Oh no… this brings back memories LOL

I mean, I literally linked you the incredible medical advancements that have been made possible from animal testing and research.

It’s not just about giving John Everyman a few more years of life. I don’t think you even looked at the page I linked, it’s about organ transplants, antibiotics, insulin, anaesthetics, blood transfusions, and so many other things that have nothing to do with people who “don’t value their life” and instead can affect anyone and everyone and can literally extend lives of millions of people world-wide by decades.

You’re arguing for something that is already in place, it already does have to be justified where there is almost no doubt it will produce the required data.

It works the other way too though, it doesn’t mean that we won’t learn anything that will help humans.

Generally, human lives are prioritized over animal lives.

Firemen rescue humans from burning buildings first, animals secondary. There’s a hierarchy, it works the same in medicine too.

Unfortunately, animal testing and research has given us some of the greatest medical advancements in history: https://hms.harvard.edu/research/animal-research/what-animal-research-has-given-us

I will admit that’s a good point, although hopefully there would be laws preventing an eviction without notice, but you’re right it would be a bad situation, it would definitely be disruptive.

However, there are people who prefer to rent because they prefer the freedom from place to place, I think that’s worth acknowledging too.

Although I think you’re right.

You are not great at logic and analogies, are you?

How does being rude with me, or getting angry at me, solve or change anything? I don’t think it actually helps anything, I don’t think it’s some great sign of intelligence either.

All of them do earn money just by owning property. I’m not calling that evil or good or bad. It is what it is. And I’m sure many landlords are nice enough people. I am against it though.

I’m trying to understand your viewpoint. If not all landlords are bad or evil, why would you be against it? Are you against having to pay for housing? Are you saying that homeowners should rent out spare rooms in their houses for free? Are you against renting in general? What about for people who want the freedom to move from place to place and prefer that renting can provide that?

I’m not even sure where to begin. Neither of those, VPN nor Bitcoin, allow you to earn money simply by owning property. Both of them can be used legally and illegally, but that has nothing to do with landlords which are always able to rent out their property completly legally but are still always being a parasite. I’m not saying renting should be banned because one kind of landlords are evil and the others aren’t. I’m saying the mechanism of profiting off of property while exploiting the need for housing puts all of them on a spectrum between siphoning off a little or siphoning off a lot of the workers income.

I don’t think it’s a bad analogy. Both VPNs and Bitcoin have the same underlying mechanism, they can be used for good (avoiding censorship by authoritarian regimes) and they can be used for bad (doing illegal things). There can be good landlords and there can definitely be bad landlords. Even if it’s not a perfect analogy, it’s still similar enough to show the similarities to your analogy.

If you’re not saying renting should be banned because one kind of landlords are evil and the others aren’t, what are you saying? I don’t understand your position here, sorry. You are calling it “profiting off of property while exploiting the need for housing”, but how can you say that an older man providing a spare room is “exploiting the need for housing” in the same way that bad landlords (such as corporations) that are evil, do the bare minimum, can’t wait for an excuse to jack up rent prices or evict someone for another person who will pay more etc are exploiting the need for housing? How is the older man renting out a spare room considered exploiting the need for housing versus considered providing a place to stay? Would it be better if spare rooms were not up for rent and thus there was even less housing available in a housing crisis?

If renting shouldn’t be banned, what do you propose? Are you really suggesting that homeowners provide spare rooms for people to stay for free, or are you suggesting something else? You’re going to have to explain your thoughts to me if you want me to understand.

Noones talking about excusing bad tenants. Stop building strawmen.

Well if there can be good tenants and bad tenants, surely there can be good landlords and bad landlords, or is that not possible, all of them are automatically evil?

Landlords, yes even the nice old man renting out his spare room, are making money simply because they already own property. Of course there is a spectrum between those and large corporations. But the underlying mechanism is still the same.

So by that logic, VPNs and Bitcoin should both be illegal because they can be used by criminals (even though they have legitimate uses too, like bypassing censorship in authoritarian states) because the underlying mechanism is the same

Just compare it to buying property where you continously pay off your credit. You get something in return, ownership of a property. Just because you are too poor to afford that, thus being forced ot pay rent, you receive significantly less for the money you spend on housing. Also, and this might be a weird stance for americans, I don’t think anyone should be facing the choice of being able to pay rent and ending homeless on the street.

So you’re saying that poor people should just… not live anywhere and instead should live on the street? I’m not sure I get your point, because if that is your point, it’s not a very good one.

They commonly siphon off income from workers to keep their properties value up. This is just pararsitic behaviour.

