Funkytom467

I wanna see her slap!

With the enshittification Bethesda has already started to go through, it’s a good bet.

The ideal solution you propose was often used when we used glass.

The only reason we could have started throwing our containers is because plastic is so much cheaper.

To be fair, when we used glass, fewer product were transported long distance.

Nowadays we can do like Germany who incentives to bring back bottles for recycling.

Or an even better alternative would be to use glass for individuals and another method for transportation.

Although i’ve seen some bio stores starting to refill plastic containers, wich isn’t perfect but a nice middle ground to start changing habits.

Yeah i get that reading the subs really helps with focus. It’s even the meta in shorts now to retain attention.

Ha you moved, gottem!

Yeah i get that reading the subs really helps with focus. It’s even the meta in shorts now to retain attention.

Are you looking for English or Spanish?

Sorry i’m harsh Cuba isn’t quite a dictatorship i give you that one (Although not quite democratic either), maybe that could be a good study.

But saying Stalin or Mao are not dictatorships is just delusional.

The CIA as a source is pretty funny though.

I get it Stalin didn’t quite have all powers, like that’s what it took to classify a government a dictatorship. As if one-party system couldn’t be complex.

(And yes socialist market economy, that really makes a world of difference from capitalist market)

Also to make things clear i wouldn’t have sided with tsar or anyone else than Lenin. I do believe in communism.

Now some improvements may be from communism, i hope so, but don’t pretend you can prove it more than i. It’s not like life expectancy, literacy rate or other factors alike couldn’t rise with another system. It’s not like you could eliminate the possibility of third factors in a time with so much change in all areas of life.

But i sure wouldn’t have followed Stalin in his totalitarian regime. I sure hope if communism was a solution today it would be democratic.

Have you read my comment?

I know capitalism don’t work, everybody does now.

That has nothing to do with the fact we didn’t manage to have one successful exemple of communism either…

So USSR was a dictatorship, the country was in ruin after WW2

The 3 factor i mentioned are there.

The data shows what everyone knows, capitalism increase inequality. But what it doesn’t show is how communism made the country improve, because it didn’t.

What i’m saying is, it couldn’t help because of the war and Stalin. We don’t know if it would’ve otherwise.

Cuba again is a dictatorship, and wasn’t rich.

The PRC is a dictatorship, China went on a horrible famine with Mao. Nowadays getting richer only because of how their economy is now fully capitalist.

So let’s say you had significant data that showed it improved some things socially. And let say you somehow managed to prove its causal and not coincidence.

I would still rather not say dictatorships like USSR or PRC are good to live under.

That’s my point, even if communism was good, dictatorship is a plague that makes any system a nightmare.

Most didn’t? Can you give a few exemples then?

You don’t start a war unintentionally… but i didn’t say start, just being in a war.

Also i don’t imply it was because of communism, my point is that, how can we judge communism if other devastating sociological factors are involved.

Now, i don’t have a point if you say most of them were better for it, but i don’t know any who did so i’d love to educate myself…

To be clear i agree.

I do feel for the Russian people that will suffer Putin’s decisions, but i personally wouldn’t concede one bit of Ukrainian soil to that fucker.

I wish my country was helping. That said, as a French without any skin in the game, let me tell you we don’t even have skin in our own games. (If you followed any news of us you know)

It’s not like any of us are ever being asked what to do. And I do genuinely fear our so called democracies are gonna implode. And when they do, diplomacy with Russia will get bad for everyone.

I don’t think anyone knows what it’s like, was there any communist country which wasn’t also both a dictatorship and poor?

Pretty hard seeing the good and bad of communism when it’s always alongside the two worse things that can happen to a country.

P.S. Wait, actually not the two worse things… there’s also war, and that applies to most of them too.

!

Western Europe getting involved could be so much worse.

Let’s remind ourselves you fight for your country, we on the other hand have nuclear weapons and rising fascism all over…

So in account of humanity thanks for keeping Russia’s shit out.

Probably because unlike paying for the service, we don’t feel how it takes our money from us.

A psychological trick that works so great that it made a lot of services exist in the first place like the whole of YouTube. And now we’re kinda addicted to those too.

Labour theory of value puts value on goods for the sole purpose of trading and explaining trades. Both LTV and STV does.

Marx’s use of LVT is to criticize how Capitalism leads to exploitation. But although the specifics differ SVT could still be used to raise the same critiques.

Its usefulness never made me disappointed despite this drawback.

I’m a physicist at heart, which might explains it… To me the use in philosophy is just as important, especially in philosophy of science and metaphysics.

Simply put I couldn’t imagine studying how reality works without ever wandering what it is and how to best study it.

In which language do you use them like „this” and not “this”?

Dialectic can never be a science, you can’t apply the same methodology. Even when it’s material.

However it is philosophy, and if your searching for some material reality then it’s ontology.

Science too is a product of ontology, it’s a methodology created for this exact purpose and wich can be studied in this field.

Saying physical properties are social abstractions sounds to me like social constructivism, which is epistemology, again philosophy.

Social sciences can be soft science precisely when they are not dialectic and rely on the methodology of science.

And to be clear, soft science is just a science that is based on a hard science, in which we don’t have enough work done to explain every emergent properties using fundamental properties of matter.

Psychoanalysis is an outdated philosophical theory, so indeed just a scam now.