• 2 Posts
  • 234 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 6th, 2024

help-circle










  • If you can afford to, you should go for liability only coverage. We recently bought a new car and have comprehensive on it. But for years we just had a single old Toyota as our only vehicle. And we didn’t keep comprehensive on it. Instead we purchased the highest liability policy the insurance company sells. A car that cheap is a small part of our financial world; we can afford to replace it. But the potential damage a vehicle can cause? It’s very easy to cause a million in damages with any vehicle. Long term care and medical bills add up quick.

    I recommended just sticking to liability if you can otherwise afford to replace a vehicle. It’s a lot easier to figure out what you’re buying when you’re buying liability coverage as well. If I cause an expensive accident, the company will be liable for it. They can’t easily weasel their way out of paying a fake amount. If I have a $1 million liability policy, and I lose a judgment for $1 million, there’s not much the insurance company can do but pay for it. In fact, their lawyers will be fighting the case for me, as they’re the ones who will ultimately have to pay if it fails. From an insurance purchase point of view, liability insurance is a pretty good deal. It’s easy to know what you’re purchasing, and it’s hard for the company to weasel their way out of payment on the back end.








  • You’re making an argument of absurd literalism. You argue that the name “non violent communication” is inappropriate because all language is non-violent by definition.

    But obviously any description of language will be in the context of language. Words can be fearful, as in they display clear fear by their speaker, even though obviously words themselves cannot experience emotion. Language could be called “confusing,” even though language has no will, can take no action, and cannot confuse anyone.

    Obviously words themselves are not physical things. That doesn’t mean language cannot be violent. Language can be violent in the exact same way language can be proud, boastful, joyful, and a thousand other things that words themselves are incapable of directly being or doing.

    You’re performing an exercise in literalist absurdity. Is your name Amelia Bedelia by any chance?


  • Why were they kangaroo courts? They were established by an International Charter.. You can point out that the Nazi’s crimes weren’t illegal under German law, but who cares? Multiple jurisdictions can exist simultaneously. Sure there’s an element of ex post facto in making crimes against humanity a legal charge after the fact, but the ex post facto protections are something we democratically agreed to adopt. And maybe we can just agree to not let genocide be subject to ex post facto protections under international treaty. Yes, this was all just made up by people, but ultimately all laws and legal systems were first dreamed up by people doing a lot of improvisation.


  • Seriously. The idea that they’re just words and they have no meaning is historically ignorant. We executed Nazi propagandists, even if they never killed anyone with their own hands. Inciting others to genocide is still a crime against humanity.

    Kirk was openly calling for the extermination of a group of people that represents the same portion of the US population as the Jews did in Germany prior to WW2. It is not all hyperbole to place Kirk’s death in its proper historical context. We literally executed people for doing what Kirk made his whole career doing.