Well obviously it’s very difficult for the poor to leave and if you aren’t poor it’s actually a pretty nice place to live.

Also most of the loyalists in the colonies fled to Canada during and immediately after the American Revolution, for obvious reasons.

None. My wife doesn’t know about tact, or the polite white lie or anything like that. She doesn’t have time for that bullshit. It’s one of her endearing qualities.

I can and do agree with everything you argue while also maintaining the objectively obvious fact that context matters in politics.

You either get it or you don’t. I can’t help you with your lack of reading comprehension.

They specifically said that “you can be mad” about it.

You want to have it the way that they’re pushing some kind of agenda, when in fact they’re simply stating what’s true.

“There’s nothing here but war, where the murderin’ cannons roar, And I am sick and tired of this hard fighting.”

So is yours, ambiguous I mean.

In other words, I think you’re being ridiculously over-generous in your interpretation of ancient knowledge.

If it were in fact the case that the ancients had any real notion of Darwinian theory, I think they would have stated it in unequivocal terms, as they did with so many other Platonic and/or Aristotlean concepts.

Vaguely suggestive biblical lines interpreted as somehow suggesting an understanding of Darwinian theory strikes me as wishful thinking.

It’s partially but not entirely true. Having correct technique in your upper body matters too, as does accuracy, timing and the ability to create collisions.

All else being equal in terms of technical skill and leg strength, the guy with the bigger arms, fists as shoulders will have a stronger punch.

I had a ton of muscular atrophy in my right upper body due to a bulging disk in my neck --since corrected by surgery-- and I definitely noticed a huge diminution in my striking power, as did my regular sparring partners at the gym. So it definitely does matter.

I’m doing better now, but still not back to 100 percent and probably never will be. But that’s OK since I’m pretty old anyway.

That’s a very generous interpretation. I don’t think anyone can be blamed for not taking it seriously.

Most of what society tells us will make us feel happy and fulfilled in life is bullshit. Living a good life is primarily about your personal relationships. Things like social status and personal wealth are far less important.

you can always just call them by their first name or something else

Well I didn’t know you were called Dennis.

They specifically said you can be mad. It’s the first sentence in OP’s comment. WTF are you on about?

These people are morons with 8th grade reading comprehension skills.

Come to think of it, maybe they are in fact 8th graders?

On its own it’s not, but it definitely is in the current political and cultural context. There’s no getting away from that. It’s going to provoke a political reaction in any conservative and there’s no point in pretending otherwise.

That’s a fair take and may well be accurate. I am no expert and accordingly don’t have a strong opinion either way, and that’s leaving aside the rather obvious point that most/many of our so-called “experts” keep getting it wrong in the first place.

Remember when Kyiv was going to fall in a matter of days, then that got adjusted into a matter of weeks and then months and now here we are a year and a half later?

The loud and clear lesson from that is that the so-called experts often don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.

Where did I “[spend] paragraphs telling [you] an argument is bad”?

Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Maybe you’ve mistaken me for someone else.

I used a few short and simple sentences to explain why your position is crap. That’s it.

This doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. It’s not the case that Russia is somehow holding back and has huge additional reserves and resources that it can throw at the conflict. The Russian military isn’t about to collapse or anything, but it’s not doing great either and has largely been exposed as far weaker than was previously supposed.

No, you shouldn’t do it because it’s stupid. If you had real arguments you would use them, but you don’t, so instead you trot out this garbage. It’s a sign of intellectual weakness and dishonesty.

I’m not talking about anyone being justified; I am talking about realpolitik and the fact that in international relations it’s often the case that what ought to be is often in direct conflict with what actually is.

It would be awesome if we could live in a world of absolutes wherein national interests never conflicted with moral ambiguity, but that’s just not reality at all, sorry to inform.

I don’t think I follow your arguments. Is there a way you can rephrase your point such that a dummy like myself might understand it?