I think you got wooshed, cause I'm pretty sure the CBT being referred to is cock and ball torture.
Though maybe I got wooshed, I'm not 100% sure.
Mnemnosyne
joined 2 years ago
I see three possibilities:
One, you have a different definition of conservative than what is currently the general definition of that label in the US.
Two, you're lying.
Three, you're in a country other than the United States and therefore 'conservative' doesn't mean the same thing in general to you.
Quick test: if you agree with or vote for any US Republican politician, you're just lying. In any other case, there may be a misunderstanding.
Not really - the lions actually provide a benefit, unlike capitalism. The comic can be taken completely seriously and it's true. Predators are very important to an ecosystem.
No, that just lets us talk out of the same hole we put other things into. The talking mechanism could be connected to just the air hole. And as a bonus, we could talk while eating and drinking.
There are very few humans who would not be depressed if they were the last person on earth. Even the most introverted among us are still, well, human.
They could turn that into a running theme, like how every Elder Scrolls protagonist is a prisoner to start with...
But Divinity already has a long history and so does Baldur's Gate so...ehh, doesn't fit in quite as well. Maybe with a new IP they make it a tradition for.
If it can possibly be done without a revolution, that is by far the better and easier choice.
Revolutions are messy, difficult, a great time for power seekers to consolidate power and eliminate the competition, and in the history of mankind, most of them have not resulted in positive change.
They are extremely dangerous, and should never be considered anything other than an absolute last resort when nothing else has any hope of working anymore.
Famine is probably a good indicator of when the situation is bad enough for a revolution to be a potentially rational choice. If significant portions of the population are in danger of famine, then it may be time for a revolution. We are quite far from that point still, fortunately.
You know those GEICO commercials where R. Lee Ermey is playing a former drill sergeant therapist? That'd pretty much be me.
This long explanation supporting capitalism and 'the market' fails to take something crucial into account that all these market promoters forget:
Labor cannot have an undistorted market so long as the option to not sell your labor isn't a valid one.
For any market to be relatively undistorted, a seller must be free to choose not to sell at all if none of the offers are equal or greater than her assessment of the value of her product.
However, as long as labor is needed in order to procure food, shelter, and adequate living conditions, this cannot be the case - people are coerced into selling their labor at values lower than their assessment of its value because to not do so means being denied adequate living conditions.
If people were free to choose not to sell their labor without this coercion, then those seeking to purchase people's labor would find they likely cannot find anywhere near as many people willing to sell at the price they are offering.
Basically, you are making excuses for the fact that due to this market distortion coercing people to sell their labor, the divide between productivity and wages has grown. It is not necessary to lock wages to productivity - if people have the option, and they see massive profits being pocketed off their work with increasingly minimal compensation, they would choose not to sell...except there comes the coercion to ensure they don't do that.
I wonder if the same excuses would be made if we turned it around and told companies they must sell their products, no matter how little the customers are offering....
More like 1997, or even 1983, when the UK handed them back to China, or the earlier date, when they decided to prevent them from having British citizenship.
If everyone in Hong Kong had the right to emigrate to any British territory, China would have to be a lot lighter touched there, or there might be a mass exodus.
Yeah, agree...this woman's colossal fucking hubris is in perfectly appropriate company with the likes of Elon Musk. If she hadn't been so colossally egotistical, and retired sometimes around 2013 or so, the supreme court would be a lot less fucked today.
In my opinion, the big problem is it wasn't interpreted strictly enough for way too long. If it had been ruled super strictly from the beginning, as little wiggle room as possible, amending it regularly would have been necessary in order for the government to function at all, and thus a constitutional amendment wouldn't be considered such a wild or difficult thing.