EmperorNorton1
Senior Member
pizza can be made healthily, restrictive eating isn't a good solution for weight loss or maintaining a healthy diet.
Other Random question of the day
- Thread starter AlexneushoornTheGreat
- Start date
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
Random question of the day:
If dentists make their living off of fixing bad teeth, why do they always advise you to take good care of your teeth?
If dentists make their living off of fixing bad teeth, why do they always advise you to take good care of your teeth?
DragonSlayer57
The Royal Dragon Pokemon
Because, they advise you to take care of your teeth using their products. They probably make more money annually just from the fact that they sell other things. Even then, dentist visits are really expensive. Don't even talk about braces. But, there are some people that just wanna see you smile.
You should smile today
You should smile today
Kaiju Cat
Demon spoon cat stand
bad dental hygiene affects your over all physical health.
EmperorNorton1
Senior Member
Hippocratic Oath. Do no harm.
Daisie
Seared with story
Cause if they were giving you bad advice, you'd stop paying them.
But mostly? People are good, on average. Very few would actively cause harm to health for greed, least not so directly.
But mostly? People are good, on average. Very few would actively cause harm to health for greed, least not so directly.
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
Random question of the day:
What are your views on Young Republicans?
What are your views on Young Republicans?
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
No answers yesterday. What a shame.
Random question of the day:
Is it true that writing a bad story on purpose can help with overcoming writer's block and general writing insecurities?
Random question of the day:
Is it true that writing a bad story on purpose can help with overcoming writer's block and general writing insecurities?
Onmyoji
HanGuang-Jun
Some people recommend that to get out of writer's block. It may help, since the purpose is to write freely, and if you're intentionally writing "bad", you might even have fun and it will become easier to start workingon your other stories.
But I don't think it can universally help every writer. Just some of them.
But I don't think it can universally help every writer. Just some of them.
v02
Macabre Enthusiast.
Some find them funny to make, some find it bad for reputation. I find them entertaining as long as I'm not dragged into them.
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
Random question of the day:
If the Goo Goo Gas from Spongebob was real, would it successfully serve its purpose?
If the Goo Goo Gas from Spongebob was real, would it successfully serve its purpose?
snicker_sage
𝕄𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕠 𝔹𝕝𝕦𝕖𝕄𝕠𝕠𝕟, 𝕤𝕠𝕣𝕣𝕪!
Its purposes seems to be the same as this experiment from Lilo & Stitch..
Would it serve its purposes? I guess, yes.
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
Random question of the day:
Is it true that most political ideologies don't cause mass graves, but that the greed of those who practice the ideologies does? (For discussion of this question, please refer to the discussion thread linked at the beginning of this thread)
Is it true that most political ideologies don't cause mass graves, but that the greed of those who practice the ideologies does? (For discussion of this question, please refer to the discussion thread linked at the beginning of this thread)
Idea
The Pun Tyrant
I would disagree with that notion. Greed will cause you to seek power, yes, but a fundamental misunderstanding of the world around you and how people operate will still kill a lot of people. As an example, take the Great Chinese Famine, caused by the CCP's actions under the belief that "scientifically sound" elimination of pests would allow them to boost their agriculture. In reality, this attempt that was contrary to popular wisdom resulted in the proliferation of crop-damaging insects, resulting in countless deaths. Now the attempt to apply a supposed scientific discovery isn't itself a product of ideology - the force, the scale and the impediment to skepticism towards it was, as was the case for many 20th century ideologies, which put the emphasis on some form of the "right" state to solve all of life's problems.
But adding to this, greed is a fact of life. I'm not gonna argue greed is a good thing by any means, but it's often blamed for things where it's just one component, and potentially quite a small one at that. So shouldn't we see the same mass graves of the scale seen in those ideologically-driven ones, if greed (which didn't exactly disappear) was the cause?
