Humans absolutely created prosperity. The thing that was already here was nomadic hunter gatherer tribes that were perpetually one bad winter away from death.
Cutting off necessary resources is cruel. But refusing to acknowledge that those resources are provided by man made systems doesn't help you. Going to bed hungry is very natural. Wild animals do that all the time. Tap water is not natural, everything about how that water got from the river into your tap was man made.
Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's better, and just because it's man made doesn't mean it's bad.
By that reasoning there is nothing preventing you from being prosperous except your own greed.
Go out into the wilderness and be prosperous like the cavemen. Having your tapwater taken away shouldn't hinder you, those prosperous cavemen didn't have the luxury of any modern amenities. Just the streams they could find and the food they could scavenge or kill.
Abandon your greedy insistence on enjoying modern luxury and go prosper. You're the only thing stopping yourself.
And I'm sure you'll have no trouble staying connected when you find the cellphone tree. After all, if humans didn't create anything then everything must be naturally occurring. It's just an illusion that modern technology requires creation of parts that could never exist naturally.
To be fair, Ford builds them as work trucks. Like you said, the biggest thing you can buy without needing an upgraded license.
The triple cab, pickup style box, and lift kit are all aftermarket. Straight from Ford it's at most a king cab with a frame rail back. Then you're supposed to put on some kind of working back (toolbox, dump truck, lift arm). That's the kind of thing you see in official marketing images.
I used to work for a company that built garbage compactor units and put them on the back of trucks like these. The main selling point was that you only need a regular license and you can fit into narrower spaces than a full size garbage truck.
Is it still anecdotal if literally any farmer will tell you the same? Because they will.
A surprisingly large amount of effort goes into trying to keep the livestock from hurting themselves or getting themselves killed. That's inevitable when essentially turn off natural selection, they end up losing any sense of self preservation. And why not, they do have multiple humans who's entire career centers on keeping them alive until they're ready for slaughter.
If we're putting bacon, sausages, cutlets, and ribs in the same category because "it's all pig". Then I want to make sure that bulb onions, shallots, scallions, and leeks are also counted as one thing because they're all just onions.
Look me in the eye and tell me that bulb onions and shallots are different but bacon and cutlets aren't.
They live more comfortably than you do. Food and water freely available, plenty of space, other animals to socialize. No worries or responsibilities, not even a real concept of the outside world. The farm is all they've ever known, and it's all they ever need to know.
They live more comfortably than you do. In an environment literally designed to maximize their ability to grow.
Y'all continually fail to understand that farmers have a direct financial incentive to keep these animals happy and healthy. Stressed animals don't grow nearly as well as happy animals, and small animals don't make money.
Taking proper care of the animals is more profitable in the long run, even if you assume that all farmers are heartless monsters who enjoy watching needless suffering (we aren't by the way).
Quite the opposite actually, as a farmer raising my animals ethically is a daily fact concern. I just don't buy into your supposition that raising them is inherently unethical.
How about the adverse health effects
If I live long enough that eating meat is the primary thing that got me killed, I see that as an absolute win. I like riding motorcycles, I also like beer and sugar and baked goodies. I fully expect something else to get me well before a lifetime of eating meat has the chance. And I'm okay with that, I'd rather live a few years less and get to keep partaking in the things I enjoy. Plenty of people live into their 80s without giving up meat, and living into my 80s sounds plenty long to me.
environmental impacts of the meat industry
I believe that until nuclear is being seriously considered as the solution for clean electricity, then it isn't worth worrying about which of my habits are supposedly causing the climate crisis.
Any considerations there, or is all about how delicious steak is to you?
I wouldn't say it's "all about" how delicious steak is. But I would say that in all of your examples "less steak" doesn't seem to be the most prudent place to start, or to consider at all.
Judaism doesn't have exclusive ownership over the old testament. They are an important part of the Christian canon too.
Heck, you don't even give enough of a shit to refer to the scripture by the Jewish name. If you really cared perhaps you should start by calling it the Torah, the name "old testament" is nonsensical when you remove the new testament.
You should stop complaining about people "appropriating" your culture when you're already giving it away freely anyways.
