Treasure chest

Kazumi Totaka - present. The larger the number of people enjoying a past time and the more time, money, and attention that is focused on it, the more likely it is to be a breeding ground of this sort of thing — and videogames, which have been growing in marketshare and mindshare of the entertainment sector for years, has been very ripe for it. Dearly Beloved by WizardsGirl reviews I had died, and been reborn into the younger twin sister of a boy named Tsunayoshi. All "Flying" characters, when idling. Lord let me live from day to day , In such a self-forgetful way, That even when I kneel to pray, My prayer shall be for others.


This game provides examples of:

If Mario opens them in the wrong order, instead of being electrocuted, they will disappear and a group of Chinchos will appear. Mario must defeat all Chinchos that appear and the treasure chests will reappear for Mario to try again. Treasure chests are featured in several Donkey Kong Country games, although their mechanic and way of interaction with the characters may vary. Treasure chests are first seen as projectile objects that can be heaved and thrown in Donkey Kong Country 2: They are always placed on the ground, waiting for the characters to use them in certain contexts.

They can bear all sorts of items, ranging from banana bunches to Extra Life Balloons , to even Kremkoins. To obtain items from treasure chests, the heroes must throw them into enemies, breaking them apart and releasing the items inside while defeating the enemies in process.

Although treasure chests are completely optional in the game, some Bonus Areas require destroying certain treasure chests that hide Kremkoins, which form the primary objective in each of the said levels.

Later in the series, treasure chests are given a more minor role. In these games, treasure chests can be opened by having the ground nearby pounded by the Kongs. In the former game, they are common item containers on the Beach of Donkey Kong Island. However, treasure chests are not as common in Tropical Freeze , as they can only be encountered in special places, like a small bluff in Shoal Atoll , a stage of Sea Breeze Cove , or on the shipwrecks of Seashore War , a level in Donkey Kong Island , which takes place in the Beach world of Donkey Kong Country Returns.

Legend of the Seven Stars , treasure chests hover in the air just like? Blocks , and must be hit from below. They can contain coins , items , mushrooms , weapons, and even monsters. A golden Treasure Chest is found in the last area of Bowser's Castle , created by Magikoopa after the player defeats him. The chest contains an infinite amount of Coins. Surprise Boxes , special invisible Treasure Boxes, also appear in the game.

In Wario Land 4 , three treasure chests are found in each of the four main boss rooms , embedded into the wall in the background. During the boss battle, when time starts to run low, the Treasure Chests in the background will begin to disappear, one by one.

Once Wario defeats the boss, the Treasure Chests that are left over are collected and stored in the Golden Pyramid. When facing the Golden Diva , the last boss, all twelve Treasure Chests can be seen on the background wall. When the Diva is defeated, the total Treasure Chests Wario has at the end of the game will affect how beautiful Princess Shokora is in the ending cut-scene.

In Wario World , each treasure chest contains one of Wario 's sixty-four treasures. They come in eight different colors, and each chest is linked to a button of the same color, which must be activated before the treasure can be collected. Master of Disguise , treasure chests are a key element of the game.

They come in three colors: In order to get the treasures in the chest, the player must win a minigame, which become harder on later levels. Treasure Pests replace one random red chest starting at the third level, requiring the level to be replayed to get that treasure.

Treasure Chests also appear in Wario Land: In the level Boogie Mansion , however, the chests are living creatures, which eat Wario if he gets too close to them. Wario must use an explosive to get the treasure inside those living chests. It has been requested that this section be rewritten and expanded to include more information. In Paper Mario , Mario can find many treasure chests on his adventure.

They contain either Badges or Keys. In the west room on the first floor of Boo's Mansion , there is a trap treasure chest that when opened, causes the chandelier in the room to drop down. In Chapter 4, Kammy Koopa uses her magic to summon several enemies to guard the treasure chests at the end of the first three areas.

At the end of Chapter 5, when Mario and Kolorado escape from Mt. Lavalava with Misstar 's help, the treasure chest containing the treasure Kolorado is longing for is blowing out by the lava and lands on Jade Jungle , which the player has to retrieve for Kolorado to proceed in the storyline. There is also a special kind of treasure chest that allows Princess Peach to send Mario badges and a Jammin' Jelly.

These chests contain demons which "curse" Mario with various abilities. There is a treasure chest like box that Peach is given at the very beginning of the game that contains the Magical Map.

She is the only one that can open it because it is said that only one that is pure of heart can. In Super Paper Mario , chests tend to be hidden in places with little accessibility. In order to open a chest, the player needs to move the playable character right beside one and press.

Most commonly, Pixls are captured within chests, but players can also find items , cooking ingredients, or Catch Cards in there. In this game, chests adopt a rather abstract design to go along with the game's aesthetics, design that was also used in Paper Mario: Treasure chests appear in Paper Mario: One appears in the Toad Captain 's ship, where it contains a member of the Blue Rescue Squad and an entry from the Legendary Captain 's journal. A few appear on Fortune Island , where one contains a letter from Snifit or Whiffit and another leads to a room below.

