Thoughts and prayers.
Thoughts and prayers.
The answer will, of course, vary depending on religion and even depending on sect or school of thought within the same religion, but here’s the Sunni Islamic answer as I understand it: God has emotions befitting of His grace and perfection, as opposed to our imperfect human emotions. For example a human might get angry and say or do something that they regret, but God’s anger doesn’t take away from His wisdom (I think Christianity has something about God regretting flooding the Earth in Noah’s time, but islam rejects that sort of thing out of principle). God’s mercy doesn’t make Him commit injustice, as a human might. Etc etc. We humans don’t need a deeper understanding of Allah than this, so Islam doesn’t really get into the details of these things, but that’s the gist of it. This does contradict your premise that God should be beyond emotion, but there’s really no reason for that to be the case. God should obviously be beyond imperfection, but emotions aren’t inherently imperfection; only humans’ flawed emotions are.
I mean the creation of the universe and the beginning of life are the two big ones, among others. That said you can’t have scientific proof for or against a supreme being specifically because the sort of questions you’d ask to confirm or deny the existence of one don’t intersect with modern science.
A big part of it is that Europe in general is a lot more homogeneous than North America. Replace black with Muslim and you’ll probably see a lot of “American” racism/xenophobia around you.
That is… Fair enough. I guess I don’t understand the UK political system. Anyway that pushes us back to the mid-17th century when they tried their hand at being a Republic for a while.
It does in the sense that it stops being a country and becomes a part of a country. There’s no country called England today.
I’d say it’s a testament to the stability of the US political system, which is related to but not the same thing as their political establishment’s resistance to change. When I said “a set political system”, I meant more as opposed to France’s two kingdoms and five republics, the Ottoman Empire’s transition to modern Turkey or the Russian empire becoming the USSR. I don’t think not going through that kind of transformation can be called stagnation, though the US definitely suffers from that too.
England has been the same kingdom since the early 10th century.
It hasn’t, though. The modern UK is a union of England, Scotland and Ireland and was created by the Act of Union in 1800, and if you don’t count that then you go back to the Treaty of Union in 1707. That’s definitely older than the US so good point there, but either way modern Britain is hardly the same political entity as Norman England.
It’s not, though. America is young as a nation, but as a country with a set political system it’s one of, if not the oldest in the world.
Maybe like 90%. I don’t deal well with borebom and I have literally to do at home offline, and since I’m living alone in a foreign country playing board games or whatever isn’t an option. So… Yeah, good thing I wasn’t born 50 years ago.
I just like to argue with randos on the internet (as long as they’ll argue back in good faith). Or debate might be a better word Idk. I also believe most people have a lot to learn from interacting with other viewpoints, and personally have learned a ton compared to when I first discovered the English-speaking internet because I stuck to this philosophy so I have no intention to stop now.
Okay that is a lot. What kind of diagram was it?
Palestine is not a real country or at least, not a single Arab nation has recognized the existence of such a nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine#UN_member_states
We used to take it back with taxes, now we don’t…
I mean exactly. I’m not sure when in my replies you saw me say anything otherwise; you need strong and well-enforced taxation or the whole thing falls apart. That has no relation to the value of currency, which is a far more fundamental issue in a capitalist system.
I mean real wages have been increasing under Biden so he’s not 100% wrong about the whole economy thing, but either way that’s not relevant to my point.
Lots of money is moving, it’s not good for the majority of us
Because it’s moving to the top. The latest round of price gouging inflation is a special case and not representative of inflation at large.
Maybe with better framing, but with the way you’re explaining this (or maybe it’s just that clear cut) the only realistic answer is “no”.
There’s a limit with any particular set of tools and labor, but a universal limit doesn’t exist, no. Profit comes when you take money and use it in a more productive way than letting it sit under your mattress, and there’s no theoretical limit on productivity.
So they make inflation more, and people lose purchasing power in a savings account, and instead invest, which pumps up stock prices for the whales who knows when to cash out.
That’s… not really how that works. I mean inflation is there to keep people from saving when they could be investing their money, but that’s not to make money for the whales. Money sitting in a bank account doing nothing is bad (economically speaking) even when the owner of the money isn’t rich. More money moving is better for everyone.
Depending on where you are, even 60F can be considered cold.
Thoughts and prayers.