neveroffensive

> The former is probably also the majority

I think we also would disagree on the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.

> for present problems, ie the practical side

I see your point here, but we can't lose sight of the big picture. Compromising in the short term, no matter how many people it might help, seems like a bad idea to me.

I believe universal justice exists. I believe you can quantify justice. I think at the end of the day you and I are both right, and both wrong. We hold utterly different perspectives on life, choice, and freedom. These may be irreconcilable. For example, I genuinely believe depression can be cured by "not being depressed".

Edit:

What if I want to live my life paycheck to paycheck? What if none of what you just described about freedom from the emotional stress of finances matters to me? What right do you have to force me to make the "right" choices and be financially responsible? Why shouldn't I be allowed to hurt myself?

Nothing you've said here is wrong. The enquirer doesn't meet the minimum standards of journalism, they are a blackmail rag. I think this could actually be proven with empirical data.

There's a difference between a correction to a flawed article and attempted blackmail though... One is an accident that can occurre in the course of good journalism, the other is something else entirely.

There is no such thing as "financial freedom". Financial freedom is a concept that arises from personal beliefs and practices.

There is only one universal freedom, the freedom of chioce. I think this is more important than any 21st century pay day lending problem. We need to preserve free choice not just for our generation/set of problems, but for all time.

Edit: Don't confuse living a long, healthy, happy life with freedom. They could not be more different.

Shouldn't the `Student` class implement `Person` here? Did I miss that in the code sample?

> climate change + population growth will stress humans on the continent and increase environmental destruction

I find it interesting that population growth is discussed so little in the context of climate change. It seems like simple incentives/restrictions could be imposed to reduce birth rates. This would have a major impact on both climate change, and the depletion of the planets resources.

> We're just burying our heads in the sand about the reality of it.

As a US citizen, what can we really do. I realize our country shares responsibility for climate change, but isn't a major problem here also poaching? To really solve this, wouldn't Africa have to step up and crack down locally on industry damaging the environment, and poaching?

I don't think anyone is burring their heads in the sand, we just have no power to change things here or abroad. Half of our country still thinks climate change is a hoax...

> This is one of the things that turns me off Hacker News, an overly strong bias in defense of white men.

Really? I feel the exact opposite. HN is full of articles like this, singling out white men, and claiming they are somehow either toxic or the beneficiaries of privilege.

I detest gender/identity politics, and don't think claims should be leveled against an entire group based on unrelated physical traits. This is the only reason I jump to defend "white men". If an article was posted making the same claims about another race/gender I would mount the same defense. However, those kinds of articles never show up here, because the are more obviously racist.

> None of these subs contained "sexual deviants".

This is the problem with using the government to enforce any kind of grey aria social issue. We all have different definitions for sexual deviants, or reasonable drug use, etc...

I'm sure the above comment has some sort of religious background, and genuinely believes people on those subs are deviants.