One also appears in the background of Wendy 's battle, where she can grab objects from it and throw them at Mario. It was at Cannes where Zidane's first coaches noticed that he was raw and sensitive, prone to attack spectators who insulted his race or family. Zidane spent his first weeks at Cannes mainly on cleaning duty as a punishment for punching an opponent who mocked his ghetto origins.

Zidane made his professional debut with Cannes on 18 May in a French Division 1 match against Nantes.

After the match during a party for all the Cannes players, Zidane was given a car by Cannes Chairman Alain Pedretti, who had promised him one the day he scored his first goal for the club. This remains the club's highest finish in the top flight since getting relegated for the first time from the first division in the —49 season. Zidane was transferred to Girondins de Bordeaux in the —93 season, winning the Intertoto Cup after beating Karlsruhe , [35] [36] and finishing runner-up against Bayern Munich in the —96 UEFA Cup , [36] [37] [38] in four years with the club.

He played a set of midfield combinations with Bixente Lizarazu and Christophe Dugarry , which would become the trademark of both Bordeaux and the French national team. In , Blackburn Rovers manager Kenny Dalglish had expressed interest in signing both Zidane and Dugarry, to which club owner Jack Walker reportedly replied, "Why do you want to sign Zidane when we have Tim Sherwood? After a series of stand out performances for both Bordeaux and France, Zidane had offers to join Europe's top clubs in the spring of , deciding on a move to UEFA Champions League winners Juventus during the close season.

He was not a selfish player. He had a unique ability to be a great and to be a team player. I was lucky to play with him. The following season, Zidane scored seven goals in 32 matches in the league to help Juventus win the —98 Serie A and thus retain the Scudetto. Juventus finished second in the —01 Serie A , but were eliminated in the group stage of the Champions League, after Zidane was banned for head-butting Hamburger SV player Jochen Kientz. While Zidane's final season of club football ended without a trophy, he enjoyed success on a personal note by scoring his first hat-trick , against Sevilla , in a 4—2 win in January In April , he was named by Marca as a member of the "Best foreign eleven in Real Madrid's history.

Both France and Algeria consider Zidane a citizen. It was rumoured that coach Abdelhamid Kermali denied Zidane a position for the Algerian squad because he felt the young midfielder was not fast enough. Zidane was a member of the French under squad that won a bronze medal at the Mediterranean Games in Languedoc-Roussillon. After Eric Cantona was handed a year-long suspension in January for assaulting a fan, Zidane took over the playmaker position.

Despite not being at his best during the tournament, France reached the last four. Zidane was not yet fully established in the French team and his level was quite average during the whole event, but he managed to score in the penalty shootout in both the quarter-final and semi-final. France was eliminated in the Euro 96 semi-finals in a penalty shootout against the Czech Republic. It was held in his home country France. The French team won all three games in the group stage but Zidane was sent off in the second match against Saudi Arabia for a stamp on Fuad Anwar , becoming the first French player to receive a red card in a World Cup Finals match.

Without their playmaker France proceeded to win 1—0 in the round of sixteen game against Paraguay and, on his return to the side, defeated Italy 4—3 on penalties after a goalless draw in the quarter-finals.

France then defeated Croatia 2—1 in the semi-final. Zidane played a major role in the team's accomplishment, though he had yet to score a goal at the World Cup. France dominated Brazil from the kick-off, with Zidane scoring two similar goals, both headers from corner kicks taken by Emmanuel Petit and Youri Djorkaeff. Courtesy of Zidane's two goals, France went into the half-time break 2—0 up with one hand on the World Cup trophy.

Zidane finished with two goals, a bending free kick against Spain in the quarter-final and the golden goal in the semi-final against Portugal with a penalty.

From the opening game against Denmark to the final against Italy, 'Zizou' shone brightly, casting a spell on his opponents with clever flicks, mesmerising stepovers, slaloming runs and masterful vision. He was rushed back prematurely for the third game despite not being fully fit, but could not prevent France from being ignominiously eliminated in the group stage without scoring a single goal; the worst performance by a defending champion in the history of the competition.

At Euro , France topped their group with wins over England and Switzerland, before being knocked out in the quarter finals by eventual champions Greece in a surprise 1—0 loss. At the urging of coach Raymond Domenech , Zidane came out of retirement and was immediately reinstated as team captain. The trio helped France rise from fourth place to win their qualifying group. Zidane became France's fourth player to reach caps , after Desailly, Thuram and Didier Deschamps.

France had a slow start to the Finals and, after being suspended for the third match of the group stage, Zidane returned to set up a goal for Patrick Vieira and score one himself in the second round match against Spain. He almost scored a second goal during the first period of extra time but his header was saved by Italy's goalkeeper Gianluigi Buffon.

