And Keir Starmer practically has Trumps entire dick down his throat with Trumps balls on his face, and that’s before any negotiations.

It’s really not though. The sky is blue, the earth is round, WW2 happened, and there was no so-called ‘Agricultural Revolution’ that mechanically led to urban development.

“Nah, I choose to believe otherwise.” - Lath

I trust your papers as much as I trust the toilet paper in a public restroom. (Which is not at all, if you didn’t catch my drift.) …

So you’re also a flat-earther, anti-vaccine, and anti-science? If you trust scientific data as little as toilet paper in a public restroom, and peer reviewed data, then you’re clearly not interested in the pursuit for truth at all. So what are you arguing if not for your fairy tales? The thing about truth is it’s uniting, they’re agreed upon facts of reality determined by evidence and data, like forensics in a murder investigation. It allows us to not only understand what is happening in the world around us, but also set aside our differences and celebrate them. The mindset that will, as you say, never get along with others is those with the mindset that is against truth - aka you.

So I’ll stop here before I somehow manage to worsen my opinion.

It doesn’t seem to take much.

Nice theorycraft, but it’s just theory. In real life, it doesn’t work.

It’s not “theorycraft” I provided scientific citations and evidence of it’s basis in reality. You havent, and everything else you’ve written after this is unsourced theorycraft with no citations or evidence.

For one thing, by our own definitions, life is inherently evil. It takes, consumes, destroys, selfishly breaks down something else in order to sustain itself. We may rationalize it in different ways, but it can’t escape that attribute. And as long as an individual has to sustain themselves, they will have no choice but to commit evil. But we selectively view badly those who indulge themselves.

I see you’re a right-winger Hobbesean, as that’s what they believe - that human beings are brutish, warlike creatures that require a “better few” to monopolize the violence. Except that has no basis in reality, if that were true then everytime you see a natural disaster like a hurricane or flood and there’s a societal and infrastructure collapse, you’d expect people to be raping and killing eachother en masse. Except that’s not what human beings do, they come together and rebuild. You have a very pessimistic (and outright evil) point of view on human nature, and it’s divorced from reality.

Accidents, logistics, incompetence, corruption and the like cannot be completely prevented. There will always be something beyond the calculated parameters that can and will eventually overwhelm a system.

So this is enough reason for you not to try and make things better for people? “It won’t be perfect so we shouldn’t try” what kind of braindead evil philosophy is that? What kind of lethargic devil are you?

And let’s not forget about the desire to control. Whether tyrants or the utopic society you’re implying for, it’s about control, whether to control oneself or all others. But is the mind that easily controlable and should it be? The desires we have and the willpower to pursue or restrain them aren’t that easily defined.

What about sharing food for the hungry and making sure people have a high quality standard of life considered “control”? YOU might want control and dominion, most people don’t. And people who want control and dominion should be consciously removed from any sort of power, American Indians understood this notion (if you bothered to read the last link I posted you’d understand that) I provided evidence of societies that functioned without these mechanisms of control you so blindly worship, and you turn around and say “That didn’t happen”? Do you realize how stupid that looks? Not trying to insult you, just pointing out what you look like by saying silly stuff like that.

We are not all of the same mind. Neurodiversity proves that people are different in thought and in feeling. The pursuits and responsibilities two different individuals can maintain for themselves over their lifetimes can go below or above the set standard and a civilization must take into account the satisfaction of its citizens in order to avoid its own downfall.

What? So you’re simultaneously saying that “all minds are different” but that culture should “appeal to everyone”? What a confusing statement. Yes, there are many different minds, and a diverse community makes a strong community. I’m unsure of what you’re trying to argue here.

Also, what was achieved in one society will likely not be accepted in another. So good luck expecting everyone, everywhere to accept a unitary system simply because it’s better. I sincerely have my doubts that anyone can succeed in that.

Who wants that? Who tries to do that except fascist autocratic totalitarianist cultures that fail every time? Again, a diverse community is a strong community, and cultures that welcome and celebrate differences do better than ones that fight against eachothers differences. Again, I’m confused what you’re arguing for, what reality are you thinking of when saying stuff like this?

This all has to take into account the planet’s uneven geographical resources distribution as well. Our current production rates barely give a damn about sustainability. Soil nutrition, water consumption, population density, logistics and so on have to be taken into account, so this means population relocation, specialized production specific to regional conditions, limitations of product diversity and availability.

Tell me you know nothing about agriculture without telling me you know nothing about agriculture. Have you heard of rewildling projects happening all over the world? The dedesertification of Etheopia? Play-farming or lazy-farming? Are companies who drain the watertable and fill up peoples land with waste products to move them out to dig up uranium are considering soil nutrition, water consumption, population density, and logistics? What about trade networks, like moving a product from one place with resources to a place that doesnt have those resources? You realize that’s how trade networks work, right? You also realize that money doesn’t have to change hands for this process to work, right? Look up things like “gift economies” and how they predate money for milennia.

