MindTraveller

Yes. I would rather the animals' deaths be entirely pointless and bring zero revenue to the animal killers.

People will see the high price, decide not to get a turkey, and make roast potatoes or something instead. Hopefully something vegan, like roast potatoes.

I like it better when the dead animal rots on the shelves. Because it means that the company that killed an animal made a financial loss, and next quarter they might decide to reduce their stock, since people aren't buying. If people buy the dead animal, then the animal killers make money and they keep killing animals. If it becomes more profitable to kill half the turkeys and sell at double the price, then I'm glad. That's half as many dead turkeys. That's a good thing. I hope the economy is going that way. And I hope people realise due to this economic trend that they don't actually need to eat meat every day.

https://wrkr.com/netflix-series-claims-insane-clown-posse-is-secret-society-controlling-global-finance/

How is monke formed

Once, if it's Ricky Gervais

It's glorious

Oh, the reason I moved past that subject was because I assumed that when you stopped your aggressive behaviour, it was your way of apologising. A lot of people feel shame about the idea of saying sorry, so I thought you wanted to move past your mistakes and put them behind you. I was ready to forgive your behaviour. If you still want to talk about your aphobic actions, then I'll reiterate my earlier point that you're erasing queerness and that your entire argument serves to vilify a child for not having sex.

I will also remind you that you accused a fellow asexual of aphobia based on completely misunderstanding what I said, and you also tried to ignore that without apologising. I've been very forgiving of your mistakes. While I would sincerely like to receive an apology, I also understand if it's too difficult for you, and am happy to live and let live.

The myths say Narcissus rejected Eros and all lovers. Ancient Greeks didn't have the word "asexual". Expecting them to describe things in modern language is a failure of your ability to interpret things from their point of view and understand cultural differences. You're holding ancient peoples to an impossible standard. The work of a historian or archaeologist is to understand ancient cultures well enough to interpret their words, and not to take everything literally.

There is no evidence that Narcissus was allosexual. What you're doing is treating straight as the default, and demanding an unreasonable standard of proof to confirm that a character is queer. You've internalised queerphobia. And the reason I was aggressive with you, is because you began by attacking me and calling me queerphobic. You seem to have calmed down, so now let's talk facts. Narcissus displays zero evidence of any sexual or romantic desires in the text, except for when he's being cursed by a god who was told to make him love.

Sure you do. 90% of religious violence is done by bottoms, arguing over which imaginary top everyone should bottom for. Tops only cause problems in places like ancient egypt, where the pharaohs are gods. But in most of the world, religion is pushed not by leaders but by followers. Look at Christianity, Jesus didn't tell anyone to worship him. In fact, if Jesus had been alive, he'd have said worshipping a physical manifestation of Elohim is idolatry. But Paul came along after Jesus died, telling everyone to worship Jesus, because Paul was the ultimate bottom. And it's because of Paul that we have the crusades, the conquistadores, the stolen generations, and a whole lot of other acts of religious genocide. All because you bottoms couldn't agree to disagree on which social construct to bottom for.

Reality ain't what makes people realise Trump is bad. Reality is just another tool of the bourgeois. What makes people realise Trump is evil is it's the truth.

Is a chicken egg defined as an egg that will grow into a chicken, or as an egg laid by a chicken?