taking care of junkies or lowlifes for the duration of their lifespan .
They prefer the term shareholders or landlords, thank you very much!
taking care of junkies or lowlifes for the duration of their lifespan .
They prefer the term shareholders or landlords, thank you very much!
We did but then you lot started ringing bells.
Tbf, were fucked too.
Mid twenties teenagers with 30 year old parents.
Would you still feel that way, about the very first part, if I was to remind you that some of the Russian oligarchs were crime bosses who took power and wealth by force?
Admittedly, it doesn’t have the hereditary rule part but that, for me, would simple fall under “the difference is the passage of time.” I see it much like the difference between a cult and a religion.
For sure, I totally agree with what you’re saying. I was only using the word in the 40k version where nearly everything is hersasy, not the sensible version of the word youre using.
Something I always love to add to these sorts of threads:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Nine_Angles
It expresses the view that the current aeonic civilization is that of the Western world, but it claims that the evolution of this society is threatened by the “Magian/Nazarene” influence of the Judeo-Christian religion, which the Order seeks to combat in order to establish a militaristic new social order, which it calls the “Imperium”. According to Order teachings, this is necessary in order for a galactic civilization to form, in which “Aryan” society will colonise the Milky Way.
It’s beyond heresy.
As a British person, I had a few awkward conversations with other British people when I’ve asked them to explain the difference between a royal or a higher level aristocrat and an oligarch.
It seems to be something to do with the length of time society had to endure their bastardry. Well, it’s either that or that they’re not from the Oligar region of Russia. Its one of the two.
*ACAB, in their capacity as cops.
There might be repercussions, if we get caught though.
I mean, you can break any rule, law or agreement without facing repercussions, if you don’t get caught.
Breaking it in any way means you will likely have to pay back any money they gave you immediately.
Personally, I would consider that to be a repercussion.
I mean, who else other than your last employer would it be with?
Rule # 1 of signing an NDA: you’re not allowed to say that you signed an NDA.
…well, technically that would be considered a ceremony of sorts.
I mean, after all, their problem is that they want more workers, so they can make more money. Letting people work less defeats the point.
It’s our fault for ever thing they would try to fix their problem by making their own problem worse.
Thanks but I didn’t need it. Maybe try the explanations without pictures next time. Thats probably where you went wrong.
Your problem is that you presumed to be saying that to someone who didn’t know anything about fallacies and not someone who knows them better than you. So, now you’ve gone and made a fool out of yourself. Even funnier that you’ve doubled down on your fallacy fallacy and had to resort to such pathetic deflections.
Please carry on though, you’re hilarious.
It might well have been, had i made that claim.
It cant be usury, if I call it interest.
Not only is their god all powerful and all knowing, apparently, they also beleive their god to be an idiot.