You're making some big assumptions that if I pursue either of these topics I'll hit exactly the same documents you did and I'll interpret them exactly the same way you did.
The untested experimental vaccine that was rolled out before testing was even completed is the safest vaccine in the history of the world, even safer than homoeopathic vaccines.
“[The show] was me responding to the world of Brexit and Trump and feeling, ‘Why hasn’t the Federation changed? Why hasn’t Starfleet changed?’ Maybe they’re not as reliable and trustworthy as we all thought,” Stewart said.
0/10 didn't watch one episode
0/10 didn't watch one episode
I used to run a UT99 server on fbxl.net, I think there's a script out there that takes care of 99% of the work for you.
I think this is the one.
https://linuxgsm.com/servers/ut99server/
I think this is the one.
https://linuxgsm.com/servers/ut99server/
I used to get visitors to my random-ass websites organically. Today I run a blog that's imo much better than anything I put together back then, and most of my traffic is russian spam bots.
The tech mindset is about explosive growth rather than polishing something to a sheen, which you definitely see. The quality of a lot of the work is exceptional in terms of lack of defects in the initial work, but it better be because it won't change until they replace it entirely.
"Worry not, mi amore, I shall stare at your tits and tell you how beautiful your eyes are."
(User was banned for this post)
(User was banned for this post)
Both parties are coming for your retirement every year because the federal debt is 130% of GDP and neither party is remotely interested in changing its trajectory.
No money left for old people, there's bankers to pay!
No money left for old people, there's bankers to pay!
I find its output is a bit middling, but I guess it would make sense for an aggregation of a bunch of professional writers acting as a genetic verisimilitude engine would be a bit middling since that's what would be generally aiming at.
That was a risky click, but I was not disappointed.
Told my buddy -- "You gotta go to anus.com right now. No, it isn't what you think."
Told my buddy -- "You gotta go to anus.com right now. No, it isn't what you think."
I think its missing a point going "just learn to be huuuuman guys!" -- it's something that sounds really good on paper, except its clear or should be clear that our society is having huge problems answering "and what does that mean?" -- and that sounds like a cop out, but an in reality we're seeing that a lot of people just don't know what to do in their lives and it's having a big effect on their lives -- more men staying virgins much later, not getting married perhaps ever, not having kids, never owning a home, and many women facing similar indicators showing people don't really know what to do. There's a pandemic of women reaching middle age asking "where are the good guys?" Because there's a whole skill set they don't have as people.
Our society is so broken that gen z is more not ok than ok, which isn't like previous generations at all.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/14/health/gen-z-mental-health-gallup-wellness-cec/index.html
If you can say something like that you're to be able to just know how to be human, one of a shrinking number, especially when what it is to be human is changing so much so quickly. I'm one of six kids in a family with stong and still useful traditions, so yeah I learned how to coexist with others and exist in the world, but there's generations coming of age who were part of small, atomized families and who never had a real world community, and so they don't know and that doesn't make them bad people, it makes them homo sapiens in the postmodern world.
Our society is so broken that gen z is more not ok than ok, which isn't like previous generations at all.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/14/health/gen-z-mental-health-gallup-wellness-cec/index.html
If you can say something like that you're to be able to just know how to be human, one of a shrinking number, especially when what it is to be human is changing so much so quickly. I'm one of six kids in a family with stong and still useful traditions, so yeah I learned how to coexist with others and exist in the world, but there's generations coming of age who were part of small, atomized families and who never had a real world community, and so they don't know and that doesn't make them bad people, it makes them homo sapiens in the postmodern world.
J6 was always a reichstag fire. If the idiots milling about didn't set it, it was always going to be set.
If they're just evil and want to control the world, they might be trying to switch tack since they smell blood in the water of the current things.
A lot of people thought that when we killed God it would end religion, but in fact religion is stronger than ever, just a new-age atheistic religion.
Whereas the innovation of Christianity was forgiveness and repentance, and protestantism was that your connection with God is personal, this new religion is more like the old fear based religions in that you must follow the religious dogma to the letter or the threat is that people will literally die.
Whereas the innovation of Christianity was forgiveness and repentance, and protestantism was that your connection with God is personal, this new religion is more like the old fear based religions in that you must follow the religious dogma to the letter or the threat is that people will literally die.
Yet replace it with "your mother or father" and suddenly it's delusional again.
Almost like different things are different.
Almost like different things are different.
I was surprised when you sent me that emailing talking about how great ethnic stereotypes are and listing out your favorite ethnic slurs, but I understand now. (jk)
lmfao, the 2 year olds she writes her speeches to connect with will all vote for her. Probably gonna age out by 10 though. Like, "What's wrong with this retarded lady? She just explained what guns are as 'a thing bad people use to make ouchies to good people'!"
You're suggesting that people from nuclear family-based societies are more violent and more likely to be violent than people in other societies and that's the reason why nuclear family societies outcompeted clan societies.
Such a stance appears to me to be counterfactual.
- Many of the bloodiest wars in history happened in Asia, including examples like the taiping rebellion which killed 20-30 million people and the anlushan rebellion which killed 10 million people. The Asia has a number of different types of society including chinese, indian, and southeast asian societies.
