It’s only obvious because you already know what a beaver looks like.

Where do I find cool friends like you?

Nice try Kash.

I used to spend a lot of time there in 2017 or so and the political spectrum went from monarchists to fascist to white Christian nationalists. The closest thing to left you would find were civic nationalists and some former Bernie bros that turned into Bannon populists.

For me the wisdom is that for all the good a strong federal government could do, it inevitably was going to be used for ill and we are seeing that play out in real time. Which is what traditional republicans always said.

But to a point I do think the founding sin was writing in the constitution that all men are created equal and still allowing slavery. Many (if not most? I’m not sure here I know they all owned slaves as that was the thing to do at the time) who signed that paper knew that this sin would destroy the union and it’s obvious they were right because all of American history has been the shockwaves of allowing slavery instead of making it illegal from the very beginning, and to this day it is still playing out. Thats what happens when you weave in contradictions into the foundation of your country, event those contradictions cannot coexist.

Wait 4chan is not conservative (again)?

Fair. The same style of organization was the intention under the constitution still. Just a little bit tighter wound.

The idea always was that people should be free to live in a place where they agree with the laws, so each state would have broad powers to organize itself and make its own laws and then every person could decide to live in a place that was organized in the way they wanted. The Federal Government was only to handle military (which is still constitutionally not supposed to be a standing army, but congress votes to maintain it every two years), international relations, regulate relations between the states themselves and tariffs. This has always been the traditional republican position, and time has proven the wisdom behind it. But now it’s too late to turn back I think.

When the intention is just to kill the person then it’s just murder. Both murder and assassinations are homicides. When the attack isn’t planned, at least legally, it is considered manslaughter. So the only possible definition left is that an assassination is a killing that serves an end instead of being the end itself. Thats were I got it from, working logically through the definitions.

But just in case: https://www.britannica.com/topic/assassination

We are pretty much arguing the same position, my definition was just a little broader because I think limiting it to “prominent persons” is a little hazy. Was the CEO that Luigi supposedly killed a prominent person? I can’t even remember their name and I certainly don’t know their face so I wouldn’t consider them prominent. I’d argue this is the case for most people in regards to that case. Yet the fact of the matter is that that situation was also an assassination.

You just described the United States as intended there at the end. The whole thing was designed to be something more like the EU than what it is today.

I think it is fair to label something as an assassination if the death is actually only a means to an end and not the end itself. For example a prince assassinates his father to become king. The true goal is becoming king, but in order to do that the prince needs to kill the king, but the killing itself is not the end goal.

So most politically motivated murders are assassinations, because the death itself is a means to other ends.

It’s for the people who usually buy the Pro but don’t actually use any of the Pro features and just like having the expensive iPhone because it’s a status symbol. It will do well. I myself would buy it were it not because I have an iPad Pro and would rather prefer a smaller phone.

Edit: I know status symbol in this context is used as a derogatory term usually but I mean it in a descriptive term. Same reason many buy a Rolex vs a Casio which is just as durable and tell the time fine. If you have the cash and don’t mind the compromises, go wild it’s a gorgeous device .

There’s not a single healthy drink in that list. No bottled water is not really all that healthy, the microplastics you see.

Your optimism is laudable but that’s not at all how these things tend to go. You will see. I hope in 20, 30 years you’ll remember this conversation and you’ll realize how right I was about how wrong this is and how it will only serve to further enslave people to market logic.

The irony of you saying that while approving of the state raising kids.

In this ideal society of yours the conditions force you to work 80 hours a week so you can live, but don’t you worry about raising your kids they are being taken care of by the state to be Dutiful Members Of Society™️.

Remember when the liberation of women was about choice? Do women really have a choice now a days? Or do they have to work even when they (or their partner) would rather stay at home with their kids because the system evolved to assume dual incomes? This is the next step, the system will assume that you do not have to take care of your children or family members, they will provide for that so that you can be a productive member of society. How grand!

You will see one day how this simply allows the very sick system to continue to thrive and exploit people in the interest of capital.

In all of those, there’s a kind of kindship involved that does not exist in a state appointed nanny. There’s a huge difference and we can’t pretend there isn’t.

What do you think this enables?

Hint: it’s not parents spending a lot of time with their children.

Are you implying this is an improvement? this just putting a bandaid on a problem and that if “successful“, meaning it permits parents to work even more than they do now, it will become ossified into a permanent social arrangement. This is potentially if not more destructive as an economic system built with the expectation that there are two salaries in a household.

This is progress only if progress is defined as capitalism adapting to further exploit people and eliminate any sense of family in favor of individualism. It’s sick honestly.

Yeah not really, these terms only confound the reality of things. “Community” is a very hazy term. A city is a community and so is a tribe. However a tribe has close kinship between its members, a city, a state, hell even a big town doesn’t. So no, this isn’t the same as you would call a community caregiver in the context that one would use it when describing a healthy arrangement of the kind.

I don’t think it’s an improvement, I think it’s further alienation that will have problems down the line when it produces even more anti social members of society.