More of us elders need to step up and set the example. It’s easy for the young folk to get disillusioned with the painfully slow process of building a movement, but the only way to force change is logistics, organization, and tenacity.

He’s trying to encourage disbelief in germ theory. He’d like to encourage a return to cornflakes and Graham crackers to rebalance the humors.

It’s the whole “surviving long enough to look back” part that people worry about.

You missed that the wax only “boils” (I would have said vaporizes, but as you said, boils is close enough) at the center of the flame where it is drawn up by the wick. Otherwise, this is correct.

Fun bonus detail, visible flames are usually burning gas. Burning solids look like hot embers. The flames from a wood fire are usually burning smoke. You can actually re-light a candle by smothering the flame and quickly lighting it’s smoke tail on fire.

Oh, they do. Depending on the context, there’s a whole host of ways to imply sarcasm without depending on intonation. Body language, context, double entendre, formality shifts, etc.

The question may not be inherently stupid, although it does contain a false premise. You really should follow the news before you start claiming the news channels aren’t reporting a story. It’s been front page news on literally every publication for 3 days now. I have to assume then that this question is actually rhetorical. If there’s a statement you’re looking to make you should probably just make it.

When you have no values to speak of, someone showing theirs is a threat.

they act in a different way from the other, which they very much do. The basis of their power comes from different roots, and because of that, they have different interests, different goals, different avenues of action, different preferences in compromise with wider society.

I firmly disagree. There is no meaningful difference in motivation or expected outcome. The behaviour is functionally identical. In neither case is there any commitment to compromise with society, both Aristocracy and Plutocracy leverage economic factors to control and contain the wider community, to arbitrary and capricious ends; frequently little more than the further consolidation of power. The terminology is different, it sounds different, but it does not behave different in any meaningful way. Any social contract is entirely grounded in what we choose to demand as a society, not intrinsic to the flavour of elite class.

It’s the same motive, the same tools, and the same outcome, just re-branded and with a fresh coat of paint. Plutocracy in this era leverages scientific and evidence based psychological conditioning, social control, and new communication mediums to play on a variety of fundamental cognitive biases and limitations instead of leveraging religion alone as the primary means of containment of the governed, nothing more. As I said, it’s Aristocracy with a business degree. If you want to get specific it’s Aristocracy with a business degree and a marketing team instead of just the clergy.

The point is that the basis of aristocratic power comes (in part) from a position of extraordinary legal privilege, not simply being able to escape consequences for crimes.

We’re so very close but we’re not quite getting that last point. What I’m saying is it’s a distinction with very little meaningful difference. It’s interesting from an academic point of view, but that’s it. How they rationalize their privilege and sell their legitimacy to people makes no difference.

In principle you are correct, in practice the functional difference is very much negligible. As anyone who has ever tried to hold a plutocrat accountable in court can tell you, their equality under the law is more theoretical than how the world really works. The cults of personality, the careful reputational management, the nepotism and cronyism, dynastic rule and insularity, it’s all there, it’s just got a different window dressing.

On paper their power is different. In practice, not so much.

Correct, but the weather is overcast enough to significantly reduce effective UV exposure. Thankfully most people get enough vitamin D from their diet that it’s unlikely to cause serious health issues. Unless you’re vegan. Vegetarians and pescatarians are fine though.

Fascism is what you get when Aristocracy gets a business degree. The difference between a feudal lord and a CEO is non-farm income.

Well, yes. To be fair, that doesn’t mean you can’t still have an EOT, it just means that the founder/owner(s) will face even more financial barriers to doing the right thing for their employees and community, but it’s still possible. Letting your MPs know that you support renewing this incentive and possibly adding additional incentives might actually be effective in this case.

What’s done is done, we can’t unwind the past. We can help them heal, and try to grow past the grief, but yes, those scars are never going to be gone. Every tragedy like this is a failure. Of what, and how can take time to put together. Everyone is going to want to latch on to any one of a million factors and invent a story in their mind of what happened that fits their perspective on the world. I would advise against that, because none of us know all the details yet, and we may not for some time. Right now, it’s important to mourn the lost, to comfort those closest to them, and let those tasked with putting the facts together do their job.

Oh, no. Your country broadcast this nonsense. You infected these… individuals of limited wit and wisdom… with his cult rhetoric. You broke them, you bought them. /s

medical terms are now no longer medical terms and just purely an insult

Language drifts over time, that’s normal, always has been. Stay on target soldier. FORMAL language however needs very strict definitions or it just stops working. Words mean things is true. That still doesn’t mean you get to say the “R” word.

Self-defence. They’ve harmed us all once, they will strive to do it again, and they cannot be rehabilitated. They could never be trusted to rejoin society, or even to socialize among themselves. Given the remaining alternative of perpetual solitary confinement execution would actually likely be more humane.

What I’m hearing is laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation?

We spent 100 years engineering the world to decrease birth rates and punish people for having children “they cannot afford”, then immiserate the majority of people, eliminate any kind of opportunity to enjoy life, community, family, or recreation without spending ungodly amounts of money to enjoy simple human pleasures that have been part of being human for hundreds of thousands of years, work them relentlessly 24/7/365 (or as close as we permit them) for the sake of business efficiency, destroy the environment so survival itself becomes dependent on the business cycle, and we wonder why no one wants to raise a child in this environment?

Honestly, we have spent a century ruthlessly punishing people for even thinking of making a marginally irrational decision and then wonder why they won’t indulge in an objectively irrational activity for the emotional fulfillment.

Indian caste system backs slowly into the bushes