There's a question by Thomas Sowell which is a thought I quite like and I think expresses this sentiment well. He asks "If high prices are a result of corporate greed, does that mean when prices lower greed is lower?". I think this illustrates well the absurdity in the claim. It's not that greed isn't a factor, but greed is a near constant - which means changes aren't principally caused by greed, but by the changing of factors around it. Indeed, greed can be channeled and harvested in the service of other people. Greed chases opportunity and if being a good samaritan is what provides it, it will take it.
Ideology, on the other hand, can create opportunities.
But adding to this, greed is a fact of life. I'm not gonna argue greed is a good thing by any means, but it's often blamed for things where it's just one component, and potentially quite a small one at that. So shouldn't we see the same mass graves of the scale seen in those ideologically-driven ones, if greed (which didn't exactly disappear) was the cause?
There's a question by Thomas Sowell which is a thought I quite like and I think expresses this sentiment well. He asks "If high prices are a result of corporate greed, does that mean when prices lower greed is lower?". I think this illustrates well the absurdity in the claim. It's not that greed isn't a factor, but greed is a near constant - which means changes aren't principally caused by greed, but by the changing of factors around it. Indeed, greed can be channeled and harvested in the service of other people. Greed chases opportunity and if being a good samaritan is what provides it, it will take it.
Ideology, on the other hand, can create opportunities.
EmperorNorton1
Senior Member
i think some ideologies, particularly those that necesitate a strict higherarchy of some kind, are much more likely to result in mass slaughter. theocracy led to the us versus them of the Crusades, so many years of brutal fighting, not to mention the horrors of the rhineland massacre. monarchism in an authoritarian form requires theocracy to justify its existence, or at the very least it requires some kind of out group, be it by nation, by race, by religion or region. fascism requires an out group and an in group where there is no possibility of a member of an out-group joining an in group. fascism will always be bloody, for it requires a constant state of war to justify the lack of civil liberties. fascism is by default self-cannibalizing.
We write and choose our ideologies to justify what we were already going to do. people selfish enough to be willing to sacrifice lives for personal gain tend to drift towards these ideologies, not caring what kind of a world they leave for their descendants.
but then why did the USSR go like that? greedy people will highjack vurnurable systems in times of fear and instability, and drag whole nations down paths of darkness for personal gain.
however, there are examples of good people doing the opposite. during the russian civil war, every faction (and there were many) killed jews. the White Army was led by Anton Denkin, a reactionary who was very very enthusiastic about killing jews. the Reds were led by Trotsky (a jew himself who was obviously anti pogrom because duh), but soldiers acted against orders set out by the high command. commanders of troops on lower levels permitted massacres and got away with it, falling through the cracks of a newly forming justice system. Ukranian Nationalist Symon Petliura made a few half-hearted attempts to stop the pogroms, but they continued, and only once did he go after a notorious murderer, only shooting him because of an attempt to defect. (petliura would be shot himself in exile by a man who lost 14 members of his family to pogroms, so at least there was some justice). there were bandit and non-alighned troops who would take advantage of the chaos and raid towns.
everyone pogromed. everyone but Nestor Mahkno. while his actions did lead to mass graves, the deaths were those of soldiers fighting in a civil war, not civilians just trying to survive. when pogromists attempted to join his army, mahkno would have them shot. if anyone in his army tried to incite a pogrom, he would have them shot. mahkno could have just let his soldiers do whatever for "moral" just like Petlyura. but mahkno didn't. he was in a position of power, he fought for an ideology that today is associated with violence. but he would not be complicit, because of his ideology.
We write and choose our ideologies to justify what we were already going to do. people selfish enough to be willing to sacrifice lives for personal gain tend to drift towards these ideologies, not caring what kind of a world they leave for their descendants.
but then why did the USSR go like that? greedy people will highjack vurnurable systems in times of fear and instability, and drag whole nations down paths of darkness for personal gain.
