agamemnonymous

My ex.

For me, insurance and property tax work out to about 1/3 of my former rent (which was a smaller place than my current home). My mortgage by itself is about the same as my former rent. Based on what another commenter said about the typical percentage of payment toward interest (69% after 1 year, 55% after 10 years, 33% after 20) after a year my money-in-the-black-hole is roughly even to renting with about 1/4 of my total payment going straight to equity. After 10 years that goes up to 1/3 into equity, after 20 it's about 1/2.

Yes, my total payment is higher, but the home is larger; if I'd made a more horizontal move, the equity building rate would be more favorable. Additionally, I rented that space for 4 years and the rent went up 30%. The main thing to increase my payments now would be an increase in property taxes, which reflect an increase in property value. Personally, I felt very different about a 30% increase in rent than I'd feel about a property value increase that would bump taxes enough to raise my current payment 30%.

All I really did was convert some of what I'd save normally into the form of real estate. Home values typically increase about 3-5% annually, which is pretty comparable to most investment instruments. And I get the material benefit of a neat house to enjoy in the meantime, instead of some holdings with zero non-monetary value.

It's not necessarily the right move for everyone. I am particularly handy, so my maintenance costs are lower than they might be for others. But so far as money-in-the-black-hole and equity are concerned, I'd imagine most people who can shoulder the up-front costs would break even pretty quickly, interest included.

The worst part is draconic abortion bans also hurt those trying to have children. No one's getting recreational third trimester abortions. You picked out a name, painted the nursery. Late term abortions are tragedies to all parties, and only ever happen because of life threatening conditions.

I wouldn't want to plan a child when any complication could mean death.

I suppose in a sense our life is a trance, traveling forward through time, and the coordinated nervous rhythms of our vital organs are "mantras" that maintain it.

Strange, but simple

Profoundly incorrect on all counts. I hope your principles drown out the screams, because those of us with brains and hearts will be screaming with them.

other people communicate via music, math, pictures, touch, analogies, pick a form of information transfer.

These are all variations on labels. They are either effective forms of information transfer, or they're ineffective. Effective information transfer requires that the recipient can accurately decode the meaning of the message. If your communication mode accomplished that, congratulations you've made a label by another name. If it did not, you have not communicated your message.

No one is saying genocide isn't wrong, that's a ridiculous straw man. What people are saying is there are two outcomes: everyone in group A dies, or everyone in group A and group B dies. Not supporting genocide doesn't end the genocide. This isn't even the trolley problem because everyone on the side track is also on the main track Harris losing saved no one, and now the additional deaths will start. The performative resistance will be replaced by unlimited support.

Why do you think all those extra deaths justify your virtue? Don't Support Genocide will exacerbate the very problem it was intended to solve. This is why absolutism is a childish ethical philosophy doomed to failure. Of course genocide is wrong in every circumstance, but your absolutism just enabled the exacerbation of genocide. I hope your ideological purity is worth the annexation of the West Bank, because that's your prize

Slapping labels on things are how we discuss ideas. If you can't describe your worldview, you can't support or defend it. That said, the consequentialist stance is less label-obsessed than you. It only cares about results, not the philosophical pathway you followed to get there

How is erecting an absolute rule in ethical behavior distinct from deontology? Your stance against utilitarianism logically extrapolates to all consequentialism, and all teleology at that. You've constructed a philosophy where the rule, Don't Support Genocide, is elevated over the consequences, genocide is accelerated and expanded.

More deaths is an explicitly negative result, so your ethical philosophy failed at the one thing it was supposed to do. Defend your virtues all you want while the suffering of those actually affected skyrockets. Childish excuses.

Always faithful terrible lizard?

Enough high school Latin and amateur Greek to puzzle out the meaning of most new words I see.

So deontology? An absolute trash philosophy, see the Paradox of Deontology. Lying is wrong, so you shouldn't lie to the axe murderer when they ask where your family is. Enabling genocide is wrong, so we should let the person who wants to accelerate that genocide and enable others get into a position to do so. Many more will suffer and die, but hey at least you can be smug about your virtues.

This is a childish philosophy for childish people. It says "Who cares about the consequences of my choices. All that matters is that I don't have to make any difficult choices when presented with an ethical dilemma. Who cares if the death tolls skyrocket." It disincentivizes action in the very situations that most desperately rely on ethical considerations.

If you make "the right choice" and more people directly suffer because of it, you didn't make the right choice. You made excuses.

They're so cute, I love em