The Box of Chocolates Thread (You never know what you're going to get!)

Ok so given the public does at least something everywhere in the west now, we are all living under communism according to your definition.

The revolution already won, you got your communism, why do you guys complain all the times then

Nonsense. Cite please.

If they don't have self determination due to being under the control of an empire whether they like it or not, then they don't have freedom.

Maybe it's the term hard wired that Im questioning. That usually refers to a genetic basis. But there are lots of regions of the world where for thousands of years people never saw anyone who didnt look like them from a race perspective. I agree there is definitely an "in group/out group" dynamic in play where members of one tribe view another with fear, aggression, or both. Idk if that is considered a genetic or social constuct, but I think it applies regardless of race.

Freedom is a property of an individual not of a group.

It's being able to do as much as you want, and other people being prevented to do to you stuff you dislike as much as possible.

The Cuban people have self determination for some stuff more than Italians (who are part of the American empire), but I don't think many people would agree cuban people have more freedom than Italians.

I mean I am member here since 2007 so...

Daft far right books like "capitalism and freedom" lol.

Btw, the first antibiotic was Salvaran, discovered by a private research entity, by Ehrlich in 1909, approx 20 years before penicillin.

And not by a complete stroke of luck like penicillin, by actual research.

Speaking of Google and the way it's search engine is badly deteriorating, the trope of penicillin being the first antibiotic must have become so common and convinced so many people (maybe because it's something socialists like to spam to convince themselves the state is good at something? Not sure) you dont get Salvaran as the first answer unless you carefully craft the query

this

these things are well studied, it's why you have a natural fear of things like snakes and spiders, things which are often poisonous and could kill you

No what you actually said was:

Then I helpfully provided a link which stated:

Now, America at the time was what's called a "colony" meaning they were under a colonial power and colonial subjects.
But they waged a war for independence against the colonial power. Ergo it was a fight against colonialism.

(Except on planet Vic, population- 01, primary language -garbledeze)

Paradoxical, but true?

I have the King and Queen on my money, believe me I get IT. IT isn't lost on me.

But when the mustached white walker took Europe, we were like House Mormont, we were on it. Because you heed the call!

I'm not entirely sure which house you guys were. Not Bolton or anything, that's too far. Maybe house Arryn? Kind of show up right at the end when the tides turn? And then can be like "We helped!"

And then secretly you hate the Starks because wtf, dirty Starks. I think that kind of fits! It's "Aran" in Ireland I think?

it was not a fight against colonialism as a principle. would you call the Vietnam wars against Cambodia or China a fight against Communism?

You know that Monetarism is pretty much discredited now?

Yet that amazingly efficient system called Capitalism failed to bring this wonderdrug to a global market.

ireland have behaved very badly with regard to international tax and get almost zero bad press over it

its not a state of affairs which anyone should accept and think we should consider a little bit of late-stage capitalist imperialism to fix it

Statements like this amuse me. Because it isn't "races" that come up with the best ideas. It is a tiny percentage of people of that race. So even if it was true that .3% of blue people have contributed world changing ideas while only .2% of green people have, and even in the unlikely event that it was for genetic reasons, then 99.7% of blue people have no reason to feel superior (in the coming up with ideas department)

It looks quite bad for de Valera and particularly for Hyde, who was crippled after a stroke and went well out of his way, in difficult circumstances, to offer his personal condolences to the German ambassador on the death of Adolf Hitler. There's a reason why Hyde's visit was kept a state secret for 60 years. Ireland's wartime neutrality varied a bit. De Valera was a Hitler supporter, like Hyde, and was disappointed when Hitler looked like losing, but feared British military intervention, so the Garda tried to combat the pro-Nazi IRA and arrested German spies. Eventually Ireland permitted the 'Donegal Corridor' for overflights by Allied aircraft into and from Northern Ireland and started repatriating Allied flyers who'd come down over the 26 Counties, but only when it became clear that the Allies were winning.

Then there's the curious business of Francis Stuart being appointed a Saoi of Aosdana in 1996, a state-endorsed writer with a pension, like Seamus Heaney and not too many others, a high honour of the Irish state, when Stuart (previously married to Maud Gonne's daughter Iseult, to whom he was violently abusive throughout the marriage) was an overt Nazi sympathiser and Abwehr stringer who broadcast Nazi propaganda from Berlin in 1942-1944. Only one member of Aosdana voted against Stuart's nomination and had to resign as a result. Everyone else voted for or abstained. Not a great look.

No a free nation is being able to decide its own future and living on its own terms, not existing due to permission from a colonial power and no the Cubans don't have self determination or freedom. Italians can vote Giorgia out come next election. (assuming you produce a government that actually lasts a full term, that is. ) Cubans can't vote out the CCP. Reason being it's not a free nation.