Sure they’re all evil parasites, whatever you say, I don’t think a large corporation renting out multiple buildings jumping at the chance to raise rent and/or evict someone who is even slightly late on rent is the same as an older man renting out a spare room in his house ever since his oldest moved out?

So bad tenants are an excuse to be an evil parasite towards every tenant there is? Also, being a landlord isn’t just a job. It is making more money from existing property by exploiting the need of housing of those that are not able to afford a place themselves.

So bad tenants being excused from any culpability means that all landlords are automatically evil no matter what?

It is making more money from existing property by exploiting the need of housing of those that are not able to afford a place themselves.

It is providing a place to stay for people who can’t otherwise afford one…? Or should those people just live on the street?

There is someone in this thread wanting to rent out a single room of a house since it’s now unused as their oldest has moved out, and they are being told they would be better off selling the house and downsizing. But what if their oldest is out of a job one day and can’t find a new one and is forced to move back? Too bad for them?

I do find it weird that all landlords are treated the same, like you said, large corporations renting out multiple buildings and doing the bare minimum are treated the same as an older person renting out a room just trying their best to provide a space for someone to stay.

It would still be someone else paying you to keep your properties value up while receiving nothing of value for their money.

Is not living on the street not really something of value? I feel that is something of value, isn’t it?

I dunno, I don’t have any interest in becoming a landlord but I commonly see people considering them as the most evil people in the world no matter what and it does confuse me a little bit. People always say landlords are always evil, but there are tenants who are weeks or months late on their rent, they destroy the place, etc, it doesn’t seem like such a dream job to me.

Everyone needs a shelter to live in, but that doesn’t mean everyone can afford buying one outright. What about the people who can’t afford to buy one outright?

If someone can’t afford to buy a house or a condo, does that mean they shouldn’t get to live in one?

What about people who want the freedom to move from place to place without being tied down, too bad, they have to own a place?

They extract value through ownership alone, and add no labor value of their own to the process, that the tenants as owners couldn’t do for themselves.

What about landlords that do repairs themselves though? Is that not by definition labor or am I missing something here?

So you’re saying that person should sell their house because one of the rooms is unoccupied? What if their oldest loses their job and can’t find a new one, but has to move back, and then can’t because they downsized to a smaller house?

I’m not so sure that is a great solution.

Is there a third option? It’s an unused room in a house that’s being used.

They can rent it out, leave it out, or sell their house and downsize but then what if their oldest is out of work and can’t find a new job and has to come home, but now because they downsized there’s no room for them. How does that help? It seems like there are only two valid options unless I’m missing something.

Because they didn’t just stop there when they removed from all NSFW content from itch.io

It’s not just a one-and-done thing, it will keep escalating.

They already removed all NSFW from itch.io

It opens the door to removing any number of games for any other number of reasons.

Remember the war on violent video games? Maybe not, but there are tons of people who think that violent video games cause people to be violent which has been proven to not be the case, yet people still parrot it like it’s true. It could easily escalate to that.

Also, they already went after ALL NSFW games on itch.io with all of those games being removed, so it’s already getting worse right before our very eyes.

If you don’t see how it can escalate from here then I don’t really know what to say.

Yeah that’s why I’m a bit weary of switching to Wayland, so many apps still seem unsupported, or have issues, whereas on X11 everything for me just works. Plus, the two DE’s I’d actually consider using either don’t have Wayland support at all or have very early experimental support (Cinnamon and Xfce) so it’ll still be a while for me before I am able to consider switching to Wayland, assuming everything else works.

I’m not a huge fan of Flatpaks, they’re a lot harder to distribute offline versus something like AppImage. Seriously, you have to like create an offline repository, then create a bundle, and it’s like 6 or 7 steps, it’s honestly kind of ridiculous lol but other than that they seem fine, and they’re easy enough to update (but so are apt packages)

I know some people may say “oh why do you need that”, but Linux has taught me that my computer is my own, and I should be able to use it the way I want to. I shouldn’t have to fight with my package manager to get it to do what I want. So I guess you could say, no I’m not really a fan of Flatpaks.

Personally, I didn’t mind Snaps, but I’m getting kind of really fed up with especially for-profit companies etc so I don’t like Snap that much now either.

Apt packages are nice, but the more of them you have installed, especially if you’re using Ubuntu-based distros and have lots of PPAs, the more annoying upgrading your distro version can be because of all the dependencies and cross-dependencies.

AppImage tends to just work for me, as long as it’s not compiled with a newer libc-bin version than the distro I’m currently using has, and I really enjoy that it’s just one file I can copy and run pretty much anywhere.

Yep, I’ve experienced both, although I do admit that I prefer working from home…

If you want a computer programming job with them then yeah definitely.