The important detail isn't which exact term for Jewish scripture will most closely match the old testament in Christianity. The important detail is that "old testament" as a name is meaningless in reference to Jewish scripture, because the term only has meaning if you consider the new testament as equally valid scripture.
So they're arguing that referring to Moses in a Christian context is "appropriating" Jewish culture, while doing the exact same thing themselves in the exact same comment. If they actually cared at all they'd have known that using any Jewish name for the scripture would've served their point better than "old testament".
As for the Christmas thing, it doesn't make sense to call a Christmas movie Jewish because if you actually follow Judaism then the birth of Christ isn't something worth celebrating to you. Any Christ as the savior narrative goes directly against what Judaism believes about Christ. And any Christmas movie without Christ as a savior narrative, might as well be considered non-religious.
I didn't make any appeals to emotion, I just pointed out their own hypocrisy. If you want people to believe that you actually think Jewish culture is being appropriated by Christianity, the very least you need to do is not use Christian terminology when there exists widely known Jewish terminology for the same thing. If you don't know enough about Judaism to know the name Torah, then you have no right to complain about the interaction between Christianity and Judaism.
And of course Christianity believes that Judaism is unnecessary now. Just like Mormons believe the Christianity is unnecessary because they have the v3 update. It doesn't erase Judaism, heck the thing that started this whole thread was the fact that Jewish scripture is included directly in the Bible. The old testament stories are the same either way. The only difference is whether you believe that Jesus was the savior who fulfilled the law and brought the new law, or if you believe that the messiah hasn't come yet. But those stories still point to a future savior.
The language you used implies they don’t care about the argument and that the lack of care is what counteracts an argument instead of facts.
I only threw in that line as counter to their closing sentence of "stop helping the Christians appropriate my culture." I find it hard to believe that this supposed Christian appropriation actually bothers them very much if they themselves default to the Christian terminology. If you insist on calling my argument an appeal to emotion, then I will insist that I was only countering their prior appeal to emotion.
Perpetuating the “Judaism is unnecessary now” narrative is part of what breeds antisemitism and makes for more hate crimes.
By that same logic, every single religion in the world perpetuates hate crimes against every single other religion. The Judaism/Christianity relationship isn't special because literally every religion that isn't Judaism inherently includes the idea that Judaism is unnecessary. Just the same as how Judaism inherently includes the belief that every religion except Judaism is unnecessary.
Why not demand that Exodus be called Shemot?
Because prior to this interaction, I (a Christian) have no recollection of ever hearing the term Shemot before. If they had called it Shemot that would've been even better. But as it stands, the term Torah is very basic in the context of understanding Jewish terminology
Sure it’s something that Christians learn about, but it’s not something seen as Holy as it is in Judaism. The vast majority of Christians do not really celebrate Passover, just as Jews don’t celebrate Christ or Christmas.
That all comes down to the difference in their views of Christ. If you believe that Christ was not the messiah, then you have no real reason to celebrate him. If you do believe that Christ was the messiah, then you have incentive to celebrate important events in his life and less incentive to celebrate the feasts which were only instituted in order to point to him.
Why would I celebrate the passover, a feast that points to the sacrifice of the coming messiah, when I could just celebrate the life of that messiah instead.
I think the best comparison I can think of is something like world war 2. We don't celebrate D day, or the battle fo the bulge, or the battle of Midway. Because instead we can celebrate remembrance day. Why celebrate every major battle when you could celebrate them all at once in the winning of the war?
Or if you're Jewish, you celebrate those battles because you don't believe the war is over yet.
That explanation would've been a lot more convincing if it was included before I called them out for using the Christian name.
"They used the Christian name because otherwise nobody would've understood" sounds a lot like a desperate attempt to cover for having a Christian show them up about knowing the basic terminology of Judaism while they complain about Christians "appropriating their culture".
A culture which by the way, Christians have just as much claim to. And Muslims as well. Turns out that all of the Abrahamic religions actually have a legitimate claim to these scriptures.
None of those motivations you listed actually need IP to be abolished though.