however, there are examples of good people doing the opposite. during the russian civil war, every faction (and there were many) killed jews. the White Army was led by Anton Denkin, a reactionary who was very very enthusiastic about killing jews. the Reds were led by Trotsky (a jew himself who was obviously anti pogrom because duh), but soldiers acted against orders set out by the high command. commanders of troops on lower levels permitted massacres and got away with it, falling through the cracks of a newly forming justice system. Ukranian Nationalist Symon Petliura made a few half-hearted attempts to stop the pogroms, but they continued, and only once did he go after a notorious murderer, only shooting him because of an attempt to defect. (petliura would be shot himself in exile by a man who lost 14 members of his family to pogroms, so at least there was some justice). there were bandit and non-alighned troops who would take advantage of the chaos and raid towns.
everyone pogromed. everyone but Nestor Mahkno. while his actions did lead to mass graves, the deaths were those of soldiers fighting in a civil war, not civilians just trying to survive. when pogromists attempted to join his army, mahkno would have them shot. if anyone in his army tried to incite a pogrom, he would have them shot. mahkno could have just let his soldiers do whatever for "moral" just like Petlyura. but mahkno didn't. he was in a position of power, he fought for an ideology that today is associated with violence. but he would not be complicit, because of his ideology.
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
Random question of the day:
Since the "middle aged guy who peaked in high school" trope is usually reserved for jerks and bullies, does it hurt more when the trope is assigned to a nice character?
Since the "middle aged guy who peaked in high school" trope is usually reserved for jerks and bullies, does it hurt more when the trope is assigned to a nice character?
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
No answers yesterday. What a shame.
Random question of the day:
Which female character from Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door other than Peach and isn't already in a relationship, should Mario date?
Random question of the day:
Which female character from Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door other than Peach and isn't already in a relationship, should Mario date?
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
No answers yesterday either. What a shame.
Random question of the day:
Is it harder to be a costumed puppeteer as opposed to regular puppeteering?
Random question of the day:
Is it harder to be a costumed puppeteer as opposed to regular puppeteering?
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
Once again, no answers yesterday.
Random question of the day:
Why do American school children get three months of summer vacation compared to other countries around the world?
Random question of the day:
Why do American school children get three months of summer vacation compared to other countries around the world?
Idea
The Pun Tyrant
I dont' know too much about this subject, but I do know it's not exclusively them. Over here we also get 3 months of summer vacation at least until highschool (college depends)
AaronMk
Junior Member
The traditional "common knowledge" reason given is that summer vacations in the US exists so family farms could have summer help on the farm. But the most labor intensive periods in farming is the autumn and spring planting and harvest seasons respectively. CBS however claims it was because during the end of the 19th century and the dawn of the 20th century, school administrators wanted to take their kids away from the pre-air conditioning cities in the summers to the booming and recent innovations of beach and mountain resorts. Prior to the option having an interurban electric train to leave any city I guess, school was practically year-long at 240-250 days
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
Random question of the day:
Instead of having the Werehog as a gameplay mechanic, should Sonic Unleashed have featured a Sonic and Eggman co-op gameplay in a similar vein to Crash Twinsanity?
Instead of having the Werehog as a gameplay mechanic, should Sonic Unleashed have featured a Sonic and Eggman co-op gameplay in a similar vein to Crash Twinsanity?
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
No answers yesterday. What a shame.
Random question of the day:
Living on free food tickets. Water in the milk from a hole in the roof where the rain came through. What can you do?
Random question of the day:
Living on free food tickets. Water in the milk from a hole in the roof where the rain came through. What can you do?
DragonSlayer57
The Royal Dragon Pokemon
Meh, prolly not.
Caroline1539
Member
What do you mean? Is the question about getting more food, the disaster of water in milk, or the hole in the roof?
More food is difficult- I've seen several YouTube videos about how to get a survivable amount of food off of one dollar- alternatively, you can work in a restaurant and survive off of leftovers from the kitchen. Asking for food from neighbors is also a solution, but that requires a good neighborhood with decent people.
Water in milk? If you're starving, no big deal. Drink it. I wouldn't like how it tasted, but there's no being picky in this scenario.
Hole in the roof? Cover it with a tarp if you can- or seal it up with something, like spray insulation. That's the most difficult question for me, as I've never had to repair anything like that before.
