Any response other than “I already have” or “I donate resources” paints you as an armchair hypocrite who doesn’t have the credentials to understand, let alone have an opinion about this conflict.

You my friend, are the one who is adorable.

World War is not the solution you think it is

Touché

You can die of cirrhosis from drinking too much for too long, but it’s still culturally held as a stress reliever. You can die from diabetes if you eat too much sugar for too long, but it’s still sold to children as edible happiness. Hell, you can die slowly and painfully from taking too much Tylenol, but it’s still the world’s most popular painkiller by far.

Too much of anything kills eventually. That doesn’t bare any significance to whether or not it’s good for stress in some amount.

Problem is that requires good faith from both sides. If only one side adheres to that then the other side uses it as ammunition and inputs their politically appointed judges anyway.

Case in point, Senator Mitch McConnell crying out in 2015 about Obama wanting to appoint someone at the end of his term, saying that he would be robbing the next president of that legacy and it would be a political appointment. And then Mitch McConnell said nothing as they appointed and Trump approved three blatantly political nominees.

Both sides have to agree that those positions be apolitical or one side just ends up getting screwed. And of course we are not going to see that because Republicans don’t have a shred of decency left and the whole party.

Dude, thanks for posting this.

There is at least an entire sub dedicated to hating on pit bulls. I think multiple subs. During its time a few years ago, one specific sub could make it to the top of r/all with 10,000+ upvotes.

Reddit really doesn’t like pit bulls.

most of the time for no reason at all

Not for no reason. It’s a form of control. If you genuinely believe that the opposing party is going to bring the country to ruin, you’re a lot less likely to consider their position in politics.

Look at the affordable care act. Conservatives hated/hate it because “obamacare” was portrayed as giving free health care to the lazy poor that you have to pay for as a hard working conservative. When asked if we should repeal Obamacare, conservatives poll something crazy like 95% yes, simply because it’s a bad word they learned.

Many of those conservatives have health care through the ACA and get mad when Republicans take it away because they need it. Those same conservatives mostly aren’t even aware that what they have is literally obamacare.

It’s control all the way down.

Politics is fundamentally different for conservatives. They have to have someone to hate. It’s drilled into them by their media outlets.

The tactic is a form of fear based control that conservative media has been working on since Nixon, and made into effect with the birth of Fox News in 1996.

Seriously. Nixon’s think tank conceived the conservative media outlet as a catch-all, exclusive source of news that as a primary function would steer conservatives to not trust other news sources.

They did this because they did not want another Watergate, where conservatives turned against Nixon because of hard evidence laid out by popular unbiased news, which at the time conservatives still were informed by.

The Frankenstein’s monster of a party that that tactic has turned conservatives into requires manufactured rage to fuel the fire. If the outrage ever simmers, you begin to see smarter conservatives recognizing what their party has become and it begins to fall apart.

So there’s your answer. It’s because the hate is necessary to continue the control. If you don’t believe me, turn on Fox news. There’s always the manufactured rage-of-the-day filling the air time.

It’s the only card he’s still holding that means anything to the western nations he’s in a proxy war with.

Nobody wants a nuclear war, which is why he’s betting on western nations erring on the side of caution when he does shit like this.

I mean, he did one better. He defined genocide in describing the explicit war crimes of Israel. I think it’s a little unreasonable to be angry that he didn’t use the term when he outright stated that Israel killed and injured 100,000, 70% of which are women and children, rendered a million people homeless and created famine conditions.

I’d be more upset if he just said “genocide” and didn’t clarify the rest like he did.

what happened on 1/6/21?

Not what t-dump wanted to happen. If that loser-in-chief couldn’t pull off 1,000 guys storming capital hill, what makes you think that he could pull off selling states with a combined population of about 44 million to our sworn enemy?

Even his best “allies” and his own vp left him out to dry after 1/6.

Well we know mayor Lewis is a slut

As an American:

I do try to avoid spaces with an over abundance of other Americans. Largely because I get way more than my share of American news pushed at me on all fronts every day and those people just tend to echo what CNN/Fox has to say about something over and over.

But to other nationalities, any space with a US presence is regarded as “CIA controlled propaganda and those Americans are all slaves of their rich overlords and their capitalism is the singular reason the world is shit”

Believe it or not, American media exists on a spectrum too, just like anywhere. Ironically, the people who spout this uninformed nonsense remind me of the lowest-common-denominator types of Americans who are afraid of Chinese immigrants and healthcare because “communism”.

I figured that was the case, but I don’t know any of it, so I didn’t know better. Thanks for clarifying.

I work in maritime, often alongside Indian counterparts who speak both English to me and Indian to their ship mates.

Yes, they do speak Indian just as fast. Yes, the way they speak English has a lot to do with the cadence of how they speak their native language.

As far as the flow goes, I’ve noticed that Indian does flow better than English just listening to it, but I don’t know enough of it to make that observation with any credibility.

INTERROBANG

Again, philosophy is only tangentially related to proof. You can’t examine a theory like the ship of theseus with any of those methods and come out with a conclusive answer. If you could, it wouldn’t be a philosophical topic.

You don’t understand that, and I’m not going to attempt the impossible to prove it to you. That’s why this conversation is meaningless and I don’t really wish to continue it.

Have a good night

Evidenced-based discussion is only tangentially related to philosophy. There’s no point in sharing my thoughts if the crux of your counterpoint essentially boils down to “prove it or go home”

In the meantime, if I can present three separate, historical philosophical ideas to you and you can shoot them all down with one phrase demanding proof and a supposition that everyone else is just mistaken, you may want to reexamine your idea of an open mind.

You have engaged a philosophical topic with evidence-based expectations. I recognize the futility of continuing this conversation, and so I won’t. Making a point and being countered with “maybe you’re just wrong” is literally a waste of my time.

I did more than enough to clarify the original person’s point. I don’t owe you a scientific explanation for that which you refuse to consider.

Later.

In this case, I guess I’d treat it as any other fantastical statement: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Ah, so this conversation doesn’t matter. You made up your mind even before you even asked for explanation.

By design, philosophical concepts neither require nor can produce proof. If they could, they literally wouldn’t be philosophy. If your idea of arguing how “you” exists includes the line of reasoning that you need proof, then the truth to you is that “you” don’t exist, because you cannot prove your consciousness to someone else either. Just the same as I cannot empirically prove my consciousness to you. You are an amalgamation of chemicals and genetics, as you said.

So really, one taking your stance doesn’t have the conversational authority to even ask what proof is there. The hard evidence is just chemical reactions and genetics all the way down.

In any case, all three of the concepts I listed are not my ideas. They are debated topics, some for literally centuries, in the philosophical world. If you suppose yourself better than the likes of Plato or Socrates because you think you can label a fundamental aspect of the universe as a “mistake” people make when they think about it, then there’s really no honest way you can even approach theories like those without immediately discrediting them.

I guess have fun with that. But for me, there’s no point in contemplating with someone who supposes that proof precedes basic concepts of philosophy in a question inherently about philosophy.