5ha99y

Yes, in your case not?

Yep, I mean it’s not human rape, its duck quirkiness. That’s funny… I know,humans are weirdXD

I always tell people about ducks and get them to laughXD

Nono, it’s not that. It’s more like getting used to it over time, so people get more loosely about safety rules (which should not be performed but happens often though up to the point that you just don’t get kicked). It’s bad normal huamn behaviour.

If you are a REAL lab rat, you don’t really care. The stories I’ve heard of lab rats (including my own accidental stuff), I learned they don’t really care at some point. They often say “Well, I must already have cancer, so what!”.

You know whats funny? Technically speaking, the only thing that holds luna from being a planet is only the fact that earth and moon are not declared as a biplanetary system. This is due to the weak argument that the mass center of the two planets is JUST under earths surface. When we argue with anything else, like for example gravitational pull, the sun pulls stronger than earth, making the moon not part of earths system but equally a part of the suns system, declaring earth and moon as a biplanetary system. Moon is very large in relation to earth to be an actual moon (like Jupiters or Mars’ moons). Strictly speaking by ignoring the (somehow) most relevant but weakest argument of the mass center being (just) inside earths crust, it could clearly be declared as biplanetary system

It is in their nature to work like this. They are specialised drones serving that exact purpose. The queen is btw no different. It is the DNA housing drone that produces all kind of drones. Their brains are pheromonally connected. Most possibly they share one brain (and consciousness) and are equipped for some brain parts “getting lost”. It is anthropomorphizing to assume that they act like a human kingdom, where the queen (or king) is the upmost of all things to achieve in one or the other way. Ants are also all female. Only drones for mating are male.

Thank you, very thoughtful:D

It’s fine. I am a early carreer scientist and especially when writing a paper you often recognise what is actual hearsay and what is an actual fact. When writing I often recognise that I kinda fall into the pitfall of “woops, this thought of fact is actually hearsay… the more you know”, because I didn’t find a proper sourceanywhere making it essentially a myth. (Which is btw why I LOVE proper scientific sourcing)

The hearsay argument I followed here especially as a german is the argument of “In communism everyone is equal but there are people that are more equal.”, which in the end would make a two class society again, where wealth is one sided. This is what is often said about DDR here, which also tried to follow socialist traits.

Alright thank you for your input, you are right. No, I have never looked deeply into the inner workings of communism. I am just arguing on surface arguments I have catched up and logically appended them. Will read up on that and come back :P

Well, the post tries to deliver a fact, which is not representational. I see the opinion that philosophically communism might be defending human rights better but the post tries to back it by facts, which are inherently not representative.

So, drawing conclusions like that from russia is a bit bold. If a country changes their systen of wealth, it never had used before, of course it first makes a strong dip. It just compares poorly to others, who are partaking in this system for longer already.

Philosophically your argument is not valid I think.

Capitalism abstracts wealth into a universal currency for trading purposes, which total wealth in currency per individual makes up ones capital. Yes, human rights don’t play a role in this system. It just can be a form of wealth, if the interest is there. It allows for a chaos concerning equality between individuals. This builds a class system between poor and rich and this is unfair.

Communism on the other hand puts individuals directly into its philosophy by trying to distribute the total wealth to everyone equally. A simple solution to getting more in this philosophy is by reducing individuals. By that every individual gains more wealth by reducing the total amount of individuals. But which individuals do we take? And by that you again build some sort of hierarchy. Which individuals are disposable for higher wealth per individual? This would be some sort of a dynamic of a two class system, too. So the argumant on human rights being philosophically more present in communism is fraud I’d say.

I myself prefer a federal anarchocommunism, which grows out of a solidaric system by raising the bottom minimum further and further, landing in a system such as a federal anarchocommunism.

Capitalism is dominant and longer used than Communism. The total amount of deaths is naturally higher. It doesn’t tell anything about the actual amount of deaths communism could have, if it is active in the same capacity and amount of time, this plot would be more interesting.

And just to make things clear, I am not taking a position for any of the two. I just think this argument is not representative.

This do be true but is the common goal then to reach ideal communism at the end of the spiral by your argument?

But also the people of the future won’t be perfect and will generate an imbalance again. The cycle continues in the end.