Not using a seatbelt will still increase the chance that you are injured. This will put a burden on society.
Asking your estate to pay is useless if you have no money, insurance claims can reach the millions which most people can not afford. Pedestrians and cyclists aren’t and should not need to be insured.
Not using a seatbelt will still increase the chance that you are injured. This will put a burden on society.
As long as I am not property of society, this does not cause a moral problem.
Asking your estate to pay is useless if you have no money, insurance claims can reach the millions which most people can not afford. Pedestrians and cyclists aren’t and should not need to be insured.
If I have no money, I can’t get insurance or car either. Also, this is s pragmatic issue, not a moral one.
Yes, we have private and free public healthcare. So great if it’s the rich not wearing a seatbelt, they have to pay for their healthcare. But poorer people (or those without health insurance) have to be paid for by the taxpayer…
One doesn’t need to look much farther than Spotify to see how large corporations exploit their market power to disadvantage artists unless they’re wicked famous.
Spotify did the legwork of putting the platform in place tho. Personally I tend to buy from Bandcamp, but you won’t find everything you’re looking for.
Yeah, Spotify definitely did make a global platform which people could rely on. But that doesn’t make it immune to criticism for their monopolistic behavior. You wouldn’t say the same thing about Google - who uses their market position to set their own prices for advertising, etc.
It’s not like there isn’t any competition out there to Spotify (Apple Music, YouTube Music, Deezer, Amazon Prime Music,Tidal are the top ones that come to mind), the artists are free not not publish their music there if they disagree.
I used to live in Germany and can confidently say there was never any police around to enforce this. Though I lived in a small dorf and would commute in to a small city. Not sure how it is in larger cities.
If our game sells for 59.99$ and someone gives a copy to their friend, we’re not out 59.99$. It cost us nothing.
If that person loves our game (as we hope most our users do) then they might come around and buy it. Now we’re up 59.99$ (minus whatever commissions we pay to tech giants).
If they’re playing our game, they’re still looking up resources or guides and boosting our SEO. They pirated it because that’s just how they get games.
If we add anything to make piracy harder, worst case we’re just going to kick the nuts of our paying users, and best case we just stopped a group of people from playing our game. Great business model that would be…
Yep. Microsoft and Adobe (and to an extent Netflix) worked to allow payment workaround versions of their software, and Valve had good enough integration that most pirates gave up. Compared to a million failed examples, it’s easy to see why a small dev studio like us would pick the right track.
you could play up to 10 people online on a single won key; there was no cracking required of hl, and won keys were easy to swap in the registry (manually or with script) if too many already used it. not only did friends share their keys, there were tons of won lists floating around the internet. and the goldsrc engine was incredibly easy to mod - opening the flood gates of gaming.
valve got big by having a great game; with tons of amazing free games built on top of it by a huge and idealistic community. and super easy access to online servers long before f2p models.
not to mention the early days of steam was buggy and gave you the entire hl1 collection including team-fortress, day of defeat, riccochet and counter-strike as a free registered user with no won key (i made multiple free accounts to get the games for free just in case my friends missed the opportunity since we were all obsessing over hl1 mods back then).
the anti-piracy was never really a thing, valve even tried to re-vitalize the modding community by releasing alien swarm for free and bundle the sdk. sadly it was too late for any momentum (plus the proprietary issues with parts of the source code getting in the way of the cultural shift where people want some money for their efforts).
Re-appropriating abything from corporations…
Absolutely. One of the best ways we can redistribute just a little bit of the wealth, especially if you share with others
I can understand to an extent. People who’s on their death beds and people who’s about to jump off a building, they’re both suicidal. However, the latter can get professional help and get better, thus we should prevent it. Terminal cancer patients have no hope in recovery, letting go should be a choice.
Burning a photo of the monarch. (Ilegal in Spain)
👀
Prostituion
Why?
Why not?
any and all drug use or possession, even sale so long as it’s not misrepresented,ie fent instead of oxy
drugs like psychedelics and hard ones
Many things.
If you don’t wear seatbelts you can hurt other people in the car.
If you don’t have vehicle insurance and you injur someone they won’t have any payout on top of being injured.
Good point. But then, seatbelts mustn’t be compulsory for people driving alone.
They still have some solid options:
In money terms, the business of insuring cars is mostly about repairs of cars.
If you get thrown out of the vehicle, your body can still knock out some pedestrians. Your blood on the road would be hard to clean up.
And people are dumb. Better enforce something if it’s serious, like masks.
If masks are hallmark of seriousness, take my white flag.
Not using a seatbelt will still increase the chance that you are injured. This will put a burden on society.
Asking your estate to pay is useless if you have no money, insurance claims can reach the millions which most people can not afford. Pedestrians and cyclists aren’t and should not need to be insured.
