Yes, I am also human, thus my humour.

tax avoidance

that’s money bro

Seconded

Thanks ChatGPT

“Look guys, gender stereotypes”

Lol.

Shows how little you know.

In the military, shit isn’t up for debate. You do as you’re told. It is very much black and white.

(Well, from some exceptions we don’t need to get to because you’d never reach the level where one has to utilise their own brain.)

edit this excludes warcrimes obviously. ALL soldiers EVERYWHERE are mandated to refuse orders that would lead to warcrimes. (how they’re taught what are warcrimes is a different matter entirely)

When you’re a soldier you don’t really have agency over the morality of what you do, aside from being technically allowed to protest against committing war crimes.

So no.

You just generally hope the government of the military you’re serving is makes the moral call.

What you’re thinking of is a violent psychotic vigilante.

I must have missed this comment, clicked read some night.

So now you’re pretending you haven’t said the moronic things that everyone can see you have? Just how deluded must you be to do that?

You said you hadn’t made ad hominems, after which I copied an exact ad hominem. You’re gonna ignore that, because you’re not man enough to admit to your mistakes.

You said VERBATIM; “Filial responsibility laws have nothing to do with debt to the state.”

You said filial responsibility laws ONLY concern medical debt. Wrong. Simply wrong. Not only does this contradict the previous statement, which means you indirectly admit that you were wrong, but also, it’s wrong as well.

See, that’s why my comment, several replies ago, about you not understanding ad hom:, being personal has nothing to do with an ad hominem. I can say “you’re wrong, because here’s how it actually goes, here’s actual sources for this claim, silly.”

That’s not an ad hominem.

But if I said “you’re wrong BECAUSE you’re silly”, that would be an ad hominem.

You simply keep being wrong, but you’re too small of a man to admit to a single mistake. And I’m gonna keep laughing at you for it until you have a tantrum worse than a six-year old, because again, everyone can see how wrong you are and now we’re just gonna expose your childlike ego in this thread. Like I said at the start, you should’ve taken the gracious option.

Now you’ll get schooled by me and humiliated by yourself. Although that’s happened like a dozen times already. I literally had to point out LITERALLY the first words in these articles which have sources, yet all you can come up with “nuh-uh, I’m american and you’re not so I know better because my arse is trustworthier than some credible sources”.

Filial responsibility laws have nothing to do with debt to the state.

I can somewhat move my eyes independently. I credit this skill to us having had magic eyes books as a kid and I just learned to control eye muscles willingly.

HMD, Human Mobile Devices. Afaik a lot of them are former Nokia. Or it’s a light rebrand and not a new corp. Dk. Some connection though

I mean I think I’d definitely have a car if I had the money, but it’s genuinely not necessary.

It’s not as car-free of a city as something like London, (like most Londoners prolly don’t own cars, but an Oyster card?), but it’d make my life easier for sure.

I’m used to only the extremely poor not having a vehicle.

There you go assuming again.

…

Just joshing you. I’m like only half extremely poor and the other half has some cash to burn. Insofar that I don’t have official income really and cay pay bills or deposit the cash into my account. If you follow my meaning.

It’s not that bad honestly, if you’re single at least. I can’t easily fit all my shopping for several days in my backpack. If I had a family, no way, but single, easy.

Also it’s often quicker getting around with a bike. Definitely to my closest store.

Sometimes I’ll cycle faster than a bus.

A car would be faster if there was no need to park, but there is.

Yeah hunter’s here often sell a lot of the game. It’s culled not for eating but to maintain population numbers, and it’d be stupid to waste it. Although fresh game is only available like half the year at most. But usually you can find frozen. Prices just get higher.

America is so big and the standard practiced is to free every fish, which seems kinda odd to me personally. I know it isn’t but I live within visual distance of the Baltic Sea and we Nordics are kinda known for fishing, so imagining non-fresh fish is kinda hard.

Now that I think of it, prolly why there’s a successful chain of sushi places along the coast, but none really inland, not more than 200km anyway.

Whitetail deer is much more closely managed here as well. Roe deer is sort of like, half vermim. Good eating though, but like so populous they don’t even count the felling permits for them, unlike most other species. You can just go and shoot them half a year given you’re not shooting a nursing mom or a calf (is that the right word for bambi? I know it in Finnish but)

American Buffalo: In Search of a Lost Icon by Steven Rinella is a fascinating book. Rinella is one of the few modern hunters that I respect. He also has a show, MeatEater, that’s pretty great. He’s a thinking man’s hunter.

I’ll check that out but somehow hunting buffalo on open plains with ranged weapons from horseback seems a tad unsportsmanlike.

Or do they like use the forests or am I confusing buffalo and bison again?

in probate

UUUH, he’s *learned the words! Only after me repeating them a dozen fuckingtimes :D

Blablabla more excuses and more denial.

Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?

Filial responsibility laws aren’t only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?

And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. Are you gonna ignore that?

You simply can’t argue, you don’t know the subject, and you should’ve taken the gracious option I offered earlier. ;)

You’re simply not man enough to admit to when you’re wrong, and that’s why you’re never gonna learn, and why you’re gonna stay a small, insignificant ignorant arsehole who no-one will ever love.

Dude you contradict yourself in the same paragraph here, lol. Is it an exception or not?

I’m not contradicting anything. Do you not speak English. Medical debt is the established exception. I’m asking for you to say what the reason is for that exception. Which you simply aren’t abled enough to do.

Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?

Filial responsibility laws aren’t only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?

And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. Are you gonna ignore that?

You simply can’t argue, you don’t know the subject, and you should’ve taken the gracious option I offered earlier. ;)

Next I’ll stop replying to any of your personal bullshit, and just post facts about the thread and the convo we’ve had, the questions you’ve answered. Then you won’t be able to answer them and you’ll fuck off in a week or so, your tail between your legs. Like the thousand or so other pathetic cases I’ve seen before who can’t admit when they’ve wrong.

I said that I’ve read credible similarly fucked up stories. I meant that I’ve read them over the years. You know that the US is fucked up and crazy shit happens there and I’ve just shown you a personal clip of a person saying that it’s a 100% true story what happened to them, then I’ve shown you how that is plausible through the legislation that the US has.

You’ve constantly been shown wrong, yet you won’t admit to a single mistake and you’re just shifting goalposts further and further and further.

If I said that because you’re a Finn, you’re wrong about filial responsibility, that’s an ad hominem.

Oh god, this is hilarious. Remember how I said that you keep proving yourself wrong? Self-humiliating? This is one those times. You literally implied this, very strongly, SEVERAL TIMES.

Honestly dude, I don’t give a shit what someone from Finland thinks about filial responsibility laws in the United States.

As in “your opinion on these facts doesn’t matter because of a personal property.”

That’s literally a textbook ad hominem. Once again, I prove you wrong, based on things you’ve said, yet you can’t accept it. You say in your last comment that “I don’t have arguments”, but you keep literally ignoring the ones I’m saying in each and every single comment:

Medical debt is dismissed in probate insolvency, except in rare cases.

Why are you talking about medical debt? We’ve already established that it’s an exception to this. We’re now pointing out that you argued that filial responsibility laws have “nothing” to do with inheriting debt, which is wrong, you then claimed that filial responsibility SOLELY concerns medical debt, which is also wrong. And you’re simply going to ignore having been wrong, because you’re not a big enough person to do that, just like I said from the very start.

Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?

Filial responsibility laws aren’t only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?

And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. Are you gonna ignore that?

You simply can’t argue, you don’t know the subject, and you should’ve taken the gracious option I offered earlier. ;)

I’d like to see a single source for anything you’re claiming that isn’t a Wikipedia or other -pedia.

Yeah keep chanting this, as if Wikipedia and Investopedia don’t have sources. 2005 called and wants it’s “wikipedia is bullshit” rhetoric back.

You don’t have sources. You keep constantly being wrong, but then not admitting that you’ve made a single mistake. Just like I called it a dozen comments ago, you’re just simply one of those people who can not accept when they’re wrong.

You’ll just keep ignoring all the times you’re wrong, and then you’re pathetically going to try to make it personal, while I’ll keep repeating the actual arguments, which you didn’t know jack shit about from the start, while I do.

That’s ad hominem. It’s not “insults” unlike people assume it is. It’s when you’re pathetically trying to drag an argument to be about something on a personal level, instead of the facts, because you’re wrong and would like to ignore the facts. Such as:

Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?

Filial responsibility laws aren’t only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?

And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. Are you gonna ignore that?

medical debt, which is the only reason filial responsibility

ONLY REASON

You just can’t help yourself from being wrong, gawddamnit. Like genuinely you’ve proven yourself wrong several times in this thread. In hilariously simple ways, like when saying “oh if that’s how filial responsibility laws work in Finland” when the article literally begins “… are laws in the United States.”.

Let’s have another look at that link, shall we?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws

#Support required

#Typically, these laws obligate adult children (or depending on the state, other family members) to pay for their indigent parents’/relatives’ food, clothing, shelter and medical needs.

Weird how there’s a bunch of words before “medical needs”, innit, buddy?

Like I said earlier, you really should just say “okay, I was wrong, TIL, thanks sir”, and bugger away. “Gracefully” isn’t an option anymore.

