Search Ideas
2753 ideas match your query.:
The current industrialisation of food is problematic, but these are parochial problems. There is nothing about industrialised food production that is fundamentally and irredeemably flawed. Problems are soluble!
I’ve found that if I stick to Whole Foods type places the quality of food is quite good, including some options that aren’t available in NZ.
But yes, the mainstream food options are crap, including the majority of restaurants.
Thankfully the US has reverse-osmosis water filtration options pretty much everywhere.
This might be a difference in dialect. I mean ‘mustn’t’ as in ‘must not’.
Example sentence: “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he must not be home then.” —> “I guess he mustn’t be home then.”
This sentence is much more natural than “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he cannot be home then.”
Do you care to be around people that speak your native tongue?
I second that about Las Vegas. If you don't mind the provocative posters, southern Nevada, southern Utah, Northern Arizona is a great place to be.
Avoid the US for this. Food quality is worse than third world countries. The food is no where near as organic. Unpopular opinion, but I don't think food should be industrialized.
All the areas in the US I have lived in have terrible water quality.
mustn’t
Maybe this is the non-native speaker in me, but do you mean ‘can’t’? I thought ‘mustn’t’ means ‘may not’: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/must_not
I think having a jury of your peers is important in criminal cases and they shouldn’t be done away with. Juries protect the accused from abuse of authority and unjust laws.
Maybe juries can be done away with. Not all levels of courts have juries, so they mustn’t be fundamental.
Maybe juries can be done away with. Not all levels of courts have them, so they mustn’t be fundamental.
Yes, unless one find the action fun (like I find jury duty fun). If I didn't find it fun, I'd argue I am in the right for doing things to get out of jury duty.
One has the right to do things he find interesting, no matter how trivial.
Rand defines duty as "the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority." Can one completely remove duty from their worldview? In other words, can one completely remove oneself from doing things as an obedience to a higher authority, imagined or real?
If the authority is real, one might still decide to do the thing by rationally deciding not doing it has consequences.
they will just vote for whatever outcome will get them out of there the fastest
Making it voluntary and with pay could fix this problem, but not necessarily. I can imagine a scenario where a juror is looking to get as many duties as possible.
There is no contract with the country. A contract implies consent, the freedom to sign or not sign. A forced signature is null and void.
[Jury duty is] part of your contract with the country.
… if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
By that ‘logic’, we never could have abolished slavery. What a stupid argument.
The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory.
Not necessarily. It might just mean that courts suck at persuading people to be jurors.
Who would subject themselves to that [gruesome] experience [of being a juror] voluntarily? The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory. And if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
Why does John Doe deserve your best effort? He’s a random stranger to you. Why should you care what happens to him? What has he done to deserve your effort and consideration?
This sounds like sacrifice/altruism.
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
I think [the inner workings of the justice system are] goddamned impressive. And humbling. And when I get a summons to serve? I go. Because both “the People of the State” and that “John Doe” deserve my best effort. I would expect it if I was ever on the wrong side of that -vs- and I would hope that you would too.
If jury duty were required for a free society to work, that would mean some people would have to be enslaved for a while to ensure freedom for everyone else. In other words, freedom would require some amount of slavery. That’s contradictory.
No, again, if you persuade enough people, you will have a diverse pool to choose from.