TheActualDevil

Where's your data that, "all else being equal, office-based work IS better"? I mean, I don't have data that says otherwise, but I know the company I work for as well as higher-ups at other companies I've talked to noticed right out the gate that productivity went up when they went work from home. The same work needs to be done, and it gets done. If it doesn't, fire them. I have trouble seeing how the location the worker is in matters, all things being equal.

You've got some good points there, but it feels a little naive of nuance in parts.

Like, if these are natural rights, presumably this still counted before humans banded together to form the first societies. Before, even, we were small roving migratory groups that only just managed to climb out of the trees. humans, as they were, are basically animals at that point, right? I mean, we're still animals, but you know what I mean. So we still have those rights? What makes us different than the other animals (or even other ape descendants) that we see as food? As a species, we were evolved to eat meat, which requires killing something else that presumably has these same rights that we have to violate to enforce our own right to life. Or did natural rights come later, when we were "better" and "more advanced" than the animals we hunted? Does that mean we get these rights when we reach a certain point in self-awareness?

It's tough to argue with the base arguments you present, and I don't disagree with them... but they can be argued against. Like your slavery argument. It goes against these natural rights that we have always had, yet we started taking our first steps toward stopping it, like, 600 years ago? Slavery predates writing. As far as we know, mankind was enslaving other people as far as we can track, and definitely hundreds, if not thousands of years before. So were they not aware of these natural rights or just didn't care?

It sounds like you're saying these are natural rights that everyone has because it feels right to you dues to the society you grew up in that appreciated these rights. They have to come from somewhere to be natural but only really count for some living things and not others.

Personally, I don't believe in natural rights. We're animals that grew opposable thumbs and learned to make tools. Human rights come about only because we live together in societies. In a way that sounds contradictory, we formed groups and gained rights among those other humans, and in the same instant traded some of those away for that group to function. Rights have to come from somewhere. Without groups agreeing on what those rights are, then the decider of rights is whoever is strongest. Might makes right started to decline only because we got into groups large enough to defend against outside forces, and even then it was only within the group in which those rights existed. Rights themselves are part of the social contract we all participate in when we exist in society and universal human rights is a relatively recent advancement, and we definitely haven't come to a consensus as to what they all definitely are. But if society breaks down, those rights definitely disappear overnight. But I've always been the kind of person who needs reasons to believe a thing and have sound reasons to believe it.

I'm with you on right to life, and bodily autonomy are things that all humans should have. I think we just differ in their origin and universality.

So who decides what rights are natural ones and which ones need a government to enforce? And what are the natural rights? Not just that you believe it to be so, but why? And what you use to make that decision.

Forgive me, but I've been doing a lot of research lately on natural rights and their protections, limits, and origins. I've been reading a lot of philosophy on it and it's extremely interesting. I'm genuinely curious how people come to these conclusions and I love hearing different viewpoints.

So where do these rights come from, if not the laws? I wonder if you may be taking free speech as a right as a given because of the time you grew up in. You speak of it as an absolute, but where does that belief come from? You say "rights" as if they're something enshrined in our souls by a god, but like, how do you know that? Where does this information come from?

This is purely a philosophical question. I'm on the free speech wagon here. But realistically, Who gets to decide what's actually an inalienable right that everyone has vs. rights that are encoded in laws?

One of those is there to sell more Playstation Plus Premium memberships. The other is there as a cheap way to try and convince a few people to buy a game no one wants.

I'll let you decide which is which.

But if it can survive on it's own, it's not aborted. Were it legal to remove the fetus at that point, then it's a delivery. It can survive on it's own without being attached to the another's body, so they would deliver it early.

That might be due to our heavy government surveillance system. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that a militia was arrested before they could carry out their plan to kidnap the governor of Michigan. The year before that a Coast Guard lieutenant was arrested before he could kill journalists and Democrat politicians. There was that nutjob who took a hammer to Pelosi's husband's head (Didn't even catch that one in time!) There's tons of attempts to assassinate presidents. Kinda feels pretty par for the course.

But the original point, I think, was that it's kinda weird for someone to say it's not surprising for it to happen in Mexico, as if it's some third world country run like New York in Escape from New York while pretending it doesn't happen in the US frequently. The US is just a bigger police state so they catch most of them before anyone dies. The FBI has plants in militias and groups like them all over the country specifically to catch this kind of thing. Most governments just can't afford that kind of manpower. The US is not special or really that much safer, and comments normalizing this kind of thing for Mexico is why anyone even made that argument. It's definitely shitty, and probably racist to think that it's reasonable, when it's in Mexico, people say "Eh it happens.”

Specifically, I'm assuming they're talking about the change in spring when we lose an hour overnight. That morning is pretty deadly, statistically. The lack of sleep causes car accidents, heart attacks, and strokes. The stress lack of sleep puts on the body is no joke, and when it hits most of the population all at once, people die. And I'm assuming men are more likely to suffer from heart attacks maybe?

Judging by the comments here, it seems it may vary between schools. Mine has a system where you "apply" for graduation. They just go over your records to make sure you've earned all the correct credits and enough of them. Once they've verified it they let you know they have and that you now have the degree. I'd probably check with your advisor if you have one, or if not contact the school and ask if there are any steps you need to take once your required classes have been completed.

I can't imagine them using V again. Geralt was a character in his own right that had character traits that were handed over to you to play with. The world was built for Geralt to be in. V was built as a blank slate character to insert yourself into. There's no reason to keep them. I'm pretty sure they only gave the character a name so everyone else in the game could have voice lines for everything and refer to the character by name. It was an attempt to make it a smoother experience, but really, V was a faceless avatar for the player no different to the Fallout games. But because they did the thing with the name it's seamless and everyone sees V as a character, but they're all seeing them as a different character based on how they played. It was pretty clever and I'm sure they'll do it again.

In the Witcher 3 they had a thing where if you'd played the previous game on the same system and the game file was still there you could allow it to read that file and use decisions you made there to inform the new game. Now, I never got around to finishing Cyberpunk and don't know what the different endings are, so I don't know how much of a difference it would be, but if they've done that before they could do something similar here. Like, the world and story are the same, but any reference to the past includes the choice you made. And if you don't have a save file, they just pick the one the developers like most probably.

There's one other option:

They could make games outside newer versions of the same game. Game studios used to (and many still do) make a game, put it out, then get started making a whole different game. Even with the modern ability to update games,

1. Put game out

2. Update game to deal with unforeseen bugs found once the masses have access

3. Maybe put out 1 DLC if you want

4. Make a new game now. A different game.