If you're trying to differentiate yourself from the competitors, having IP protection is jn your favor. The large corporation you're competing with can't just swoop in and destroy you by making an identical product at a such a loss of profit until you run out of money.
If you're fueled by creating open source knowledge, well you can already do that. You can choose to release your IP into the world for anyone to use unrestricted.
And for a sense of community, well that's just the second point again. Abolishing IP was never going to make you feel community with Amazon. But having IP isn't preventing you from having community with individuals. You can still work on a project together without abandoning the idea of IP ownership.
Because those big businesses are only motivated by the profit possibilities.
If you take away that protection then they'll just stop trying. They don't give a shit about any of the motivations you listed. They'll wait for you to come up with something new, then use the advantage of their size to force you out of the market. You'll end up either giving up or trying again at which point they'll just repeat the cycle.
And there's nothing you can do to stop them because now they can be as open and blatant as they want with directly using your exact plans.
And you're going to compete with them on price then? Even when they can and will sell every unit at a loss until you're driven out of the market. Unless you're wealthy enough to be part of the good ol boys club, you can't afford to play that kind of game. They can.
Do you actually care that much about the creative story behind the latest widget that was added to your new appliance? Are you going to be choosing the 30% more expensive option every time because of that concern.
We aren't talking about art here, very few people give a shit about getting a "personal connection" with their new toaster. We're talking about buy use forget consumer goods. And if someone else is selling the same quality and the same features at a lower price, that's the one that your average Joe will buy. And will keep buying until you can't afford to keep making and selling yours because you can't compete on the metrics that people care about most.
Everyone loves to support local independent small businesses when it's convenient. And some people even have the gumption to hold to those ideals when it's difficult. But the vast majority don't care most of the time.
When big business makes it cheaper and more convenient to buy from them, most people will. I'm just as guilty of that as anyone else. When money and time are plentiful I love supporting a local bakery for lunch and a local book store for that greeting card. But when I'm pressed for time or money is short, it's straight back to Walmart to get a card and an entire meal for the price of one baked snack from the local place. And in 10 minutes instead of half an hour.
And the megacorps don't need a majority market share to win. They don't even need a large enough market share to be profitable, they just need to make sure your market share is too small to survive. And once you fail, then they can change practices away from kill competition and back to make money.
If you use a definition that includes anything like "liked and admired" then she doesn't fit. Her service is busy but as this thread shows, most people openly state they only go to her because they have no other choice for these cracks.
Using popular hides how many people actively want to jump ship if only there was competition. It's like saying that Comcast is popular because they have so many customers who don't have a viable alternative to using them.
I'm sorry for, pointing out how popular isn't the best choice of word?
But no matter how you slice it, popular isn't a great descriptor. Whether you choose the prescriptivist "the dictionary says x thus the word means x no matter what" or the descriptivist "most people use the word to mean y thus the word means y no matter what", in this case they both agree.
Both groups agree that when I say "Jim is popular" it makes you think that people generally like Jim. It evokes some level of communal approval. The dictionary literally defines the word to mean likeable, and the general usage still seems to denote general approval.
So either way, it doesn't represent the Empress situation. A situation where the majority of the community at best doesn't care and at worst openly dislikes her as a person because of her behavior, but still comes back for the games. She has a monopoly, but that doesn't make her inherently popular. Most people who know seem to dislike, and most who don't will also have no bearing on her popularity.
twas a crunchy sensation (fediverse.boo)
Poverty is man made, it's not natural (lemmy.tf)
POV , your secretary bought a new car for her daily commute to the grocery stroad. (lemmy.ca)
The road SUV armement race reach its peak . This is the basic minimum car size you will need to be safe on the 12 lanes groceries stroad.
Reposting my old stuff #5: #YouAreBeingDeceived (ttrpg.network)
But I love death (lemmy.world)
Are there Christian movies other than Prince of Egypt that are considered good?
I’m not even religious, I just want to know.
Intellectual Property should be abolished - change my mind! (lemmy.world)
Hey mateys!...
I know it's redundant and annoying at this point posting her bullshit but I just found this too funny to not share. @db0 remove this if you want,it's fine. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)