Zidane was then sent off in the th minute of the game after headbutting Marco Materazzi in the chest, [90] so he did not participate in the penalty shootout which Italy won 5—3. How could that happen to a man like you? Upon his return to France, the Place de la Concorde in Paris was filled with thousands of fans waving flags and rhythmically chanting "Zizou! Following his red card in the final, Zidane retired from professional football and confirmed that he would not go back on his decision.

Since his retirement, Zidane has regularly played for the Real Madrid Veterans team. He has also made several futsal appearances.

In he played in a futsal tournament in Dubai , United Arab Emirates, during which an opposition player received a yellow card to much amusement for taking an in-match selfie with Zidane. Qatar 's World Cup bid committee announced in September that Zidane had been appointed as an ambassador for Qatar's attempt to host the World Cup.

Qatar and the entire Middle East as a whole deserves this event and that makes me happy. It's a victory for the Arab world. Paris will also be hosting the Summer Paralympics. On 24 February , before a crowd of 10, fans at a match in northern Thailand for the Keuydaroon children's AIDS charity, Zidane scored the first goal and set up the second for a Malaysian teammate as the match ended 2—2.

This money paid for the building of two schools and 16 three-bedroom houses. He and Ronaldo , who collaborated in conceiving the yearly event to benefit the United Nations Development Programme , regularly captain their respective teams consisting of active footballers, other professional athletes and celebrities. Although billed as Zidane and "Friends", the likes of which included Fabien Barthez and Samuel Eto'o , the exhibition matches featured local players. On 6 June , Zidane took part in the biennial charity event Soccer Aid.

Real Madrid Legends reverse fixture. According to UNDP, "two thirds of all proceeds will go towards helping the hardest-hit countries of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone build back better from the Ebola epidemic. In a 3—2 win for France, Thierry Henry played a no-look one-two pass with Zidane before scoring, with Zidane then curling in a 25 yard free kick. In his new role, Zidane was expected to participate in Champions League events and functions and was also to travel with the first team on a regular basis and participate in pre-match gatherings, training sessions and meetings with the head coach.

It is a fait accompli that has been widely accepted, as shown by media reports, and Real Madrid do not deny it. The truth is the exact opposite: In his first full-season as manager, Real Madrid recorded a club-record 16th consecutive La Liga victory by defeating Espanyol 2—0 away on 18 September , overtaking their previous record of 15 set in —61 and equaling the record of consecutive La Liga wins of Barcelona set in — On 12 January , Madrid's draw against Sevilla FC in the second leg of the Copa del Rey round of 16 saw him with 40 consecutive matches without a loss — creating a new Spanish record, beating Luis Enrique 's record of 39 matches undefeated with Barcelona.

This victory meant that Madrid were the first ever team to win the Champions League back-to-back, as well as recording Zidane's first double as coach, and the club's first since — This also meant, that at the time, Zidane had won as many titles in his managerial position in Real Madrid as games lost during his tenure. He became one of three managers, alongside Bob Paisley and Carlo Ancelotti , to win the European Cup three times, while also becoming the first manager to win the trophy in three consecutive seasons.

On 31 May, five days after the Champions League Final, Zidane announced his resignation as Real Madrid manager, citing the club's "need for change" as his rationale for departing. Many authoritative voices have acclaimed Zidane's skills and importance in the history of football, such as Brazil coach Carlos Alberto Parreira , who called Zidane "a monster" for his performance and abilities.

Add his vision and it makes him very special. In terms of ball retention he was probably the greatest player of all time, blessed with such grace and supernatural awareness that he could play a game of real-life Pac-Man and never be caught.

When Zidane stepped onto the pitch, the ten other guys just got suddenly better. It is that simple. He had such elegance and grace, a wonderful touch and superb vision. Displaying skills with an array of moves such as his signature La Roulette pirouette, step overs and close ball control, former Brazilian international Rivaldo enjoyed watching Zidane more than any other player, stating, "His elegance of movement on the pitch and his skills are uncanny.

Zidane was elegance above all else. Zidane is a phenomenon. Despite establishing himself as one of the most successful managers of his era and in the history of Real Madrid , [A] Zidane's time at Real Madrid was considered by some to be shadowed by a partial amount of luck.

It is also noted that his team focused on attacking through the flanks, [] while he is credited for popularizing the 4—4—2 diamond formation in contemporary football. On the other hand, some consider that Zidane's role was more focused in grinding out results and uniting the dressing room, rather than having a fixed tactic scheme. A 21st Century Portrait , which follows Zidane during an entire match, filmed with 17 cameras.

Scottish post-rock band Mogwai provided the soundtrack. On 5 November , Zidane appeared in the American animated sitcom Family Guy , seen headbutting an old lady in the episode " Saving Private Brian " as a parody of his headbutt on Materazzi.

In , footage of Zidane appeared in the " Waka Waka " music video by Shakira , which shows him celebrating France winning the World Cup. Married in , they have four sons: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This is the latest accepted revision , reviewed on 29 September For other people named Zidane, see Zidane name.

