Spzi

Sehr gut! Danke, BGH.

Es gibt so viele Varianten von "klimaneutral", manche legitim, manche weniger. Es ist gut, das transparenter zu machen.

His violent rhetoric is what has led to this.

Right? I only watched one news clip on this. But apparently political leaders from all over the world send their best wishes, including figures like Zelensky, who would be threatened to lose the war against Russia if Trump gets elected.

My first thoughts were "Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind".

I mean, I agree with what the other leaders said; violence has no place in politics. But that's an argument to remove Trump, not to protect him. Letting him run for election is asking for more political violence either way. Systematically if he wins, and more uprising attempts, like last time, if he loses.

Hehe, right! (technically). Context matters! When talking about fruit, people usually don't include stellar objects when weighing their options. Still true when taking in consideration that "apples to oranges" is usually metaphorical and not really about fruit.

I like that, especially this insight:

when two things have very few attributes in common or the attributes they can be compared on are very broad, general or abstract, it is harder to compare them.

A melon and a pogo stick are harder to compare, for their defining attributes hardly overlap except on a very abstract way.

Good on you to say "harder to compare" :D

it’s all semantic subjectivity. Poetry compares dissimilar things and equates unequal concepts all the time.

Another thing worthwhile to point out; subjectivity. I guess that part bothered me too. "cannot be compared" attempts to establish some kind of objective truth, whereas it only can be a subjective opinion.

The reference to poetry was nice, too.

My point works just as well with an arbitrary amount of options. Someone could say "These quintillion things cannot be compared".

The number of options is irrelevant to what I tried to address. Though my examples were only pairs, so sorry for causing confusion.

Thanks for taking the time to write this detailed reply. I guess you're right about the equivocation and I can see the irony :D

Though I have not fully understood yet. Following your example, the two different concepts are ...

• in case A, we compare the value of a property (different top speed)
• in case B, we compare the purpose or context-dependend usefulness of an attribute (different types of liquid container holders)

What blocks me from fully agreeing is that still, both are comparisons. And they don't feel so different to me that I would call them different concepts. When I look up examples for equivocations, those do feel very different to me.

I still guess you're right. If you (or someone else) could help me see the fallacy, I'd appreciate.

Agreed, yeah. Guess I was taking the word too literally.

Gripen sounds like a perfect fit. From the little I know about it, I got the impression it can be operated, just fine, under non-ideal conditions. Like using roads as runways, easier maintenance with less personel than usual and so on. I learned that from watching very short videos, so you might want to double check.

I think it makes sense: Gripen was developed by a small country close to Russia, with no reason to fear anyone but Russia. So kind of designed for the defensive underdog role.

The F-16 and even more so the F-35, are more demanding on organisation and logistics, I believe. Great when you have the capability to double down on it, not so useful when your Hinterland is constantly bombarded. Like I heard they have trouble keeping electricity and water going. Not sure if maintaining a fleet of 35s is possible under these conditions. Fingers crossed they can make good use of the 16s.

I've seen Nadu. Strong. Too strong, yeah. But I only see it occasionally, and can usually deal with it in one way or the other, mostly Sheoldred's Edict saving the day.

What really bugs me out is [[Ocelot Pride]], together with [[Guide of Souls]] and [[Ajani, Nacatl Pariah]].

They are so strong and cheap, useful and versatile, everybody left and right has put them in their decks. I mean, it's nice to get pawed by a cat themed deck once in a while. But I literally face this combo for multiple BO1s in a row. Seriously. It's a rather refreshing surprise when I get to see a somewhat different opponent. This power creep has so ruined the meta, diversity is so low it hardly makes fun playing.

In contrast to a monarchy, where people cannot choose their leader, in capitalism people can choose from which company they buy, or even create their own.

As another person already pointed out, these are obviously two different categories.

The question then is, why do people choose the way they do, both when buying and when running a company? To me it seems, they don't because of some external pressure (like monarchy requires).

The point can be summed up as a question: Why don't people run (more) non-capitalist services and productions, and why don't they prefer them when looking to satisfy their demand?

These non-capitalist things exist, it's certainly possible. But as far as I know, they are all very niche. Like a communal kitchen, some solidary agriculture or housing project. Heck, entire villages of this kind exist.

So the alternative is there, but it requires actual commitment and work. I don't see how capitalism could be abolished in an armed uprising (in contrast to monarchy). But it can be replaced by alternative projects. Partially. Why are they so small and few?

That's a self fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? The effect you describe would not be there if it wasn't for comments like this. Or at the very least, these comments make the effect bigger.

Because religion evolved to thrive in us.

It's like a parasite, and our mind is the host. It competes with other mind-parasites like other religions, or even scientific ideas. They compete for explanatory niches, for feeling relevant and important, and maybe most of all for attention.

Religions evolved traits which support their survival. Because all the other variants which didn't have these beneficial traits went extinct.

Like religions who have the idea of being super-important, and that it's necessary to spread your belief to others, are 'somehow' more spread out than religions who don't convey that need.

This thread is a nice collection of traits and techniques which religions have collected to support their survival.

This perspective is based on what Dawkins called memetics. It's funny that this idea is reciprocally just another mind-parasite, which attempted to replicate in this comment.