Lol oops. I have no specific thoughts on pacificism, truth be told.

It’s important to question your beliefs when presented with evidence. My views on pacificism have loosened a lot, for example.

But the two view you mention are ones where the left is objectively correct. Homosexual behavior is a biological fact in almost all animals and non-binary gender systems exist across the breadth of human cultures.

Any belief system which serves as a permission structure for brutalizing others can safely be rejected as false.

They definitely have not. Not publicizing a fool proof nuclear counter-measure defeats the purpose of achieving it in the first place.

You’d MUCH rather your opponent know a nuke strike is pointless, rather than they try and later be surprised that only one lucky one got through.

When he gets belly rubs he often raises his arms above his head in a “hands up don’t shoot” pose, and he always looks scared. I don’t have a photo of it cause I’m always too focused on getting that belly.

But here’s a picture of him saying hello:

Sometimes I miss australia.

Oh lol, oops! Organism, as I’m sure is pretty clear, but I’ll leave it since it’s funnier that way.

My cat is 7

This is factually incorrect though. All human language is natural language. We’re an orgasm that has human style language as one of it’s traits.

It doesn’t really make sense to say that birds don’t naturally sing because they teach their children, or that ape gestures and calls are just made up. Incidentally we share a lot of those gestures, showing that human communication systems emerge from the natural processes of evolution.

sin is religious bullshit anyway

Yep, that’s why I used the word.

Suggesting that “people are idiots” actually explains behavior is just like believing in sin - it’s just giving up on understanding reality. It makes as much sense as a right wing christian trying explain away their opponents as sinners.

Sin is never a sufficient explanation for human behavior. Meaning anytime we think “it’s because they are bad”, we’re missing something big.

All behavior is an attempt to meet needs. Any correct explanation of behavior identifies the need and how the behavior is believed to meet it.

They may not be smart, on average as a group. But that’s not why they keep doing this.

Identities with more rigorous behavior requirements often persist longer. It seems counter-intuitive but the greater the buy-in required, the more appealing the identity seems to be.

In some weird and deeply human way, displaying your devotion to these doomed and unreasonable defenses probably increases the individual’s status among their sovereign peers. That’s the payoff that we don’t see when we only look at the financial and legal costs.

When I look at the quality of prominent Americans who went to ivy league schools, I don’t think cheating your way through college will make much difference.

Pete hegseth graduated from princeton without the use of AI and he is one dumb fucking cunt, for example

Labour is a centrist party that historically emerged from the union movement. They occupy a center-right to center-left position.

The Liberal/National Coalition is right to far right, though they used to have a center right wing (“wets”). The liberal party mostly represent the interests of the rich and business - liberal as in laissez faire, not liberal in the US sense. The nationals have historically represented the interests of farmers and rural communities.

Independents are representatives without a party allegiance. When your electoral system is designed to reflect the will of the people - ie it’s not first past the post - you can have independents or minor parties.

With this picture, does that make you Cyrano de Purrgerac?

Yes, pretending you have questions when you just have insults is a great example of trolling.

“FreedomAdvocate” just immediately sounds like a troll account. Aaaannnnd the comment history is almost nothing but trolling. Surprise surprise.

Yep! Always has been.

Ashoka the great who’s credited with doing a lot to spread buddhism globally was a murderous warlord known for his personal torture prison called “Ashoka’s hell”. After he brutally killed uprisings against his rule he plowed state funds into a PR campaign to change his name from ashoka the cruel to ashoka of the dharma.

Bill gates is another good example, he’s a pedophile known for running one of the most toxic work cultures, but he can use some of the money he made illegally stifling competition to rehab his image.

I must say 4 incorrectly

I move my lips the same way you do. Another poster mentioned four, five as well.

It’s not incorrect though - there’s not really such a thing as pronouncing incorrectly. People just speak how they speak and it’s always changing.

over 30% of people somehow still voted conservative.

It’s similar numbers for determined trump supporters. 30-40% of people just seem to enjoy the idea of living under a punishing overload. Maybe it makes them feel safe, or they think of themselves as superior so presume they’ll end up on top. Probably a lot of other drivers as well - poverty and uncertainty seem to play a role.

I tend to think of this more as a flaw we possess as an organism, something we need social institutions to counteract, rather than as the personal failing of one in every two or three people.

The cat just absolutely has the face of a narc.