Not really a school assignment, if anything it’s based on a common family discussion. The ending is dramatized though because I thought it would make it feel more like the kind of question it’s supposed to be, but based on people taking it literally, it seems not.
I swear 3/4 of the times I use a search engine is just “[random word] etymology”, learning the origin and evolution of words and language is so fascinating.
It’s straying close to Wikipedia, but Wiktionary is a useful resource as well.
OP got passed over for inheritance, and has come to the Internet to hopefully get others to agree that they should have gotten more. They’ve only presented jobs and money as evidence, because OP doesn’t really understand being a parent.
Yes, roughly speaking. They’re representations. It’s a hypothetical scenario where I was hoping people would discuss the points of discussion, not technicalities.
This hypothetical makes no sense to me. Why couldn't they all be given something of value? If the dying person only has one valuable item then sell it and share the money equally. If the dying person doesn't want the item to be sold then set up a sharing agreement where they each get to have it for equal amounts of time. Etc. But even in your version of it you say the dying person has several things of value to give away. I don't understand the premise or point of this hypothetical.
Because the point of the hypothetical scenario wasn’t to be realistic, it was to ask about the worth of goodwill via a circumstantial comparison. It even says “hypothetical” in the title, which would presume it’s supposed to suspend one’s expectations of real processes.
You wouldn’t be wrong. I’m not necessarily good at those. Though I didn’t think a few quirks would cause such a post to become incapable of being discussed.
Yeah, the whole kids and inheritance thing is a really big sticking point. I saw your other comment about this being based on a discussion your family has had. The thing is, that even if your family was discussing jobs on the surface, if the people they are picking from are other family members (or at least people they actually know), their decisions are weighed by all their other knowledge and feelings about those people.
I can see you’re trying to figure out how much value people put on each of these particular career cicurmastances in isolation but kids and inheritance is just a terrible framing for that for the above reasons. As a framing exercise, I think the question would have needed to be framed in a way that puts the reader in a much more distant position. This could be something like:
An eccentric billionaire gives you the following list of people and tells you to choose one person from the list for him to give a million dollars to. The billionaire says you must make your decision based solely on the list. Who do you choose and why did you make that choice?
Still maybe not a great framing, but it helps alleviate some of the rejection of the premise.
A hypothetical should be absolutely as barebones minimal as it can possibly be. The point of a hypothetical is to isolate the actual point you're trying to ask about. In the one you wrote, i think what you're trying to ask is "How should we value people's ambition, success, and ethics?" So the setup should be something like this:
"You're tasked with giving a million dollars to one of the following random people. All you know about them is these descriptions you were handed."
And then after the descriptions of the people just say "Who would you choose to give the money to?
That's how all us humans learn how to do things. You try something and see how it could be done better next time. Then you try again over and over until you're good at it.
I saw this 70 year old guy waiting at the hospital today, with his 70 year old wife in a wheelchair, produce wearing by his brand new TRUMP hat (along with a chain wallet, like he was 20 and it was 1996). My thought was: why the fuck does this loser have to fuck up society before he dies of old age?
That might be good advise for America, but where in from it’s mainly young uneducated people that vote for parties that fuck up our system because they are blinded by racism. And guess which group of people is growing and not dying off? 😐
Why is it always ok to shit on chain wallets, long hair on a man, or any other non-political style choice?
I sponsor and attend protests - have done so since the '90s. I help out at shelters and food banks and soup kitchens. I champion the causes of all people who are oppressed or otherwise neglected by society.
But my fucking chain wallet and ponytail make me less of a person?
I have been seeing a lot of posts that call out simple things like how I dress as indicative of being some MAGAt or bigot and I was just venting that out here. Like jeans and a plaid shirt with sunglasses are now the uniform of the standard racist asshole - But I don’t think it is fair to lump everyone in those clothes together. And if someone posted the same thing about a distinctly 2000s fashion, or dyed hair, they would get corrected quickly, but since my style is ‘old’ more people feel open to judging the book by its cover.
I did not mean to offend, or call you out personally, and I will try to be better about how I express these things going forward.
For reference - I am in my mid-40s, but I need my chain wallet since I bounce around the forest/homestead on tractors or dirt bikes a lot while building or doing chores, and would certainly lose it without some tether. I don’t have any excuse for my ponytail other than i have just always had it :p I’m sure baldness will end that soon too!
Well, see, so if you recognize Trump for what he is, and you found a woman, a divine giver of life, to tolerate you, I can give you a pass for your wallet chain, Oakley’s, even a mullet, you must be a very decent person.
Given the (very contrived) constraints, I suppose I’d try to maximize utility. The “things”, from what I can tell, are needed most by child 1 and 7 as all the others are capable of making a living themselves. Between the two, I’d opt for #7 as they are at least providing utility to others, even if it is just for a short time.
Stop paying attention to the media and do something rewarding. Build stuff, draw, read books, learn to cook, play an instrument, raise chickens, start camping. Do anything other than dwell in your misery. The world will continue regardless of you watching it. If you think everything is terrible, you already know which side of politics is evil, so just vote against them when the the me comes and don’t bother following what’s happening. You can’t effect it and it will only drive you crazy. It’s all just a distraction feeding a dopamine addiction you’ll never be ready to let go of. Social media especially. Play some slick jams and do the dishes, it’s very therapeutic.
Yeah I think I need to get more involved in my local progressive political groups… I can’t complain about the world sucking if I’m not committing to being part of the better change myself.
i have actually started reading books, watching actual shows/movies and playing more video games, instead of arguing with tankies online and watching shitty youtube videos.
While those are better than your alternative, they’re still sedentary activities that feed your dopamine addiction. Try doing things outside of screens and media. It will help.
asklemmy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.