Stoneykins

I'm sorry you have to work during the eclipse. I understand that it's moot whether or not you would enjoy it when it isn't something that you have time for anyways, and that would make me frustrated by everyone talking about it too.

I don't really believe you that don't care about any of that tho lol. Maybe not as much as your responsibilities, but no way you don't care at all.

"it's just the moon" is honestly a wild opinion to me.

It's just the massive orb that circles our world through all of known history, which bends the oceans and tectonic crusts with it's movement, that inspired incredible amounts of art and culture, and is about to create a phenomenon which blots out the sun, in an incredible coincidence of size, position and timing, as the latest iteration of a pattern that may well have been the original inspiration for ways of thinking that went on to become the foundation for all of scientific thought. Nbd.

It never reffered to a gate, that didn't exist at the same time. But camels do supposedly fit through said gate, if they get on their knees.

Of course all bullshit to help rich people feel like being wealthy wasn't a sin if they were "humble" about it.

"than I thought you were"? I'm not the person you were talking to before.

What is your actual point? Why do you think it is important for you to argue that "actually gambling isn't pure luck"? And what, in your estimation, is "pure luck"?

The way I see it people are talking about specific phenomenon, and how they have entirely luck based outcomes (ex like the lottery), and you are trying to increase the scope of the context of the discussion to, in this example, include people who do not participate in the lottery, to try and argue that phenomenon does not have entirely luck based outcomes. But you haven't proven your point, you've been socially obtuse and attempted to derail the conversation from where it was because you have a bizarre point you want to make.

This is a silly distinction you are trying to make and it serves no purpose. And I don't even agree it is a real distinction... The act of deciding to gamble doesn't in any way mean the payoff or losses are anything but luck.

Honestly that last paragraph just doesn't mesh with everything else you said. What on earth are your beliefs?

The idea that humans are inherently predisposed to subjugate those different from themselves is a fascist belief that fascists say to justify fascism. So.... Not a fan of that line of thought, thanks

If this is your main argument then:

...it’s obvious that any human being tends to prefer people who they consider similar to themselves.

Doesn't your paper you linked imply it isn't so obvious? I still stand by that it's not really relevant so I'll just say that I fully disagree with your argument or the implication that you have somehow proven anything.

I'll repeat something I said in another comment:

It is intentionally, intellectually dishonest and obtuse to pretend that condemnation of systemic problems resulting from unfair biases for/from certain demographics is as bad as the systemic problems in question.

You just pretend you are unaware of massive swaths of history in order to act offended that anyone would make generic statements about an infamously problematic demographic. And you falsely equate any attempt to talk generically about the problematic behaviour to the same issue, as a transparent tactic to suppress discussion of the problematic behaviour entirely.

I'm sure you will have some bullshit response that will annoy me again but I'm gunna try to let it go because I find talking to you unpleasant.