As long as I am not property of society, this does not cause a moral problem.
If I have no money, I can’t get insurance or car either. Also, this is s pragmatic issue, not a moral one.
Yes, we have private and free public healthcare. So great if it’s the rich not wearing a seatbelt, they have to pay for their healthcare. But poorer people (or those without health insurance) have to be paid for by the taxpayer…
Breaking any kind of DRMs. It is an electronic shackle that serves nothing but to enrich the big corporations.
…and sometimes the poor authors and artists… I’d hope that artists and creators retain the freedom to choose.
One doesn’t need to look much farther than Spotify to see how large corporations exploit their market power to disadvantage artists unless they’re wicked famous.
Spotify brought back the music industry from the dead.
Sure. Like any other large org that capitalizes on other people’s labor.
Spotify did the legwork of putting the platform in place tho. Personally I tend to buy from Bandcamp, but you won’t find everything you’re looking for.
Yeah, Spotify definitely did make a global platform which people could rely on. But that doesn’t make it immune to criticism for their monopolistic behavior. You wouldn’t say the same thing about Google - who uses their market position to set their own prices for advertising, etc.
I thought we were talking about exploiting smaller artists, not anti-competitive behavior.
It’s not like there isn’t any competition out there to Spotify (Apple Music, YouTube Music, Deezer, Amazon Prime Music,Tidal are the top ones that come to mind), the artists are free not not publish their music there if they disagree.
removed by mod
You mean the consumption of abuse, traumatizing und violence?
Crossing a red light as a pedestrian can get you a fine in Germany and I think that makes 0 sense.
I understand it a little bit for bikes and totally understand it for massive steel structures like cars though.
I used to live in Germany and can confidently say there was never any police around to enforce this. Though I lived in a small dorf and would commute in to a small city. Not sure how it is in larger cities.
It’s not enforced, that’s true. Maybe it wasn’t a very good contribution by me :D
deleted by creator
Stealing from the federal reserve, that way you are not allowing US government to use taxpayers money to fund wars.
drugs
Loitering and being homeless.
Yep. Or helping/feeding poor people. That’ll get you a ticket is some places.
For the US at least (where I live):
I’m a game dev for a living. People who think piracy hurts our industry are 30 IQ points below mentally deficient
That’s an interesting perspective as a game dev, can you elaborate a bit?
If our game sells for 59.99$ and someone gives a copy to their friend, we’re not out 59.99$. It cost us nothing.
If that person loves our game (as we hope most our users do) then they might come around and buy it. Now we’re up 59.99$ (minus whatever commissions we pay to tech giants).
If they’re playing our game, they’re still looking up resources or guides and boosting our SEO. They pirated it because that’s just how they get games.
If we add anything to make piracy harder, worst case we’re just going to kick the nuts of our paying users, and best case we just stopped a group of people from playing our game. Great business model that would be…
basically the success story behind photoshop, valve, etc.
Yep. Microsoft and Adobe (and to an extent Netflix) worked to allow payment workaround versions of their software, and Valve had good enough integration that most pirates gave up. Compared to a million failed examples, it’s easy to see why a small dev studio like us would pick the right track.
you could play up to 10 people online on a single won key; there was no cracking required of hl, and won keys were easy to swap in the registry (manually or with script) if too many already used it. not only did friends share their keys, there were tons of won lists floating around the internet. and the goldsrc engine was incredibly easy to mod - opening the flood gates of gaming.
valve got big by having a great game; with tons of amazing free games built on top of it by a huge and idealistic community. and super easy access to online servers long before f2p models.
not to mention the early days of steam was buggy and gave you the entire hl1 collection including team-fortress, day of defeat, riccochet and counter-strike as a free registered user with no won key (i made multiple free accounts to get the games for free just in case my friends missed the opportunity since we were all obsessing over hl1 mods back then).
the anti-piracy was never really a thing, valve even tried to re-vitalize the modding community by releasing alien swarm for free and bundle the sdk. sadly it was too late for any momentum (plus the proprietary issues with parts of the source code getting in the way of the cultural shift where people want some money for their efforts).
ahh, the good old days.
deleted by creator
it would probably be shorter to list the things which are illegal and not morally fine:
anything else missing?
sabotage.
violating marriage vows (or any other formal commitment) after agreeing to them.
euthanasia, at least here in Brazil
I can understand to an extent. People who’s on their death beds and people who’s about to jump off a building, they’re both suicidal. However, the latter can get professional help and get better, thus we should prevent it. Terminal cancer patients have no hope in recovery, letting go should be a choice.
In Spain they legalized it recently. I don’t understand what have to say politicians if someone just wants to die?
Reverse-engineering anything for any purpose.