I think Israel themselves said that casualties were 61% civilian, and they count any male of “fighting age” as Hamas, so 70 sounds about right

I think the point is that both were likely just political marriages that had little if anything to do with sex and romance

Yes please

If people stopped eating meat and we turned the massive amount of land we waste raising animals to slaughter into carbon sinks it absolutely would be enough. But go on justifying your addiction that’s literally killing the planet. I’m sure your grandchildren would agree.

VPNs don’t hide from governments I don’t think?

Would’ve

Not a big deal but it’s would have, not would have.

Yes it will.

A study mentioned on Our World in Data suggests that if the entire world adopted a vegan diet, our total agricultural land use could shrink dramatically, from 4.1 billion hectares to 1 billion hectares, a reduction of 75% . This reduction is significant because agriculture, particularly livestock farming, is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

Further, a research team, including scientists from Leiden University, found that if high-income countries switched to a plant-based diet, almost 100 billion tons of CO2 could be pulled out of the atmosphere by the end of the century. This switch would reduce annual agricultural production emissions by 61%, and converting former cropland and pastures to their natural state could remove another 98.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by the end of the century .

Additionally, a study by scientists from Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, found that phasing out animal agriculture over the next 15 years would have the same effect as a 68% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions through 2100. This would contribute 52% of the net emission reductions necessary to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. The phase-out of animal agriculture could create a 30-year pause in net greenhouse gas emissions and offset almost 70% of the heating effect of those emissions through the end of the century .

If everybody would just stop eating fucking meat we wouldn’t be having this problem. Your addiction is killing the planet.

Especially with the way these companies positioned themselves. Google and Apple were the anti-Microsoft. Google even had the motto don’t be evil. Facebook was started by one of us! A hacker nerd dropout who loved open source. Of course he’s on our side!

Sort of off topic but I honestly hate Santa. I don’t think it’s cool to lie to kids, especially to tell them that they and their actions are constantly judged by an invisible third person. That’s before getting into the class issues around rich kids apparently being better in this all knowing all seeing quasi benevolent god’s eyes. Why else would they get the good stuff while the poor kids get the shitty stuff and the knockoffs? Was no one else upset as a kid finding out that adults had essentially engaged in a conspiracy to deceive you? Fuck Santa. And fuck mass surveillance and judging gods and normalizing those concepts in children.

If you can’t find the shoes a friend with two halves of coconuts works just as well!

Maybe in America but Iraq protests and Occupy were worldwide.

Also the population was a lot smaller then.

Since then the only larger protest was occupy. They didn’t just ignore that one they beat the shit out of it.

Self-hating bot? That’s a new one. Lmao I just saw that you referenced the Whigs as liberals. You literally proved my point before this even started. Google Edmund Burke you absolute shit-stain.

Blocked.

Okay then disprove them?

Jesus the amount of projection going on could power a small continent if properly captured.

Your rejoinder to the coherent thesis was “nuh uh” and “robot bad” so i think I’m just gonna point and laugh now, you dumb fuck.

oh dear god

try not to hurt yourself thinking

literally none of this is controversial to anyone with any sort of understanding of political philosophy. but go off

I could explain. I just don’t see you as being worth the bother. Your uninformed followup that features exactly no useful rejoinders or any conception of political philosophy confirms I made the correct decision to treat you like a stooge.

I have engaged in no narratives, simply a correct understanding of the history and philosophy of the liberal movement.

I highly doubt you know enough about liberalism to even say what the philosophy cares about at its core.

I wish it surprised me that liberals don’t even know what liberalism is, but I’ve been involved in political debates for far too long.

Since I can’t be bothered I had Chatgpt generate a response

Understanding conservatism as a subset of liberalism requires a nuanced view of the historical and philosophical development of these ideologies. Initially, these terms might seem contradictory, but under a broader definition of liberalism, conservatism can be considered a variant or an offshoot.

Liberalism, in its broadest historical sense, refers to a range of ideas centered around the importance of individual liberty, the rule of law, and, often, limited government. This broad category emerged during the Enlightenment and was instrumental in shaping the modern Western political and social order. Classical liberalism, in particular, emphasizes individual freedom, economic freedom, and minimal state intervention.

Conservatism, while often positioned in opposition to liberalism (especially in its progressive or social liberal forms), can be seen as a subset of liberalism in the context of this broader historical perspective. This view holds when considering that conservatism in Western political thought often shares with liberalism a commitment to certain fundamental principles such as the rule of law, individual rights (although conservatism places a stronger emphasis on communal values and traditions), and, frequently, the free market.

However, conservatism diverges from liberalism in its emphasis on tradition, authority, and often a skepticism of rapid social change. Conservative liberalism, or liberal conservatism, is a term used to describe ideologies that blend liberal values (like economic freedom) with conservative stances (such as an emphasis on traditional social structures).

In summary, while conservatism and liberalism are distinct in their traditional definitions and core philosophies, conservatism can be viewed as a subset of liberalism in the context of a broader, historical understanding of liberalism. This perspective sees both ideologies sharing some fundamental values but differing significantly in their approach to tradition, social change, and the balance between individual rights and communal responsibilities.

I mean conservatism directly spawned from liberalism and is correctly seen as a subgroup of classical liberalism but okay