His feet spoke with the ball". He creates space where there is none. No matter where he gets the ball or how it comes to him, he can get out of trouble. His imagination and his technique are amazing". He makes it worthwhile going to the stadium — he's one of the best I have ever seen. I know that you are sad and disappointed but what I want to tell you is that the whole country is extremely proud of you.

You have honoured the country with your exceptional qualities and your fantastic fighting spirit, which was your strength in difficult times, but also in winning times. Over the past ten years, there's been no one like him, he has been the best player in the world. Compare this to the three most viewed category of post. Race and gender are a type of politics even more controversial and outrage-inducing than regular politics. The less useful, and more controversial, a post here is, the more likely it is to get me lots of page views.

I have a feature that allows me to see who links to all of my posts, so I can see this all happening in real-time. Posts about charity which only get me 2, paying customers? Or posts that turn all of you against one another like a pack of rabid dogs, and get me 16,? The idea was to replace a model of humans choosing whichever ideas they liked with a model of ideas as parasites that evolved in ways that favored their own transmission.

Toxoplasma is a neat little parasite that is implicated in a couple of human diseases including schizophrenia. Its life cycle goes like this: The cat poops it out. The poop and the toxoplasma get in the water supply, where they are consumed by some other animal, often a rat. The toxoplasma morphs into a rat-compatible form and starts reproducing. After a cat eats the rat, the toxoplasma morphs back into its cat compatible form and reproduces some more.

Finally, it gets pooped back out by the cat, completing the cycle. Consider the war on terror. Those terrorists then go on to kill Americans, which makes Americans get very angry and call for more bombing of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Taken as a meme, it is a single parasite with two hosts and two forms. From the human point of view, jihad and the War on Terror are opposing forces. Instead of judging, we just note that somehow we accidentally created a replicator, and replicators are going to replicate until something makes them stop.

Replicators are also going to evolve. Some Afghan who thinks up a particularly effective terrorist strategy helps the meme spread to more Americans as the resulting outrage fuels the War on Terror. When the American bombing heats up, all of the Afghan villagers radicalized in by the attack will remember the really effective new tactic that Khalid thought up and do that one instead of the boring old tactic that barely killed any Americans at all. Some American TV commentator who comes up with a particularly stirring call to retaliation will find her words adopted into party platforms and repeated by pro-war newspapers.

While pacifists on both sides work to defuse the tension, the meme is engaging in a counter-effort to become as virulent as possible, until people start suggesting putting pork fat in American bombs just to make Muslims even madder. Instead, it lets you reblog them with your own commentary added.

Since kitten pic sharers cluster together in the social network, soon every kitten pic sharer has seen the insult against kitten pic sharer — as they all feel the need to add their defensive commentary to it, soon all of them are seeing it from ten different directions.

The angry invectives get back to the Doctor Who fans, and now they feel deeply offended, so they reblog it among themselves with even more condemnations of the kitten pic sharers, who now not only did whatever inspired the enmity in the first place, but have inspired extra hostility because their hateful invectives are right there on the post for everyone to see.

So about half the stuff on your dashboard is something you actually want to see, and the other half is towers of alternate insults that look like this:. And then you sigh and scroll down to the next one. Every community on Tumblr somehow gets enmeshed with the people most devoted to making that community miserable. The tiny Tumblr rationalist community somehow attracts, concentrates, and constantly reblogs stuff from the even tinier Tumblr community of people who hate rationalists and want them to be miserable no, well-intentioned and intelligent critics, I am not talking about you.

Following the ancient imperative of evolution, if memes spread by outrage they adapt to become as outrage-inducing as possible. Or rather, that is just one of their many adaptations.

I realize this toxoplasma metaphor sort of strains credibility, so I want to anchor this idea of outrage-memes in pretty much the only piece of memetics everyone can agree upon.

The textbook example of a meme — indeed, almost the only example ever discussed — is the chain letter. Fail to pass it on, and you will die tomorrow. It might be useful evidence that we were on the right track here, with our toxoplasma memes and everything, if we could find evidence that they reproduced in the same way. For a few weeks around the height of the Ferguson discussion, people constantly called out one another for not reblogging enough Ferguson-related material, or Heavens forbid saying they were sick of the amount of Ferguson material they were seeing.

It got so bad that various art blogs that just posted pretty paintings, or kitten picture blogs that just reblogged pictures of kittens were feeling the heat you thought I was joking about the hate for kitten picture bloggers. Now the issue du jour seems to be Pakistan. Just to give a few examples:. And by supporting him, you are on a racist side…Ignoring this situation will put you in deep shit, and it makes you racist.

I used to really like you. They come to tumblr to escape n feel happy which think is a load of bull. There r literally ppl dying who live with the fear of going outside their homes to be shot and u cant post a fucking picture because it makes u a little upset?? I could give two fucks about internet shitlings. I guess the trash is taking itself out now. This is pretty impressive.

I would like to be able to write about charity more often. Feminists would probably like to start supercharging the true rape accusations for a change.