Another whatifalthist video on some of the bloodiest atrocities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyZ0Z1Bw2is
While there are some terrible things on that list done by societies that had nuclear families at the time (the indian famines being a particularly tragic example), it shows there's no monopoly on violence.
- The deadliest war in history would be World War 2, which was started by a civilization (Nazi Germany) with an authoritarian family structure, and the most brutal fighting in the war was with another country which had an authoritarian family structure, the soviet union (which tried to eliminate the family as a source of power like China did but had not succeeded and in fact by the 1930s made strong family a core part of their policy)
- The most violent places on earth right now would be places that don't have a nuclear family structure, such as certain parts of Africa (which can vary considerably in structure including practices like polygamy which I think can arguably be in the running for the ideology that promotes the most violence). Ethiopia is a nuclear family society and is notable as relatively peaceful and prosperous.
-The conflict everyone is paying attention to right now is in the middle east, which pits jewish culture which isn't a nuclear family society against arab muslim culture which isn't a nuclear family society (and neither are both russia and ukraine as I understand it).
-Meanwhile, almost every country on earth that has a nuclear family structure is at peace, with the notable exception of Guyana and Venezuela which look like they could come to blows over a stretch of ocean.
Instead, I think there is a good argument for polygamy being the family structure whose societies produce the most violent people since powerful men get all the women and most men get nothing, which would drive them to extreme desperation including throwing themselves at meaningless wars for status to try to get wives and access to sex. I think it's no mistake that the areas with more violence at the moment tend to have more polygamy.
In the case of monogamous nuclear families, I'd expect less violence because the men are more likely to get wives and children and so have a good reason not to get themselves killed in a war.
The Muslims who were able to roll over india in the 9th century presumably didn't defeat the Indians because they were more violent, but because they were more effective including using better strategies. They were outnumbered 100 to 1, much like the Khitan people north of China who took over northern China in the 9th century and formed the Lian dynasty, and with that level of overwhelming numberical disadvantage, there's something other than violence at work.
In the same way, I think it's arguable that the nuclear family societies won through superior economic might, superior military technology, and also some diplomatic acumen. The Assyrians and Nazi Germany were both supremely violent, but their raw violence and brutality convinced everyone to gang up against them because raw violence scares people. Those competitive advantages would have come from the young men working hard to become worthy of raising a family going out and making something of themselves.
Anyway, I need to stop, my brain is numb from looking through sources all evening. :P
Such a stance appears to me to be counterfactual.
- Many of the bloodiest wars in history happened in Asia, including examples like the taiping rebellion which killed 20-30 million people and the anlushan rebellion which killed 10 million people. The Asia has a number of different types of society including chinese, indian, and southeast asian societies.
Another whatifalthist video on some of the bloodiest atrocities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyZ0Z1Bw2is
While there are some terrible things on that list done by societies that had nuclear families at the time (the indian famines being a particularly tragic example), it shows there's no monopoly on violence.
- The deadliest war in history would be World War 2, which was started by a civilization (Nazi Germany) with an authoritarian family structure, and the most brutal fighting in the war was with another country which had an authoritarian family structure, the soviet union (which tried to eliminate the family as a source of power like China did but had not succeeded and in fact by the 1930s made strong family a core part of their policy)
- The most violent places on earth right now would be places that don't have a nuclear family structure, such as certain parts of Africa (which can vary considerably in structure including practices like polygamy which I think can arguably be in the running for the ideology that promotes the most violence). Ethiopia is a nuclear family society and is notable as relatively peaceful and prosperous.
-The conflict everyone is paying attention to right now is in the middle east, which pits jewish culture which isn't a nuclear family society against arab muslim culture which isn't a nuclear family society (and neither are both russia and ukraine as I understand it).
-Meanwhile, almost every country on earth that has a nuclear family structure is at peace, with the notable exception of Guyana and Venezuela which look like they could come to blows over a stretch of ocean.
Instead, I think there is a good argument for polygamy being the family structure whose societies produce the most violent people since powerful men get all the women and most men get nothing, which would drive them to extreme desperation including throwing themselves at meaningless wars for status to try to get wives and access to sex. I think it's no mistake that the areas with more violence at the moment tend to have more polygamy.
In the case of monogamous nuclear families, I'd expect less violence because the men are more likely to get wives and children and so have a good reason not to get themselves killed in a war.
The Muslims who were able to roll over india in the 9th century presumably didn't defeat the Indians because they were more violent, but because they were more effective including using better strategies. They were outnumbered 100 to 1, much like the Khitan people north of China who took over northern China in the 9th century and formed the Lian dynasty, and with that level of overwhelming numberical disadvantage, there's something other than violence at work.
In the same way, I think it's arguable that the nuclear family societies won through superior economic might, superior military technology, and also some diplomatic acumen. The Assyrians and Nazi Germany were both supremely violent, but their raw violence and brutality convinced everyone to gang up against them because raw violence scares people. Those competitive advantages would have come from the young men working hard to become worthy of raising a family going out and making something of themselves.
Anyway, I need to stop, my brain is numb from looking through sources all evening. :P