If you use public roads, have an insurance policy of any kind, rely on the fact that public services like police and firemen are around in case you need them, or live in a suburb at all, you are having some aspects of your life subsidized by the public at large.
That’s how you get a population decline, which is actually probably worse in the long run.
I am going to assume you also live in the US here, because that’s the environment I’m most familiar with and is where I’ve heard the most complaints about highways for. The problem is partly that they were built to go directly through city centers rather than around cities, and it’s way too late to change that, and partly because General Motors propaganda meant that everyone considers cars to just be the default way of getting anywhere to the extent that other options often just don’t exist. For getting between cities, and especially for getting good and produce between cities, highways are a fine option to exist. I would absolutely prefer that high speed rail existed as an alternative, but even if it did I am certain there are some people that would still find it more convenient to drive.
I think most people here agree that a ban is inappropriate for saying that. As for why needing to pay only for your own kids would result in poor education, it’s because an absolutely massive amount of the population just outright couldn’t afford it. Schools are expensive to run, even more so if you want them to actually give a decent education.
I am of the opinion that Highways existing in general are a net good, but definitely shouldn’t be built the way they have been and need to be given viable alternatives in most cases. I would have used the example of paying for roads without owning a car, but I made a few assumptions about the kind of person I was replying to and tried to tailor my argument to the kind of person I figured they were (as in, the kind of person that definitely owns a car and uses it extensively).
And also what if they do eventually have kids, how fair would it be if they took advantage of an institution that they hadn’t been paying into the success of.
To be clear, I don’t think a ban is an appropriate response to saying something like that, but it does have the same implications as saying “why should I pay for car insurance, I’m not going to get in a crash” or “why pay for highways, I never leave my suburb”. Even if you don’t directly benefit from those services existing and being paid for, other people do and you actually do benefit from those other people being better off. For the educating kids subject specifically, think about when you’re 60, do you want to be taken care of by doctors that got a subpar education, or for your retirement funds to run out because the institutions they rely on collapsed due to a lack of educated workers. It is to everyone’s personal benefit in the long run to pay for public services that help the community even if they don’t take advantage of them personally and directly.
To answer that question, it’s because it is in the best interest of society as a whole including the people that don’t have children for the next generation to grow up educated and able to contribute productively to society.
To be fair, people stopped after starting a witch hunt for the Boston bombers and identifying the completely wrong people. It may very well be the case that they over corrected, but there is at least a good reason for the change overall. (also corporate interests I suppose, fuck them though)
Exactly, there is no reason a social media company has to be a for-profit business.
Lemmy very unfortunately doesn’t have either the breadth or depth or Reddit porn yet. If it does get there it won’t be for years yet.
People that want there to be a platform they can enjoy using. There doesn’t have to be a monetary gain for your life to be enriched by an investment you make. I mean, people make donations to wikipedia, how is that any different?
Just the usual business of the author being a tosser and people not wanting to support her.
Funny enough my reason for dual booting has nothing to do with anti-cheat I think, rather it’s because a couple of my more graphically intensive games will randomly cause my entire system to completely freeze while I’m on linux and they don’t on windows. (I also have a couple games that I would need to fiddle with wine to get them to work, but the primary motivation is the system freeze)