Even PETA would probably prefer being the good guys for once. Not because the people involved are bad people who want to fail. Not even because the media-viewing public are stupid. Just because information ecologies are not your friend. This blog tries to remember the Litany of Jai: I would support instating a National Conversation Topic Czar if that allowed us to get rid of celebrities.

Steven in his wisdom reminds us that there is no National Conversation Topic Czar. The rise of some topics to national prominence and the relegation of others to tiny print on the eighth page of the newspapers occurs by an emergent uncoordinated process. A while back there was a minor scandal over JournoList , a private group where left-leaning journalists met and exchanged ideas. If there were a secret conspiracy running the liberal media, they could all decide they wanted to raise awareness of racist police brutality, pick the most clear-cut and sympathetic case, and make it non-stop news headlines for the next two months.

Then everyone would agree it was indeed very brutal and racist, and something would get done. An editor can publish a story on Eric Garner, but in the absence of a divisive hook, the only reason people will care about it is that caring about it is the right thing and helps people. Moloch — the abstracted spirit of discoordination and flailing response to incentives — will publicize whatever he feels like publicizing.

And if they want viewers and ad money, the media will go along with him. Under Moloch, activists are irresistably incentivized to dig their own graves. And the media is irresistably incentivized to help them.

Lost is the ability to agree on simple things like fighting factory farming or rape. Lost is the ability to even talk about the things we all want. Punishing government corruption and waste. Simplifying the tax code. Under Moloch, everyone is irresistably incentivized to ignore the things that unite us in favor of forever picking at the things that divide us in exactly the way that is most likely to make them more divisive.

Race relations are at historic lows not because white people and black people disagree on very much, but because the media absolutely worked its tuchus off to find the single issue that white people and black people disagreed over the most and ensure that it was the only issue anybody would talk about.

People talk about the shift from old print-based journalism to the new world of social media and the sites adapted to serve it. These are fast, responsive, and only just beginning to discover the power of controversy. They are memetic evolution shot into hyperdrive, and the omega point is a well-tuned machine optimized to search the world for the most controversial and counterproductive issues, then make sure no one can talk about anything else.

An engine that creates money by burning the few remaining shreds of cooperation, bipartisanship and social trust. Imagine Moloch, in his Carthaginian-demon personification, looking out over the expanse of the world, eagle-eyed for anything that can turn brother against brother and husband against wife.

And then bird-watchers and non-bird-watchers and different sub-groups of bird-watchers hold vitriolic attacks on each other that feed back on each other in a vicious cycle for the next six months, and the whole thing ends in mutual death threats and another previously innocent activity turning into World War I style trench warfare.

This is not entitlement. From a utilitarian perspective this feeling is obviously stupid as all sides are deriving gains from trade, but that is where I think the condemnation comes from.

But nobody really identifies as a meat-eater, or cheers for the meat-eating team? We certainly want to prevent that. But the world is complex, and we can never be sure who is contributing to which misery how.

So perhaps the heuristics is: I think that if taking advantage of people in disadvantaged situations were to be considered mostly legitimate, there would be a fear that more and more people and organizations would be incentivised to start adapting this tactic. However, for the vast majority who lack these resources, controversy is the only way to avoid having your message get lost in the noise.

What I think is outrageous is not that PETA is doing this promotion, but that people are offended by it. If you have a limited amount of money to give out in charity, why not give it to the most virtuous and deserving people, instead of those most likely to use it for bad ends? People are offended by this sort of quasi-charity because it is actively counterproductive.

Well, unless you are a butcher or something. Why not give your limited charity funding to the most virtuous and deserving people? The way actual human beings respond to that tactic, is to see you as dividing the human race into an in-group and an out-group and conspicuously abandoning the out-group to the wolves.

Which even the less committed members of your in-group will see as a really crappy thing to do. You may argue that this is not what you are actually doing, and you may be correct on the facts, but being correct on the facts does not help you here.

By contrast, giving charity to everyone who needs it with no strings attached, but putting your name and logo in a prominent place and repeatedly but politely asking people to consider the rest of your message, that has a record of working quite well with real people.

Of course the organization is the devil in that scenario. Everyone thinks their own pet cause helps people. This kills the democracy. People will believe things if they just repeat them enough. If the poor are poor, we can argue to help them. That seems more like compensated work than opinion buying.

It may not, and I believe in general it will not, because the substitutions people will make will not improve their health nor ultimately be any cheaper, but there are plenty of authorities on both sides of the question. He asked you to go to Church and go through the motions, and eventually you would brainwash yourself into believing in God.

Similarly, here, they are being asked to stop eating meat for animal rights reasons. Soon enough, this will cause most people to actually believe those animal rights reasons. I was in complete agreement until you got to your supposedly unobjectionable cause. Anyway, agree on the meta-issue as I said below. So the point of this is for publicity, to somehow use the people of Detroit as examples.

The people of Detroit are therefore forced into a position where they have to signal allegiance to PETA if they want to drink water. And also imagine the embarrassment, of having to be that guy who is constantly inconvenienced by his role as a puppet to a pet cause of rich white liberal hipsters, simply because he is forced into that situation.

