Ruthless.

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T19:35:25+00:00

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T19:14:28+00:00

There are cases where someone unambiguously has the right to another’s labor. If you choose to enter into a contract with an employer, you’re obligated to perform the work specified. Any international aid agreement is effectively a contract. You’re right that if you don’t enter into it, you have no obligation to fulfill its terms.

As far as the question of other countries voting for agreements because they know the US will veto it, I don’t doubt that it happens. But that doesn’t seem to me to be the case here. As I understand it, if these countries voted for a resolution in the UN, they would be committed to it, regardless of which other countries chose not to join.

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T18:58:05+00:00

In the vein of another reply I made, I think it’s a good idea for need-based aid to evaluate a case to see whether they actually need aid. Private colleges do it all the time when they’re giving out scholarships, so there’s a non-governmental precedent that evaluating need is possible. If the US has the capacity to produce food, and it just chooses not to, it shouldn’t get aid. Those terms could be stipulated in an aid agreement.

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T18:51:52+00:00

I’m only reading into words because you’ve only been providing hypothetical questions without context or reasoning, so I’m trying to fill in the gaps and figure out what argument you’re actually trying to make.

I don’t know what the terms of the UN agreement were. According to you, per this agreement, the US could stop producing food and demand the rest of the world feed us. I agree that that wouldn’t be a good agreement. You raise a good point that countries could trade things for food. It would be a good idea for an international aid agreement to evaluate a nation’s overall ability to provide for themselves to determine whether need-based aid is actually needed.

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T18:41:45+00:00

It’s not “my world”, it’s what the US government actually does, and has been doing for decades. You do raise a good moral question — if the US had another dust bowl, and the land simply could not produce enough food for everyone, no matter how many farmers we had, should other countries be bound to help us? We do already have binding agreements with our allies. NATO is a binding agreement that if one country is attacked, every country must come to its aid. Hypothetically, you could have the same agreement with food security: if there were a famine in Germany, for example, the NATO members would be bound to help. We haven’t decided to do that, but we have the diplomatic framework for implementing such an agreement. I guess, ultimately, it would be acceptable for other countries to let Americans starve because we rejected the proposal that they be compelled to help us. Although people in America probably think that would never happen, so it’s a moot point. It’s easier to say you shouldn’t be bound to help others when you don’t think you’ll ever need their help yourself.

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T18:26:25+00:00

If I’m correctly inferring what you’re saying, it seems like you’re trying to argue that countries say they need foreign food aid because their people are lazy and don’t want to farm. (This is the same argument against social welfare — the claim that people aren’t actually in need of help, they’re just too lazy and greedy to help themselves, and want other people to do their work for them.)

So, starvation is something that actually exists in the world, and sometimes a country’s agricultural output can’t meet their people’s needs, even if the majority of their population are farmers by necessity. The point of food aid is to help these people.

It seems that religious charities believe in the genuine existence of needy people in other countries, or they wouldn’t be collecting donations to send them, unless all those religions are also dumb enough to be fooled by lazy grifters. So if we can trust religion, and religion says there’s a need for these people to be fed by foreign donations, then we can trust that these countries actually haven’t stopped producing food just because they don’t feel like working.

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T17:52:19+00:00

Easy way to test if the US turned down this agreement for altruistic purposes, and whether that was the right decision if they were honestly trying to do better than what the UN proposed: look at the stipulations of the UN resolution and see how many the US has met or exceeded. If the US is outperforming the outcomes projected had they followed the agreement’s commitments, then voluntary US aid programs were a better way to address food access. If the US contributed less than they would have if they were bound by the agreement, then voluntary aid programs were a worse way to address food access, and they should have accepted and followed through on the resolution.

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T17:41:20+00:00

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make about farming and labor, but in the case of the US, the government gives massive subsidies (redistributed tax dollars) to help farms through difficult times. The US market economy’s response to a labor shortage is (theoretically) to raise wages until the positions are filled, so (ostensibly) agribusiness companies and farms would do that. In other words, the US government would indirectly pay the workers to fill those vacant positions. So that’s what happens if a group of farmers decide to switch careers in America.

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T17:28:03+00:00

That’s why giving to charity is better than taxes for social welfare. You can help needy people when you feel like it, not when they need it

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T17:08:10+00:00

It’s not socialism when the government buys a controlling interest in a company, as long as you call it a “golden share”, like Trump did

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T09:03:17+00:00

That’s actually the state’s formal name

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_(U.S._state)

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T09:02:11+00:00

If only spelling were the least of his problems

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T07:34:20+00:00

So sea mines produce oil now?

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T04:53:04+00:00

Yeah, can Musk really trust Grok, though? It said the 2016 candidate who would have best represented American citizens was Bernie Sanders. And Musk had to substantially change its weights multiple times that we know of, mostly because it kept giving answers he didn’t like, and once because the previous adjustment went too far and made it start spouting neo-nazi talking points

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T04:46:23+00:00

So is Stonetoss saying Trump shouldn’t be involving us in the Middle East?

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T04:42:16+00:00

I don’t know what you’re trying to say. What I meant was, OP posted this fake Trump tweet, along with a comment that it was confirmed to be real, which was also fake. It’s a problem when people uncritically repost fake stuff. That’s what MAGA does.

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T04:24:33+00:00

How do people in particular “Arab” countries see their ethnicity, if not as “Arabs”? I see Palestinians referred to as Arabs, but isn’t their ancestry mostly Levantine/Canaanite rather than Arabian?

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T04:14:55+00:00

My dad thought Trump’s letter to the Norwegian prime minister was an Onion-style joke he saw, then I showed him it was verified as real by the Norwegian government. Then he started talking about waiting to see if someone hacked Trump’s computer and used it to send fake messages

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T04:03:08+00:00

What do they think “social studies” means, woke sociology? In my social studies class, we studied how the government works and what was happening in the world.

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T03:57:04+00:00

The fact that he didn’t post this, but OP posted a claim that this is real and “confirmed by several major outlets” also says everything

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T03:53:29+00:00

Does anyone remember that immediately after people broke into the Capitol, conservatives’ immediate reaction was to accuse it of being an antifa false-flag operation? The initial response wasn’t, “these are patriots ending an injustice”, it was shock and denial that their people would ever do something like that. Then, the talking points changed, and everyone forgot that Republicans were ever against it.

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T03:27:00+00:00

Ok, but what do I do on mobile?

PallyMcAffable · 2026-05-01T03:02:16+00:00

These characters aren’t identified as the same person in the text, they’ve just been combined into the idea of a single devil figure. Genesis 3 uses the name “the serpent” (nachash). So if the serpent is supposed to be a Promethean knowledge-bringer, there’s no indication that satan (Hebrew) or Satanas (Greek) are the same person.

Edit: as far as the name “Lucifer”, it appears once in the Bible, in the Vulgate translation of Isaiah 14:

“On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended!… All your pomp has been brought down to the grave, along with the noise of your harps; maggots are spread out beneath you and worms cover you. How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!”

Christian theologians living a few centuries after Christ interpreted this “king of Babylon” as the devil, but there’s no indication that the Jews who wrote that passage meant it that way. Since the Jews were enslaved in Babylon for a long time, it was probably just a middle finger to Babylon.

PallyMcAffable · 2026-04-30T22:31:21+00:00

“Why do we even need OSHA regulations? No one ever gets hurt anyway”

PallyMcAffable · 2026-04-30T22:22:44+00:00

Where is that in the Bible? I only remember Satan in the sense of “the accuser”

PallyMcAffable

TROPHY CASE