Anyway, what you want can’t be done and if it can be done, it can’t last because people aren’t static pieces of paper. A near-perfect distribution of basic needs requires a level of sacrifice and constant maintenance that we lack the willpower and stare of mind to accept responsibility for at this point in time.

But according to you, people ARE static pieces of paper who are all self-interested, warlike, dominion craving, power hungry fascists. Except they’re also not? Which is it? Why does equal distribution of food and resources “require a level of sacrifice and constant maintenance that we lack the willpower” despite there being countless examples to the contrary, some of which I provided evidence for?

In conclusion you’re cleary not coming from any evidence based perspective, you are of the dogmatic school of thought that capitalist like to preach to justify monopolizing violence. You’re the type of person who wants violence and dominion, who thinks the way things currently are is the best way forward. It’s very catholic, like the old medieval saying “If this is the way things are then this is how God wants them to be.” What you don’t realize is your mentality is not the majority, it’s not “reality”, but it’s the minority, and history is constantly filled with stories of the masses overthrowing people with your mentality and flourishing because of it. Humanity moves forward when we reject these notions your spouting, because they’re religious, dogmatic, and devoid of any evidence in reality. Take your pessimistic fairy tales elsewhere or come back with evidence to support your claims, like I provided evidence for mine. Otherwise I might as well be talking to a religious zealot, you’re no different.

Global agricultural systems produce 4 million metric tonnes of food each year. If the food were equitably distributed, this would feed an extra one billion people (paper)

Food is clearly not finite, we produce more than we already need, so why does it cost money? Why don’t we give food to people simply because they don’t have enough pieces of paper or coins of silver?

The ancient people of Teotihuacán decided to stop building pyramids and instead built everyone homes, in a sort of luxury social housing, that “In comparison with other ancient Mesoamerican patterns of housing, these structures do look like elite houses.” (Source) This one is especially fascinating and maddening.

It seems that a peoples society can just, you know, make the decision to build and provide a luxury life for everyone, even in the “hard” ancient days of old. Why can’t we provide a good life for everyone? Why are people obsessed with the idea of suffering being a prerequisite to urban society? It would require proof of a large scale, urban society with no evidence of hierarchy being able to collectively build some sort of intricate sewage technology without any top-down management or something… https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/chinas-oldest-water-pipes-were-communal-effort

Poverty is artificial, it’s a product of using social violence through some abstract currency to protect people from literal violence. Money isn’t the root of all evil, but evil is the root of all money.

Bonus Reading

Why should anyone need to experience poverty in the first place?

I have two mantras that come to mind when this conversation comes up.

1. “Let your front door and back door open to your thoughts and feelings, just don’t serve them tea.”

2. “What a liberation it is to realize that my thoughts and feelings aren’t who I am. Who am I then? The one that realizes it.”

I also apply this logic to animals. A lot of people, even some pet owners, are quite far divorced from our connection to animals, and don’t spend enough time with them. Even wild animals, they are far more intelligent, inquisitive, emotional, and communicative than most people give them credit for, and coexistance with them would actually be a wonderful thing. I’m not religious, I don’t say grace, and I eat meat… But anytime I eat an animal I try to at least be mindful and thankful for the animals sacrifice.

“Humans are the weakest of all creatures, so weak that other creatures are willing to give up their flesh that we may live. Humans are able to survive only though the exercise of rationality since they lack the abilities of other creatures to gain food through the use of fang and claw.”

Ah yes, the “poverty builds character” argument that’s often used to justify poverty.

Rationale is just as often, if not more so, as emotions to commit atrocities. It takes a great deal of rationale and emotional disregard to dehumanize people, and the “high horse of rationality” and “predicting models” is often required to cause things like the holocaust or to rationalize the genocide in Gaza (“Killing children is wrong, BUT…”) No emotion required, in fact, rationalizing against emotion is the requirement.

Really puts the £36 TRILLION that’s sitting liquid in offshore tax havens into perspective. $23.7 billion isn’t even 1% of that.

Because Israel probably killed more than half the victims of october 7th, probably because they knew about the attack weeks before, probably because they moved that music festival closer to danger, probably because they have a ravenous appetite for baby murder. Hello USA, UK, Netherlands, and Germany you can deport me for saying that.

I know the backstory that’s kinda the joke.

Wubby7

No but really was Thomas Crooks hired by Blackwater frfr?

TIL, thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg

Julius Rosenberg (May 12, 1918 – June 19, 1953) and Ethel Rosenberg (née Greenglass; September 28, 1915 – June 19, 1953) were an American married couple who were convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, including providing top-secret information about American radar, sonar, jet propulsion engines, and nuclear weapon designs. Convicted of espionage in 1951, they were executed by the federal government of the United States in 1953 using New York’s state execution chamber in Sing Sing in Ossining,[1] New York

America used to have standards.

At least you’re not using chatgpt to figure out the best way to talk to people, like my brother in finance tech does now.

We can learn from it, the good and the bad.

So then military members “swearing an oath to their constitution” are all full of shit as well? Cuz I dont see any upholding that oath.