In this light, it almost seems kind of sadistic. We know from the existence of child labor and minimum wage laws that just because an exchange hypothetically benefits both actors, does not mean our society should allow it. Also, another possible problem with the deal PETA offered— how were they planning to enforce it? Enforcement strikes me as a big problem here. Even within households, how can parents keep their teenagers from ordering pepperoni pizzas?

There probably are a few honorable people, and anyway what they mostly want is publicity for the cause. Your literal statement is weird: The law is just because it is the law? That sounds like the stupid kind of conservatism I can never like. I would be extra interested in an estimate of how frequent that is. It assumes that the person giving the charity knows more about how to help the person receiving the charity than the recipient themself.

A good argument against this approach can be found here: And the drug addicts in question who destroy their lives have a track record of acting against their own interests. PETA is engaging in trade, not in conditional charity.

No-one thinks that illegal immigration is a good thing: Because they will never get in that way. When you eat cheap meat for dinner, you should be fully aware that the animal you are swallowing lived a horrible life in an overcrowded cage where it never got to see the light of day. When you advocate against illegal immigration, you should do it in the full knowledge that most of those people will never be able to legally enter the country, and that they will almost certainly have a worse quality of life as a result.

Anything else is intellectual cowardice. I tend to agree. If they were serious about changing minds, however, rather than just garnering attention for themselves, they would have offered to pay the water bill for those who pledged to go vegetarian for a week or a month. I agree with you on the issue at hand. Do you mind explaining to me why you believe that animal welfare is an actively harmful cause?

I do think you can argue that any new thing changes the ecosystem in ways that can hurt others. In most of the US, the widespread use of cars changed city planning and made it close to impossible to do without a car.

Public transit works well in New York because lots of middle class people use it, and they can exert political pressure; I can imagine a future in which Uber siphons off a lot of them, leaving an underfunded transit system used mainly by poorer people. You can imagine a future where so many middle class people are riding around NYC in Uber cars that it significantly impacts mass transit ridership? Where would the cars all fit? PETA, at least, has an honest goal, even if they are targeting the vulnerable.

We focus on pattern-matching something to blackmail, while ignoring what exactly are those people asked to do eat a different meal? Poor people already have trouble eating a balanced diet. PETA is also forcing them to choose the more expensive vegan alternative whenever meat would be cheaper, which I suspect is most of the time given that veganism is a life-choice for the middle and upper class i.

Fresh veggies are a little spendy, but vegetable proteins are cheaper than meat. Dried beans, lentils and tofu are all cheap as dirt. Given more than a billion of the poorest people in Asia still live off of vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets based primarily on rice, greens and soy protein, it can be done. Except, meat is often one of the most expensive ways to get calories and nutrition.

A balanced vegetarian diet is harder to construct than a balanced nonvegetarian diet, but it is cheaper. I am not a nutritionist. Vegetarianism is cheaper, but veganism involves cutting out eggs and dairy, which are extremely cheap sources of calories and protein in the US which also have the advantage of requiring virtually no preparation. The former mostly provide ingredients, the later mostly provide prepared foods. Both cases are absurd! I think that the question has to be asked, though, how non-surge pricing works.

How do the taxi rides get rationed? Does whoever happens to the moment call when a taxi becomes available get it? Does everyone who calls get put in a queue, and now people have to wait a long time to get a ride? Do taxi drivers pick rides on proxies for higher fares, such as going to neighborhoods with a better reputation for higher tips? But you can see people being charged a lot of money for rides, and that makes it an issue. It smells bad when people profit or advance a cause by means which are only possible because someone else is miserable.

It makes a sort of sense, actually. I think the missing link is that the possibility of relevant bad behaviour is far lower than it was in the ancestral environment, so our natural reactions on issues like these are obsolete. But PETA almost certainly had nothing to do with Detroit going bankrupt in the first place, so the outrage is pointless. And honestly, the more I use Uber the more I appreciate traditional taxis.

Never once had that happen with a taxi, despite many more rides. Contact Uber and ask for a partial refund based on the GPS data they record for every ride. Anonymous, have you heard about the ultimatum game? If you know human nature at all, you probably guess that when you try that game in practice, people do complain about getting something that would otherwise not exist, even to the extent that they reject it just to punish the unfair partner.

And yes, they do take advantage of crises. In my country, and I suspect in most jurisdictions, holding a taxi driving permit means you have an obligation to drive. I understand some jurisdictions are a lot more stupid on that point.

Taxi customers are happy that they can get cars at a predictable price when and where, they need them. Now Uber could do something similar: They are all about skimming the cream of the personal driving market, they disavow any personal, longer term responsibility towards their customer base.

In effect, they are leeching of the trust we have in taxis to have a minimum of social responsibility. Riders are tired of being taken advantage of by taxi companies. Taxi companies need to step up their game or go the way of the dinosaur. For example, they started with the black car service, which only richer people use. But then instead of being told: What happens if Uber is forced to serve the richest and poorest neighborhoods equally, and the most profitable and least profitable times equally?

