Oh, for sure but come the 50th occurrence however…

Same but some of my friends i went to uni with is a moron who went on to do a PhD…

Its like having your work marked and, if they don’t Iike it, they’ll just say like “not clear enough” or “needs more research” and deny its publication.

I mean, what they meant was “you haven’t addressed Dr Y et. al.'s critique of that particular essay’s attempt at modelling the disease you’re researching” but they’re not just going to come out and tell you that. That would be too easy.

Every now and then I feel like I can hear them muttering some kind of highly expletive death threat at reviewer number 3.

Its funny that people dying of starvation, in the USSR, is seen as a crime of communism but the exact same people will refuse to accept, by their own “logic”, that would make the rest of ALL the starvation in the world a crime of capitalism.

How do you even start to deconstruct that kind of indoctrination?

Its so mad that we have such a literal example of exactly what happens, due to prohibition, yet society refuses to see like for like. The mafia simply used the exact same routes to smuggle heroin. They didn’t disappear or die out, due to alcohol prohibition ending. They got into bed with the CIA, under operation gladio. What they did with crack wasn’t the first or the biggest example.

Like you said, you can’t people abusing substances. They remain illegal because somewhere some very powerful people are making too much money from them remaining so.

I want to live in a world where “stop cutting bits of babies dicks off” doesn’t require any further explanation.

“No, actually, its you who needs to justify cutting bits of babies dicks off. Not the other way round. Unless its hair, nails or connected to the mum, the default position is actually not to cut bits of the baby off.”

Crypto bros who follow ultra distorted stoicism (the only good philosophy is the ones made when slavery was normalised) that believe everyone else is unaware of what very basic knowledge they world they just learned that day.

They were half serious and an elaborate ruse. You see, I dont actually subscribe to neoclassical ideology. Crazy huh? Aren’t words wild?

All the people who understood what was going on and voted on it. Youre the only person who’s had a problem here and needed it all explained to you, in little bits. Just you, on your own.

As opposed to a big man who calls people a coward from safely behind their keyboard? Grow up.

No, i thought you had poor social skills and, as such, I couldn’t be bothered with you. I said what I though would make you go away. Although, it turns out you’re were even more bitter and poorly socialised than I thought you were which is really saying something.

Youre right about one thing at least, although you didn’t say it directly. Much like everyone else in your life I, should’ve just ignored you. I won’t make that mistake again. By all means, feel free to reply and scream into the void. It won’t be read.

Lol sure, as you can tell from my comments here, I was being deadly serious the whole time.

Youre the one who got all weird. Everyone else could tell I was joking around. I even let you know my intention wasn’t to be rude and that it seems to have been taken the wrong way.

You’re the problem here.

I definitely made one but it seems to have come across wrong or rude. That wasn’t my intention.

Lol exactly, no one.

The first rule of colonisation is to make the colonised pay for their own colonisation.

So close: “tax breaks, for the rich.” If poor people stop paying tax too, whos going to pay to enforce enforce all the exploitation and wealth extraction done by the rich?

I think you know as well as I do that your honesty and integrity in describing how people are being fucked over by this process excludes you from neoclassical economics. Its always easy to catch out the fakers.

I mean, how am I supposed to justify tax breaks for the rich with that?

Its okay, as I neoclassical economist, I know exactly how to fix this issue.

Tax breaks for the rich.

Ask me to solve any economic problem, I have the answers.

Its also an industrial solvent and its used by nuclear reactors!

non-contradiction and logical fallacies can help inoculate against so much bullshit.

That’s exactly why its not taught.

Owning something isn’t a job, even if you stamp your feet and strop about it really hard. Thats why no definition of the word defines it as a job. Stop making up meanings for words, its pathetic.

Landlord

a person or organization that owns a building or an area of land and is paid by other people for the use of it:

NOT A JOB.

10 trials is lot of replication and more than reliable enough. Thats improbable, even for a 50:50. Honestly, I’m quite taken aback that you think 10 repetitions of the same result isn’t strong evidence and it screams that no one would ever be deemed independent enough, unless they found the results you wanted.

Its a 28% increase. To me, thats colloquially significant.

No, owning something, in of itself, isn’t a job. For example, you own the device on which you’re typing you’re utter nonsense. Is you owning your device a job?

Have you ever seen a job vacancy for “landlord”?

No, of course not. Thats why “landlord” isn’t a job.

No, you can’t just make up words either. It’s deliberately misused slang, at best. Even then, I didn’t say it was or wasn’t a word. Please try and keep the sophistry to a minimum. I said it wasn’t a verb as “landlord” isn’t a job and “landlording” isn’t a doing word.

That’s recruitment, not being a landlord. Recruitment is work.

Regardless of what names they may or may not have, owning something, in of itself, isn’t a job.

You’re making this seem a lot harder than it actually is.