beliefs or a cyclic viewpoint.) And then the argument goes back to pivoting in the subjectivity of feelings.

If you rely on subjectivity to draw the line of what’s intolerable intolerance, then you will be intolerant of people who you subjectively view as intolerable.

Actually, you are misunderstanding the paradox of tolerance. And I would say it is one of the most frequently misquoted philosophy on discussion forums such as lemmy or reddit.

Popper asserted many times that the intolerable intolerance is violence. “Fists and pistols” as he calls it.

By intolerating at a stage by calling the other as intolerable when we’re still quite far from violence such as this case of HR management, you are proposing for an unjust society–is what Popper would say.

I watched Monty Python holy grail after hearing about it so much on the internet. After finally watching it, my opinion was basically that I already watched all the funny parts through random clips and references made in Reddit multiple times. The rest of it was pretty dull and my entire experience as a result was meh. So you might not enjoy watching it either.

12v boat motors are for only trolling. So technically it powers a boat, but not really… They’re typically only 1hp. You could get a 1hp AC, but they’re not designed to run on 12v. You’d need to change DC to AC and then step up to 120v at least.

You’d run out of power pretty fast either way if you’re planning to use the AC for extended period of time, just like trolling motors. And no quick way to recharge. Alternator suggested above is somewhat realistic as some cars actually do come with a 120V outlet (albeit at limited wattage not enough to power a full sized window AC). Though, all of this is rather inefficient setup and burning more gas.

This type of mandate exists in specific industries. I’m really not sure why it doesn’t exist in other.

A large charged lemonade has 4 times the caffeine content than a cup of coffee according to wapo which I won’t bother linking because it’s paywalled. It’s about twice the size of coffee and twice the concentration of caffeine.

Unfortunately many large corporations actually get money from the gov rather than pay. Negative tax is a real thing and only takes a quick search to find corps that’s very profitable actually getting paid billions by the government.

Like these companies got money from gov while being profitable. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/03/07/27-giant-profitable-companies-paid-no-taxes/81399094/

It fluctuates quite a bit from year to year as grants and various benefits change every year.

Japan’s birth rate isn’t even that low anymore comparatively to other nations.

Take a look at South Korea. It’s nearly half of Japan. Japan is like 1.3 (OP’s article) and SK is at 0.7 (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-koreas-fertility-rate-dropped-fresh-record-low-2023-2024-02-28/). SK is the absolute dead last in the world. Even China is lower than Japan now at 1.2 even after getting rid of the 1 child policy.

Think the west is any different? Canada also hovers at round 1.3. (https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadas-birth-rate-has-dropped-off-a-cliff-and-its-because-nobody-can-afford-housing - just sourcing 1.3, I don’t actually agree with their reasoning) Canada’s population only increases because of massive immigration they accept. And immigrants from poorer countries are more likely to have children than existing. So, might even rival SK if we were to not count 1st/2nd gen immigrants, though we don’t have such exact data collection, only corollary.

Apparently nothing. Since I’ve had 0 actual counter argument so far. All I got is name calling and starwman.

You still lack the ability to address the content. You’re just spewing out things you’re familiar with. You’re not actually engaging in any discussion.

No one should rape anyone. I don’t see how this is relevant to this discussion.

How is my analogy false? How did I victim blame? What did I blame her of? I said nothing of such. You’re going to have to substantiate your claim.

I masterbate and have no issues others materbating. In fact I already said it’s fine if she wants to do OF.

I did not victim blame. I wish logic and/or discrete mathematics is a requirement education in the world. Then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

I’m not trying to control her sexuality. I, in fact, said it’s fine if she wants to do OF. So you have read me wrong. I pointed out people’s inability to predict the future.

You have judged me for judging on things I didn’t say. You smell of hypocrisy.

When you were little, did you parents teach you to look both ways before crossing the street? Even when you’re at a stop sign or at a green light? Probably, since you’re still alive. Why did they do that? You’d be in the right. If a car hit you, you’d be the victim, 100%. But you do that anyway because being right or being the victim is completely irrelevant. It’s not about who gets the blame. It’s about what gives you the best outcome. You looking both ways before crossing the street has the best outcome for you. It doesn’t matter if you’re right if you’re fucking dead.

If she wanted the best outcome of staying as a teacher, she shouldn’t have done OF. This should be a very easy deductive logic people should be able to make given what is the current society.

This is not victim blaming. I lean quite far left, and this is one of the most insanely annoying thing I find about the left. Far too many only look about who’s the victim and whose to blame. That shit is fucking stupidest outlook on life. It’s a good goal to attain, a world without problem causing things. But unless utopia happens, you need to learn to figure out how the world works. Failure to do that simply means you’re stupid. You might be a victim, but you’re still stupid.

If you’re an adult, you should learn to address the argument, not make ad hominem attacks.

No, that is not the same vain. The logic isn’t consistent.

It would be: If she doesn’t want to get raped, she should take precautions based on the risks involved.

If this teacher doesn’t want to be fired, she should understand that there are risks that follow her actions.

If I follow your logic, the statement of the teacher would become:

She must’ve wanted to get fired, so she did OF. No, the predicate the consequences are backwards.

Being stupid is not a defense. And your argument is illogical.

Because you couldn’t point out what was wrong, you decided to take a strawman? No, that is not the same vain. The logic isn’t consistent.

It would be: If she doesn’t want to get raped, she should take precautions based on the risks involved.

If this teacher doesn’t want to be fired, she should understand that there are risks that follow her actions.

If I follow your logic, the statement of the teacher would become:

She must’ve wanted to get fired, so she did OF. No, the predicate the consequences are backwards.

Being stupid is not a defense. And your argument is illogical.

As a young teenager I did not care.

Were you a young teenage girl? Because you seem to completely lack understanding of teenage boys’ psychology. There’s absolutely no reason they would be angry at her for making them horny. That makes no sense at all.

I would agree with your other replier on this. Furthering that, I would say this is the teenage boys’ attempt to challenge authority by undermining her authority with her open sexuality as a tool. They found a leverage to have power over her. And they’re going to use it to the full extent. They’re at a point in time of their growth where they find their social hierarchy. Almost every male mammal engages in this. They pick fights and they learn where they stand by winning and losing. And they want to get as high as possible. This explains the anger that you pointed out, because challenging authority and fighting is inherently similar emotion to anger.