In other words, they become taxis. With no regulation, instead of inefficiently limiting their services arbitrarily, they squeeze the most money possible out of every level of income by providing services matching to how much people are willing to pay. Rich people get to ride in an Escalade at twice the price if they want, and they run as many Escalades as they need to fill that demand.

And instead of being limited by some kind of medallion count, they can run as many as people are willing to pay for. And the surge pricing thing is just absurd. Surge pricing efficiently distributes the limited number of available rides to those who are willing to pay the most for them.

As more people catch on to that, they decide to become Uber drivers, just so that they can work on peak days as a part-time thing, and the price at peak times goes down until everyone can find a cab at a price only moderately above normal.

Instead of a few lucky people being able to find one at a normal price. Common Libertarian fallacy can we start numbering them? Price gouging distributes the limited number of available resources to those who are wealthiest, not to those who need it the most. Depends on whether the limited resources are limited in the long term. If they are limited forever, then yes, they will be forever inaccessible for the poor people.

On the other hand, if the resources can increase gradually, if there is enough profit, then extracting more profit from the rich people will in long term make the service more accessible for the poor ones.

Think about personal computers, or mobile phones. The first ones were available only to rich people. But they financed the industry, and today many poor people can afford a mobile phone or a personal computer. Their only responsibility is to provide the service offered for the price promised, ie.

Taxis often have special government-enforced privileges e. That is a very libertarian question, but I thought I answered it: What is hard to understand, is the push to commodify all human relationships and reduce all obligations to economic ones. It still does not provide a very satisfying explanation to me. People might say that during an emergency, the business relationship takes a backseat to the citizen or human relationship — but they can say whatever they want.

Not that this answer leaves much more room to the right. Click on his name and see that there is a lot of room to be more right. I think you would be surprised at the experience of poor and minorities in many US cities when it comes to taxis.

Secondly, you are disregarding the supply part of surge pricing. So Uber nudges people to want to drive during times when drivers are needed. Compare that with a static taxi pool. Instead you find a balance. The downside is that during times of crisis or overly heavy usage, people are forced to go without. And price controls are good at keeping prices stable but terrible at meeting demand.

As I said, I think tradable permits medallions is a horrible idea. But I did address the supply part. In my perfect world, and the current taxi system is closer to it than Uber, at least where I live , everyone pays a little extra to drivers during convenient times, in order to compensate them for their willingness to be available in less convenient times also. In practice, Uber obeys them much more than taxis.

In particular, the main reason that people use Uber is that it comes when they call, even to poor parts of town. That then raises the question of which counterfactual. The logical counterfactual is one in which the person being criticized had not made the offer. But in the ultimatum game, the first place is given the money on the condition that they make the offer.

It gets worse when government is involved in this fallacious behavior, because they can seriously hurt people. A common theme is when they ban things that look like exploitation without compensating the party who needs it most for their loss of option value. It looks like morality and helpfulness but really makes people worse off. I should get at least as much outrage as PETA for this. I know anti-capitalist criticism tends to be backwards in this way e.

Are you saying that anything new should be automatically immune from criticism? How far back should this extend? Or perhaps nobody should complain about the rent because back in the ancestral environment there were no houses. For example, in the rent situation: Complain about the government and misguided activists responsible for rent control, zoning laws, and building codes that make it impossible to build new apartments that poor people might be able to afford.

You miss the point. Supply and demand suggests that when you artificially decrease supply, through zoning, rent control, and other things which reduce the incentive to build and rent housing, then the price goes up. But as the new nice apartments come into existence, the total number of apartments goes up, and the price of old shitty apartments drops. And many new apartments are much smaller than old apartments, so although the price per square foot may be three times as high, the total can still be lower.

Surely more supply must be good, or at least, not worse? And get criticized for building luxury units, which the rich move into instead of buying old rooming houses and turning them into single-family homes. If there is a right to housing, would there not also be a right to build housing? I think you actually may be missing my point. Note that my comment agrees that new construction is a better idea than blocking it with regulations, etc.

I doubt the price of old shitty apartments would actually drop. However, the new construction would drive wages up which would have a roughly similar effect. I mention this explicitly in my comment. If effects are, as your comment implies, distinct from intentions, then the objection is that the effect is being conflated with the intention.

I was actually explicit about this:. Intentions are clearly relevant to moral arguments, as demonstrated by the reams of jurisprudence implying that intention should be taken into account.

The argument that I hear often this is not specifically a response to you is that housing is far too expensive, and this implies a moral problem. Then the supply which alleviates that problem arrives, and complaints begin about the intentions behind it.

Which seems counterproductive, to me. Unless you are arguing that, all else equal, increased supply has little or no effect on prices, in which case we have a more fundamental disagreement. What are the landlords going to do when all the middle-class people go to live in the nice new apartments?

