How a society built on science and technology can rely on a philosophy that says there's no such thing as objective truth is absurd. Some truth may be fuzzier than others, but of course there are objective truths, and if anyone thinks that's not the case, go wrestle some wild lions and bears -- It doesn't matter what your opinion on the matter is, you're gonna die because they're bigger and stronger than you.
(link is broke, tho)
(link is broke, tho)
Fact check: Mostly False
While it is true that he embezzled money and spent it on hookers then took the best 1990s hooker for himself, and snopes does consist of that guy and a 90s hooker (probably, how the fuck would I know?), the ex wife probably took the cat.
While it is true that he embezzled money and spent it on hookers then took the best 1990s hooker for himself, and snopes does consist of that guy and a 90s hooker (probably, how the fuck would I know?), the ex wife probably took the cat.
Surprised to see the cuck media posting something like this, since they're all sucking off his teet.
In the 11th century, the song dynasty lost northern china to the Liao people despite outnumbering them in population 100 to 1. Instead of reforming their military they say in the capital writing poetry about how great it would be if they could only win. At the same time, Muslims from modern-day Afghanistan invaded modern-day India. The Indians outnumbered them in population by 100 to 1, but instead of improving their military they built nicer temples to the gods so they could be granted victory.
Making videos about how great apprenticeships are to get more people into apprenticeships instead of actually do something to make more apprenticeships feels extremely similar.
Making videos about how great apprenticeships are to get more people into apprenticeships instead of actually do something to make more apprenticeships feels extremely similar.
https://www.blogto.com/film/2023/02/get-paid-2500-campaign/
Every time I see something like this, I get so incredibly pissed off.
Imagine how offensive this is to all the kids who want an apprenticeship and can't get one because there are none. Pretty much everyone in my generation has to go to college, that's how you get your apprenticeship. And these Ivory Tower morons don't realize that.
"earn while you learn" how about stop lying?
Maybe instead of handing all this money to filmmakers to make movies about how great being an apprentice would be they use it to try to create some apprenticeships? Most places aren't approaching labor crisis, they're there. And nobody is doing anything about it but making movies about how great it would be if people were employed in jobs that don't exist.
Every time I see something like this, I get so incredibly pissed off.
Imagine how offensive this is to all the kids who want an apprenticeship and can't get one because there are none. Pretty much everyone in my generation has to go to college, that's how you get your apprenticeship. And these Ivory Tower morons don't realize that.
"earn while you learn" how about stop lying?
Maybe instead of handing all this money to filmmakers to make movies about how great being an apprentice would be they use it to try to create some apprenticeships? Most places aren't approaching labor crisis, they're there. And nobody is doing anything about it but making movies about how great it would be if people were employed in jobs that don't exist.
One problem is that there's a lot of politics tied to such job postings. For example, a company might want to have a US IT job posting stay unfilled so they can bring in an H1B.
In the event of an emergency, secure your own oxygen mask before attempting to assist others.
Back in the day we had Newtonian physics and we liked it! Quantum mechanics is degeneracy! Go to hell with your insane quantum nonsense and give us back our clockwork universe!
Here's hoping southern Ontario gets their heads out of their asses.
The rest of Canada got with the program some time ago.
The rest of Canada got with the program some time ago.
It annoys me that of all the extraordinary beers we have, this one would call itself "the" premium beer.
https://wolfballs.com/post/108026?scrollToComments=true
RIP wolfballs. :(
Sort of an odd name, but it was a great lemmy site (and there's a limited number of those) with a fun community.
RIP wolfballs. :(
Sort of an odd name, but it was a great lemmy site (and there's a limited number of those) with a fun community.
So you fundamentally misunderstand the history of the world.
Ok, not my problem. You got a definition of capitalism. Even a pithy one. The fact that you don't like it sounds like a you problem.
Ok, not my problem. You got a definition of capitalism. Even a pithy one. The fact that you don't like it sounds like a you problem.
Yeah, that's how it works. When you're wrong about underlying facts, your conclusions will as a consequence come out wrong most of the time. Even when your conclusions are correct by accident, if the means by which you came to the correct conclusion is flawed, then the correct conclusion is less useful.
It all goes back to the establishment of legally property rights and how it can be regarded as one of the key moments to the establishment of what we consider capitalism, since without private property rights there cannot be capitalism even though there can be wealth, because ultimately ownership and control of property wasn't private.
Which brings us to the other incorrect part of your post.
To keep it short: The concept of sharing resources and working collectively is prevalent in early human tribes and predates humans. Tribe and clan exist in primates. The concept of property as we understand it today is a more recent development in human societies. It can be argued that humans developed property as societies evolved from tribal communities to more complex forms of social organization, and the concept of private property as we understand it is quite modern.
So given all this, saying "This my rock. You no take. Me stab." is not an accurate way to look at the concept of property in prehistory.
You're proving my original long definition was required after all, and the problem was that I actually didn't make it long enough.
It all goes back to the establishment of legally property rights and how it can be regarded as one of the key moments to the establishment of what we consider capitalism, since without private property rights there cannot be capitalism even though there can be wealth, because ultimately ownership and control of property wasn't private.
Which brings us to the other incorrect part of your post.
To keep it short: The concept of sharing resources and working collectively is prevalent in early human tribes and predates humans. Tribe and clan exist in primates. The concept of property as we understand it today is a more recent development in human societies. It can be argued that humans developed property as societies evolved from tribal communities to more complex forms of social organization, and the concept of private property as we understand it is quite modern.
So given all this, saying "This my rock. You no take. Me stab." is not an accurate way to look at the concept of property in prehistory.
You're proving my original long definition was required after all, and the problem was that I actually didn't make it long enough.
The thing is, you're wrong, and because you're wrong, you're wrong.
My post proves you're wrong because the US court system still utilizes English decisions to protect people's civil rights, therefore your conclusion that the way English common law regards human rights doesn't matter to American courts is incorrect.
My post proves you're wrong because the US court system still utilizes English decisions to protect people's civil rights, therefore your conclusion that the way English common law regards human rights doesn't matter to American courts is incorrect.
The US, Canada, and the UK share common roots in the common law system characterized by the concept of precedent and of lower courts being held to decisions by higher courts. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean they share every precedent, but they are all based on the same common law system, and cases in each jurisdiction sometimes make use of precedent set before the legal systems split off.
As an example of this, in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) the US Supreme Court considered the issue of racial discrimination in jury selection. The Court relied on English common law to establish the principle that excluding prospective jurors on the basis of race is a violation of the defendant's right to an impartial jury. The Court specifically cited the case of Straud v. State (1670) from the English common law tradition as evidence of this principle.
As an example of this, in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) the US Supreme Court considered the issue of racial discrimination in jury selection. The Court relied on English common law to establish the principle that excluding prospective jurors on the basis of race is a violation of the defendant's right to an impartial jury. The Court specifically cited the case of Straud v. State (1670) from the English common law tradition as evidence of this principle.