Ive seen the studies that showed fear in babies to spiders and snakes. But also saw saw studies that concluded there was no fear.

But the question was specifically race, and the answer was tribes. But for thousands of years tribes were wary of and fought with other tribes of identical racial makeup. IOW they exhibited aggression or fear towards people who looked just like them racially.

this is wrong, it feels that way now only because we were so good at killing/driving away the other tribes that the more modern variations of "tribes" are not true tribes but rather splintered off from the same parent tribe

areas that are genetically homogenous today were not at all that way thousands of years ago but only became that way through a process of violence

I'm not interested in de Valera and he wasn't a Hitler supporter either.
https://www.historyireland.com/de-valera...
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-com...

It didn't look bad for Ireland or the Irish government as again we were officially neutral. Dublin was bombed by the Luftwaffe in WWII and Nazi Germany paid compensation, including for damage to a Synagogue, despite Hitler's hatred of Jews, due to our neutrality. And yet again, the IRA were a proscribed organisation who didn't represent Ireland and nobody knew about the Holocaust at the time anyway. Again they were operating under the enemy of my enemy is my friend philosophy which groups and governments the world over have done time outa number. Neither Ireland or its government were pro Nazi any more than Britain was pro Nazi via Prince Edward and Oswald Mosely being Hitler fans

[QUOTE=rickroll;58489978]this is wrong, it feels that way now only because we were so good at killing/driving away the other tribes that the more modern variations of "tribes" are not true tribes but rather splintered off from the same parent tribe

Are you suggesting that say, for example, in subsaharan Africa thousands of years ago adjacent tribes were of different races and that's why they fought? I dont believe that was the case at all.

I suppose refusing to fight against Hitler is better than fighting for Hitler.

But it’s still not a good look.

my knowledge of history of africa is scant given that there's no recorded history there prior to the 9th century and the overwhelming majority of written history for the area does not exist until the 15th century

but you can say that with 100% certainty with the rest of the world

again, not saying that they fought for reasons of race, but rather fighting for limited resources

just look at how populations have skyrocketed

this is not due to things like medicine, it's because much of the world which is fertile farmland today could not be efficiently farmed without today's technology and those who left those fortified pockets in search of more food often wouldn't live very long

ukraine, which is the breadbasket of europe, had fundamentally no agricultural until the 19th century

areas like kansas, which are today huge centers of wheat production were initially a catastrophic failure of farming because when people first settled the region in the 1930s, they did not understand how to farm that area - it was only by taking a scientific approach to it that they reclaim kansas as a massive producer of grain

this is precisely why there's so many A&M universities in that region - they were a response of the need to train farmers in modern techniques of farming

even with our modern technology, only 11% of all land today is arable, it's plausible less than 1% of the land was arable during the tribal period

there were very few locations where ancient farming techniques could yield food surpluses and those areas were fought over incredibly hard, if you check the archaelogy records, the dna of burial sites at those places strongly suggest that population groups were wiped out and replaced en masse - go to fertile lands of greece, turkey, rome, china, korea, japan, egypt, iraq, iran, etc and you'll find the bronze ages genetics distinctly different from the medieval age genetics which are distinctly different from the modern day inhabitants

we incorrectly view the ancient world like this, where we apply modern day concepts of borders and contiguous settlements and road infrastructure

we should instead view it like this, a series of disjointed and fragmented coalition of city states which often did not control the land filling in the gaps between where hostile tribes may be living as nomadic hunter gatherers - this is the reason why cities and towns were all fortified, even those deep within the "national borders" because their were no borders - it was not to protect from a foreign invader but instead to protect from the tribes nearby "within the borders"

this is also exactly why super tribes like the hungarians were able to freely traverse europe and raid it

even in more modern times, not a single town in new england has escaped being raided by an indian tribe, at some point, every single one of them was attacked, it was incredibly dangerous being a settler

Cos it's almost entirely people with jobs who buy houses. And everything else. They get wealth in exchange for their labour which has value.

Sure the current spread of wealth will mask some problems for a while but it's goign one way if it can't be replaced or increased by most people except by relying on some idea that the succesfull companies will hand us load of dosh so that their competitors have a chance.

I see what you mean maybe in 2200-2300 after enough generation now with this comment, but I thought we were talking the next couple of decades.

in the next couple of decades people will own houses mostly privately and their children will inherit them.

if only 5-10% of the population is occupied and that goes on for 50++ years then yes some major changes might happen even to that (house ownership).

we enter a realm of extreme uncertainty (also because 100+ years of AI development from now should bring the singularity to us ) and I am far more agnostic about my predictions if that happens.

but you seemed to imply the paradigm changes were very proximate temporally and I tend to disagree with that

as usual I think it depends, if the refusal allowed you to avoid being invaded and occupied by Nazis (see Scandinavia) then I would treat it differently