AlpineSteakHouse [any]

It makes more sense for the former unfortunately.

The original theory was that it could have been a pregnant women looking down and that’s what lead to the proportions. The idea was they wouldn’t have been able to see themselves in a river or something. But rivers and puddles, not to mention OTHER pregnant women, were extremely common so it’s less likely.

What a terrible mistake to make! Perhaps you should have assumed it was the correct orientation of the two words that are spelled exactly the same.

Your beef is with the English Language not me. How is it my fault that you misidentified yourself? Funnily enough, you still don’t identify your actual political position. It’s clear that the only political position you’d take is what gives you an advantage in the argument. Fucking debatebros lol.

I have, but thanks for the suggestion.

Reading so much theory that you confuse two different political ideologies. Sometimes I read so much theory that that I claim to be a monarchist when I really mean to say I’m an anti-monarchist. Obviously the other person should have understood what I meant. Your literally on a communication medium that allows you to plan and edit your comments. You have no excuse for making this grade school mistake.

You said you supported Social Democracy not Democratic Socialism. Dem Socs are well-meaning but idealistic, not optimistic but the political philosophy of idealism. Soc Dems are supporters of a kinder capitalism for the Imperial core but keeping the child slaves mining cobalt in the Congo.

The fact that you think these are the same proves the original posters point that you should read theory. They were harsh but you were implying that keeping exploitation of the third world is preferable to socialism.

Dude you still don’t stop worker exploitation, don’t solve the contradiction of working and capitalist classes, don’t end imperialism or colonialism (social democracy outsources exploitation to the third world)

Ok let me know how your method works out