If the family is not offered aid, they get no aid. If they are offered aid and choose to not give up meat, they get no aid. The PETA case is a really interesting one to think about. After all, anyone can stop eating meat. Not anyone can get a job. Okay, so imagine a similar situation with, say, an evangelical non-denominational Christian church outreach or parachurch ministry involved in street ministry to the homeless.

All you have to do is agree to recite the following simple formula about inviting Jesus into your heart and turning your life over to God. Are you saying that you would prefer people to remain sleeping rough on the street and running the risk of dying by hypothermia these cold winter nights rather than take the offer? And how do you think these arguments would fly, if it was about religious strings attached to an offer?

And why then should an ethical conversion, rather than a religious conversion, be let off the hook more easily? I see Family Guy or South park or whatever making jokes about Jesus, sticking Jesus into action movies, and so on. I get uncomfortable because I consider and again, since I am pretty dogmatic here, fair warning: Compare the logic here to people getting outraged over use of say, the N word. White people cannot say it.

I think humor is very often tied to this dynamic, frankly, particularly modern humor, because there is tendency to laugh off the sacred in a sense. I sure you can think of way better examples here. So, why are you offended? Well, you hold it as a sacred that and this is my speculation that people do not say, proselytize our religious beliefs to others.

How many of them will know a murdered mother-in-law? Yes, those people would also be doing a great deal of good. Churches offer free food to the general hungry public on the condition that you accept their religious literature, or whatnot, and everyone seems to generally accept that this is good thing.

I was sure you were going to specifically mention Salvation Army, which is well known for doing almost precisely what you describe. And in fact you can find plenty of liberals complaining about them.

But at least the people I normally hear complaining are very, very good about suggesting alternative charities to donate to which accomplish the same goal, rather than getting mad at Salvation Army for helping with strings attached.

So I think real life provides some very clean counterexamples to your claim. Even if PETA would prefer the long-term effects of changing opinions rather than behavior, they could plausibly settle for changes in behavior since it still has an impact on their ultimate goal. Compare to an offer by a church to provide housing for homeless folks on the condition that anyone using that housing has to, e.

Does this still make people mad? They are providing an option that was not there previously. If anyone takes advantage of it, the world will be better off. If nobody takes advantage of it, the world will not be worse off. People who rely on virtue ethics will condemn PETA.

It helps a few guys right now. And it establishes new norms and equilibria. Those new states may have long run good or bad consequences. Their are reasons why a person might believe this has long run bad consequences. But somehow providing a huge number of people with a slightly crummy job which is nevertheless better than whatever alternative existed is more evil than just not providing anybody with any jobs.

I have worked menial restaurant jobs for low pay myself. You probably even bargain when you buy a car. Paying more than you have to for something is charity, not business. It is perfectly analogous to the PETA case: That is, I could adopt a set of moral premises in which I assume that corporate persons are the moral equivalents of actual persons and should be treated accordingly, but that seems utterly stupid to me.

Corporations are inventions for the purpose of improving human lives, and if there is some way that a corporation could make a small sacrifice to ultimately improve human lives that seems worthwhile to me.

What I am claiming is that in some cases there might be a way for the fictional person to be slightly less well off while on average all the actual living human beings involved are better off. Does anyone criticize the federal government for not paying their workers enough?

Governments are also not at all a fair comparison to private corporations, because they are tax-funded. Yes, they are founded to improve the lives of their founders and investors, not to provide employment opportunities. And you know what benefits those people? Not paying more than they have to to procure the labor services they need.

When people start companies it is generally with the aim of making a good product or service, and of making money in the process. It is not for the purpose of employing people per se. Employing people is a means to an end: It is a nice side effect of the integrative nature of the economy that others benefit by helping you get what you want, but that is not the primary purpose.

Organizations founded for the explicit purpose of helping people other than their founders and investors are not businesses; they are charities. Charity is great, but it follows a completely different logic and serves a different social function than business. Trying to mix the two does not seem a good idea to me. That sounds like a premise rather than a conclusion.

I may have somewhat different ideas of what the purpose or intended results of capitalism is than you do.

In short, I think that the purpose of business is to improve human life. The usual and usually pretty defensible argument for laissez faire capitalism is that self-interest is actually the best way to improve human well-being overall.

Or maybe incentives could somehow be shifted to get good results without direct regulation. That would be circular. You seem to be making the moral argument that a person is morally unjustified in criticizing an institution if that person is not personally capable of accomplishing what that institution has already accomplished. I think the argument is just too strong. I think if this principle were followed generally it would work to impoverish the marketplace of ideas by preventing potentially valid criticisms and alternative practices from being discussed.

But it is a shift from in-your-face offensiveness to helping people, albeit not everyone, still! Framing may change a lot. This is something I had to think about. Aside from the PETA case in the post, three other examples have been named in comments upthread.

My initial reaction to the cases as presented is: What is the difference in utility between what the groups do and what they could do? Why do the groups do what they do instead of what they could do? I an unsympathetic to this, and rate its utility as zero. If they were struggling to stay afloat, or if they were reinvesting their profit in, say, malaria drug development, I would be more sympathetic.