Like I said, you’d try to make this personal. Me being personal doesn’t have anything to do with it. You’re just desperate to make it personal, because you’re not qualified to talk on the subject and you know it. (In short, insults do not constitute an ad hominem. I’ll leave you to figure out the meaning behind those words. I’m assuming it’ll take a few years.)

It’s not a comprehensive list of all the filial laws nor does it state that child-support debt isn’t covered.

A bit touchy about your size, are you? It’s not your height or weight which decree how fat you are. It’s your fat percentage. But even if I was wrong in assuming you’re part of the majority population of the US, which is slightly obese, that won’t change the facts of the matter.

You are bizarrely aggressive at defending a random comedian discussing laws that do not pertain to you whatsoever.

Just using Lemmy, my man, I feel absolutely no aggression whatsoever, but you saying that you perceive some let’s me know that I’ve got to you. Cheers. ;)

Not all debt is dissolved through insolvency and that’s because of the filial responsibility laws which you said had “NOTHING to do” with this. But you’re not incapable of admitting when you’re wrong? :D

And why, again, doesn’t medical debt get dissolved through insolvency… genius?

Because not all debt gets dissolved through insolvency in probate. You don’t even know the words. Because I know have experience on the subject in general, it’s rather trivial to see what the circumstances are in the US. Which are that because of FILIAL RESPONSIBLITY LAWS, not all debt gets dissolved through insolvency.

I feel like I’m kinda repeating myself here.

Comedian story isn’t plausible because child support debt doesn’t fall under filial responsibility laws. The end.

Source: your sweaty (and probably overweight) ass.

So now you’re on the “nuh-uh, my ‘nuh-uh’ is way more credible of a source than Wikipedia and Investopedia” rhetoric? Ugh. Remember how I called your rhetoric childish before? Yeah I take that back. In comparison, the earlier wasn’t this childish.

Do you care to point out anything specific from that article

I do. The part which I screencapped and linked, which states:

You may inherit a parent’s medical debt if you live in a state with filial responsibility laws. “These laws may require children of a deceased parent to pay back medical bills if the deceased’s assets are insufficient,” says Tayne. “Filial laws exist in 30 states and vary in their protocols and processes.”

Seeing how you’re saying you’re not wrong, while also just a couple of replies earlier you said:

The Wikipedia article you just linked has nothing to do with debt in general. The debt referred to in that article refers specifically to caring for your parents, not assuming their debt for other things (medical bills for previous procedures, credit cards, loans, etc.)

Where you SPECIFY medical bills. When in fact medical debt is literally said to be an exception which you can inherit from your parents BECAUSE OF FILIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAWS.

What is it that you’re not understanding, honestly, do tell? The answer is “nothing”, I know. You know you’re wrong and you know you’re pulling arguments from your arse with someone who actually has experience and literal education on the subject. That’s why you can’t actually discuss this with someone, even when were having the discussion in your language.

Not all debt is dissolved through insolvency SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of filial responsibility laws.

You’re trying to disprove the comedian’s bit never happened. You can’t prove a negative, silly, but we can definitely show that it’s a plausible scenario, because of those filial responsibility laws YOU CLAIM HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

Why would it matter where I’m from?

Facts are facts. Or are you saying that you’re allowed to just say “nuh-uh, facts don’t matter, I’m American and thus I’m right about everything remotely American”?

Because… that’s quite childish.

“Filial responsibility laws have nothing to do with debt!”

How about you actually try reading my replies to you, with thought? Do you think you’re capable of that? Eh, I’ll simplify, just to be safe.

USUALLY, when a person dies and they don’t have enough funds to pay off everything, the debts are dissolved. That’s how it works in the civilised world.

In the US, the bastion of capitalism, however, some debts aren’t dissolved despite insolvency because these American filial responsibility laws make it so certain debt, like medical debt or not having paid child support, isn’t dissolved.

https://www.investopedia.com/can-you-inherit-debt-from-your-parents-11723748

Like I said I assume you already know how little you know about this subject and instead of gracefully bowing out you’re going all in. Then you’ll get personal while absolutely not being able to address the actual subject, which you’re clearly wrong about. Then you’ll devolve into one word replies like “k” or something and then in a few weeks when the thread is hundreds of replies deep, you’ll just give up and make a new account because of your post history.

So perhaps let’s just skip all that and you just say “ye, right, my bad. TIL, thanks”?

And you’re still not as credible.

I’ve read similar insane things like that from the States, from credible sources.

You know for a fact it didn’t happen?

Filial responsibility laws have nothing to do with debt to the state. If that’s how Finland works, I think it’s pretty fucked up.

Finland doesn’t have filial responsibility laws.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws

Filial responsibility laws (filial support laws, filial piety laws) are laws in the United States

#“… in the United States”

You don’t seem to understand what I’ve explained to you about insolvency and debt. Guess you’re just one of those “I can’t be wrong” people.