I advocate for logical and consistent viewpoints on controversial topics. If you’re looking at my profile, I’ve probably made you mad by doing so.
usufruct
So… reading the Wikipedia article on it for more info, it doesn’t seem to place any limits on what you can own. It simply lets you makes allowances for others to use something of yours. It doesn’t seem to mention forfeiting unused property in the least.
It’s basically just being a landlord, but with other stuff, no? I’m not following how this isn’t corruptible unless there’s something I’m missing.
Me too. It’s faster than texting and gives you a whole lot of missing context.
I read up on it, but I’m not sure how that’s immune to greed. Are you able to explain?
No political system is perfect. Ever.
They require constant vigilance. They require battling. Human greed is capable of corrupting every system that a human mind can create.
Anyone that tells you they have a perfect political system that would never need fixing is a liar, an idiot, or both.
Understanding underlying causes? On Lemmy? Abso-fucking-lutely not!
If you like strudel and Hitler liked strudel, then you’re Nazi by default. That’s just simple logic.
Errrr… are you looking for me to provide you a primary scientific source for how teeth work in animals with differing diets? Most of that is in veterinary texts (which is an amalgam of info), but it’s akin to asking for a scientific evidence for gravity. What you’re asking is too broad to be covered in a single paper and shows a misunderstanding of how scientific studies focus and function. I was simply giving you a primer since you asked, and that blog is good enough for that (and accurate from the portion I read).
I can point you at papers (such as this one on Tooth root morphology as an indicator for dietary specialization in carnivores) which can help explain part of how food selection works in evolution, but I’m not sure what level of information would satisfy you or why you’d even want it?
Here’s one on how tooth wear affects teeth differently based on evolutionary eating habits.
Here’s one on the development and evolution of teeth.
Here’s one on mammalian teeth in specific.
If you’d like more, feel free to use https://scholar.google.com/ to look for more.
Human teeth also have sharp peaks and deeper valleys within them which is the case for the overwhelming majority of omnivorous creatures. Most obligate herbivores have flatter teeth or will regrow them unless they have teeth explicitly for a particular use case.
Source: You can check out scads of scientific resources on herbivores versus omnivore versus carnivore teeth. I assume you know how a search engine works, but here’s a solid article on differences.
Also my sister has been one of the veterinary bigwigs at several zoos through her lifetime and we’ve had multiple discussions on it.
I’ll bite. Most of what I see here in this thread against Centrism or Independents is bad strawman arguments consisting of: “There are three types of people: reasonable people who agree with me, crazy fascists, and lily-livered wimps who can’t pick a side (and are also fascists)!”
If someone says that they are “centrist” they are not telling you that they base all of their opinions on being dead center in the middle of any two positions. That would be stupid.
They are telling you that they agree with neither major party on everything, and find that both parties have views that they don’t agree with. It’s pretty easy to come to that conclusion because the US two-party system packs in an almost incoherent mishmash of beliefs into exactly two sides.
There is absolutely no contradiction in being for police reform, and against riots lasting for days. There is no contradiction in being for gun rights, while also wanting massive limits on them. There is no contradiction in wanting functional government services and universal healthcare, and thinking that free markets are effective to an extent. There is no contradiction in wanting a more balanced budget, and government services to be funded properly.
The idea that there are only two (or maybe 2.5 depending on where you live) sides in politics is a strange delusion created by your two party system.
The reason the meme creator is running into situations like this is because they don’t witness the Centrist also vehemently argue with right-wing policies frequently.
They only see them argue with them and therefore have a skewed view of Centrists / Independents and their politics. If you are left wing, and argue for left-wing policies in every case, that means you will also be argued with by somebody who believes political nuance and not just waving a party flag.
Remember, the right wing also shits on centrists because they think they are secretly left-wing since they argue with their stupider points as well.
So no, these people are not secretly right-wing and just don’t have the balls to say it. That is a horrendous take no matter where you fall on the political spectrum and only serves to limit conversation.
Now you go.
Grabbed the podcast! More detail never hurts. Much appreciated.