No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Absolute copium. Yes seeing a problem and choosing to contribute to it is bad. Perhaps worse than being an ignorant contributor.
You can't live outside the system, love it or hate it. I don't blame people more fortunate for making good decisions. I do blame them for not recognizing the system is shit and bragging they're better when the tables are tilted.
If we are to make the system better, we need a big coalition, and personally I applaud people like OP that can at least see reality for what is is.
Your clearly using "the system" as an excuse not to improve yourself and to justify you doing things you morally disagree with. Like I said, copium.
Oh you're one of those that shames people, I thought you actually cared. Nevermind.
Rich coming from someone who doesn't care enough to change themselves
Ok boomer
*zoomer
I completely disagree with this.
First, having rentals available is a necessity. There are plenty of people who simply do not want the responsibility, or need the flexibility to move more easily than owning allows for (like university students and people moving around for jobs). If rental units are needed, someone has to be a landlord to provide that.
Second, choosing to significantly impact your own own life because of country-wide problems is heroic, but fucking useless. The change in this space will not come from all landlords all choosing to be better people. That's never going to happen, and if you think that's an option you're the one being ignorant. The only realistic way this housing situation changes is if the laws change, and the laws change when voters pick politicians who will change them.
The only time this person is a hypocrite is if they say they want to fix the problem, but then do not vote for the person who will fix it.
An addition to this statement as well. People always seem to find renting and owning as two polar opposites, but this doesn't have to be the case. A landlord can also do something called rent to own, car dealerships do the same. It's where you can rent for as long as you want, and it is known up front that the rent payments partially contribute towards the cost of the loan, eventually the amount paid via rental is equal to the market value(plus usually whatever the landlord stated they wanted their profit of it being) or a big enough prepayment to be able to afford an actual loan or full payment on it, and at that point the deed/title is transferred over to the renters(or the loan company if they went that route). It's an alternative to getting a mortgage, and it benefits both parties because the renter could decide to leave any time (once their current lease expires or unless stated otherwise) and the landlord is still getting their profits (and in many cases a higher profit due to the way it works). Generally speaking with these types of agreements though, the rental cost is higher than others to make up for the downpayment as well.
That's not really an in-between, You're still a renter and usually get no benefit if you fail to reach the specific criteria in the allotted time. It really doesn't solve anything other than issues with credit scores or available down payments.
It helps you when you are not sure if you want the building or not though, since it lets you start the process without locking yourself into a long term commitment. Additionally not all rent to own have a specific timeframe to pay it. Many are just cumulative and can be bailed whenever the leases run out, and the only thing the renter is out of is the extra money paid.
Okay buddy imma just go around murdering people. Which is fine and morally correct because I vote anti murder. And yes, me murdering people and then voting "don't murder" isn't hypocritical.
Your argument is weak.
There's already a law that says "Murder is bad, go to Jail" so no it's not fine, and society deemed it morally incorrect.
Society has not yet agreed that renting to people is morally incorrect, that's why it's still legal and why millions of people are landlords.
Lol. Slavery was morally correct because it was legal too I'm guessing?
At the time, yes, trying to run a commercial farm without slaves while you tried to get the laws changed would have been completely reasonable.
Morality is not absolute, its situational and relative. Applying modern morals to judge the past is an effort in stupidity.
"I wouldn't have done that" yes you definitely would have, because you would have been raised to do that.
There are things you do today that future generations will judge you as immoral for doing that you think are perfectly fine.
Do you think eating animals is acceptable? Future generations may think you just as barbaric for allowing that as you think people were for allowing human slaves. Or maybe they're fine with eating meat, but they will think you barbaric for allowing paid healthcare to exist and people to suffer because they're poor.
I don't eat animals btw
Gtfo slavery apologist
laws have nothing to do with morality. laws protect the powerful and the at social institutions that made them powerful. the fact that private property laws exist means powerful people depend on private property to maintain power.
Morality is determined by society. Society has not agreed that being a landlord is immoral.
Very few people want to eliminate rentals altogether. You can go look at polls, even the polls where you find the most support for restrictions only want secondary rental homes to be taxed higher.
can you tell me what ethical system says morality determined by society? it's been a few years since my philosophy degree, and it wasn't specialized in ethics, but I seem to remember moral relativism as being universally appalling.
"universally appalling" despite it literally having supporters arguing over it for over a thousand years...
Just because your class of idealist youth didn't like it doesn't make it universally appalling.
this isn't an answer
Your question didn't require an answer, since it answered itself.
so you're saying it's just straight up moral relativism, a theory of ethics that doesn't actually allow any questioning of morality, like divine command theory.
That's only one variation of moral relativism. It is, as most things in ethics are, not black and white.
your version is no more defensible than divine command theory, and it's totally useless for debating what we ought to think is moral.
I already stated what I believe to be moral in this situation, and how I arrived at that conclusion.
....with all the authority of a Bible thumper.