There is always distrust and something to die for. Let’s take your friends and family? What if someone kills your partner either just for fun (which does happen) or because of a differing morale. What now? Can you still trust people for this not happening again?
Don’t get me wrong, I am also hoping for a better, freeer and more trustworthy world. More peace and such but you cannot expect this just from simplification.
Even though, if it were true, if he would only roam around in the castle and in the shade, he becomes paler. As a poor man living in the streets especially in such a warm region, you get pretty brown relatively fast. This accounts as true for people from this region especially, because they are basically white in skin tone. Their melatonin just rises (and that relatively quickly), because they are often in the sun. I know that, because I am turkish myself. I can be potato white but get pretty brown relatively fast when summer comes around and I am outside a lot.
Nature Documentary Narrator: “The Human. A peculiar specimin within the primate kingdom…”
I actually would love a Nature Documentary style explanation about humans, as if they were just another species spotlighted in their documentary seriesXD
I think this is considerable as tacticalXD
Lets be real, cats are rather high PsyOps regarding the Cat distribution systemXD
On the other hand males don’t have periods.
Antarctic: Penguins and stories about the mountains of madness
Freedom… I think that’s what they call it… these people who call themselves brave… These wo have an eagle to spread that so called freedom.
It is in their nature to work like this. They are specialised drones serving that exact purpose. The queen is btw no different. It is the DNA housing drone that produces all kind of drones. Their brains are pheromonally connected. Most possibly they share one brain (and consciousness) and are equipped for some brain parts “getting lost”. It is anthropomorphizing to assume that they act like a human kingdom, where the queen (or king) is the upmost of all things to achieve in one or the other way. Ants are also all female. Only drones for mating are male.
Well, well, well. Dont stand with your Back towards me or it will be inviting to stab my sword inXD When I watched king arthur with my friends,we invented the term of the bed armer, because the knight jumped into bed to his women in full armor for some fun times… Now I get why this term deserves more relevant I guessXD
I mean there are Boxers that look a certain way too, like a little suit for example. Same decorative stance to make the underwear look a certain way inviting.
More concerned about the two women from frozenXD
When he slept in, I will detatch the pipe from the container and hold it to my butt and fart.
You mean the alpha version had.
Thank you, very thoughtful:D
It’s fine. I am a early carreer scientist and especially when writing a paper you often recognise what is actual hearsay and what is an actual fact. When writing I often recognise that I kinda fall into the pitfall of “woops, this thought of fact is actually hearsay… the more you know”, because I didn’t find a proper sourceanywhere making it essentially a myth.
The hearsay argument I followed here especially as a german is the argument of “In communism everyone is equal but there are people that are more equal.”, which in the end would make a two class society again, where wealth is one sided. This is what is often said about DDR here, which also tried to follow socialist traits.
Alright thank you for your input, you are right. No, I have never looked deeply into the inner workings of communism. I am just arguing on surface arguments I have catched up and logically appended them. Will read up on that and come back :P
Well, the post tries to deliver a fact, which is not representational. I see the opinion that philosophically communism might be defending human rights better but the post tries to back it by facts, which are inherently not representative.
So, drawing conclusions like that from russia is a bit bold. If a country changes their systen of wealth, it never had used before, of course it first makes a strong dip. It just compares poorly to others, who are partaking in this system for longer already.
Philosophically your argument is not valid I think.
Capitalism abstracts wealth into a universal currency for trading purposes, which total wealth in currency per individual makes up ones capital. Yes, human rights don’t play a role in this system. It just can be a form of wealth, if the interest is there. It allows for a chaos concerning equality between individuals. This builds a class system between poor and rich and this is unfair.
Communism on the other hand puts individuals directly into its philosophy by trying to distribute the total wealth to everyone equally. A simple solution to getting more in this philosophy is by reducing individuals. By that every individual gains more wealth by reducing the total amount of individuals. But which individuals do we take? And by that you again build some sort of hierarchy. Which individuals are disposable for higher wealth per individual? This would be some sort of a dynamic of a two class system, too. So the argumant on human rights being philosophically more present in communism is fraud I’d say.
I myself prefer a federal anarchocommunism, which grows out of a solidaric system by raising the bottom minimum further and further, landing in a system such as a federal anarchocommunism.
Nut and Yahoo guy?