If someone sends me a one word reply of “yes” to “what is the purpose of this meeting and is my presence beneficial” then it wouldn’t matter what I asked lol.

lol

But just to reiterate the point I was making earlier, the idea is to avoid someone responding to “what is the purpose of this meeting and is my presence beneficial” with something along the lines of “the purpose is to discuss X, Y, and Z. Yes your input would be a big help thanks.”

Curious on your thoughts on the suggestion I made and whether it improves communication or not?

If you ask the person who invited you to a meeting “is my presence beneficial” they’re going to answer “yes”. That’s why they invited you.

The purpose is to figure out whether your presence is actually needed, not whether they think it is.

I do like a lot of your ideas though, I might suggest:

“What is this meeting about? I’m trying to figure out if my presence would be beneficial.”

That way you are the determinant of whether your presence is necessary, and the other person has to articulate what the actual benefit would be as opposed to just saying “yes”.

There is a problem with a lot of the people that practice polygamy in an unethical way

That is what the person you responded to said. There is a problem with the cultural of polygamy here because it’s done in an unethical way.

but not polygamy itself.

That is also what the person you replied to said. They clarified specifically that if both genders are free to practice polygamy in the same way there’s no issue.

Frogger 2: Swampy’s Revenge was genuinely great though

“Uh a 151.197 grammer with cheese.”

Quar ter poun der. Perfect size. Good marketing.

“A ThIRd PoUnDeR pLeASe”. Too much to chew. Bad marketing.

That’s an interesting thought, but I believe it to simply be a coincidence.

The base 12 counting being based on counting the division of your fingers is historically verified, but if the division aspect was so compelling to them you’d expect it to carry forward into their writing system.

By the time you get cuneiform math though, they actually go back to base 10.

https://images.app.goo.gl/9GR6VEiT7GHYF3KaA

As you can see base 12 is not in the written system, or for written mathematics. It just was convenient for counting on their hands.

They used mixes of base 10/base 12 and base 60.

Base 10 would be used go determine the symbols for a specific “digit” in base 60.

So similar to how our 13 is 1 ten and 3 ones, their 13 was the symbol for 10 then 3 symbols for 1. 13 = 𒌋𒁹𒁹𒁹 But 73 would be written 𒁹 𒌋𒁹𒁹𒁹

Which would be interpreted as 1 sixty and 13 ones, or 60 + 13

Don’t listen to OP’s bullshit.

They work for big clock. They’re trying to convince you 12 hour clock is useless so they can sell you double the clock.

When it comes to computing, technically everything is a binary choice.

Idk I feel like it could have ended a little earlier than that.

Removed by mod

If you’re lost as to how that relates to the topic this conversation is beyond you.

Me: “I want to purchase healthy foods.”

You: Theres plenty of junk food out there that “brands” itself as healthy.

That’s true, so now what?

Do we give up on healthy food entirely and buy the chips for dinner?

Believe it or not, I think carrots and a bag of chips “branded” as healthy can be distinguished between.

If you care about the rights of Gazans then the ultimate right is the right of self determination and a right to life.

Those are two rights.

I believe the right to life is the ultimate right as one can’t access self determination if they are dead.

This is why the genocide takes priority over any worries about legitimacy.

So in that sense you should critically support Hamas in the Palestinian struggle against the settler-colonizers.

I support the Palestinian struggle against their colonizers but I appreciate that you put the word “critically” in their because I do also want to be able to say terrorism isn’t a good response and be able to say it’s wrong when anyone targets innocent civilians intentionally.

You want pretty elections in an apartheid ghetto.

No I want to stop the apartheid ghetto.

“Legitimacy” means nothing in a war zone. There’s nothing to talk about until the bombs stop.

How about they not have an apartheid ghetto and be integrated into a democratic process? Again, in order to do that they must not be under siege for decades…

Yeah how about that?

Haha I’m getting a but frustrated at the reading comprehension on this thread but at least we agree.

If you read through my replies you’ll see me consistently making this point as well.

“Legitimacy” is not a concept that exists in a war zone. The Palestinians are being robbed of the opportunity of legitimate representation by their occupiers.

I never felt I was presenting a moral framework based on legitimacy. You seem to be implying that just because I can’t label guerrilla fighters as a “legitimate government” I don’t think they have a moral right to resist?

Legitimacy and morality are completely separated to me. I think Trump is a perfect example of that. I accept he was elected as a legitimate leader, but he clearly has no moral justification for power and it is our moral duty to resist despite his “legitimacy”.

We must prioritize defending human rights before social constructs.

That’s why “legitimacy” breaks down here, legitimacy is a social construct we can only focus on in a collaborative environment when we’re not killing each other. It’s agreeing to international borders, boundaries, and non interference in each other’s governments. If we all start invading everyone then the construct we’ve built on a philosophy of peace time goes away which is why as you point out if it were a moral framework would be really flimsy.

Legitimacy as a moral judgement I think only works in a world where Israel is acting in good faith and actually wants to avoid war crimes and is held accountable for its crimes in a court of law.

Genocide is so much worse than illegitimate rulers so I’m really not interested in the legitimacy of Hamas as a question to begin with. Doesn’t seem important. I know they have a moral right to resist and whoever does the resisting isn’t going to be “legitimate” until after they’ve already won so I’m not gonna judge them for it.

Ideally let’s stop the genocide, let’s build back infrastructure, then we can hold elections and see who’s legitimate.

That’s a great example to bring up.

Ukraine has declared martial law and with that suspended elections that should have in peacetime occurred last year. Martial law continues to get extended 90 days at a time by parliament and this has happened 14 times now.

As I mentioned earlier, the longer time goes on without an election the less legitimate a government becomes. 4 year terms, 5 year terms, 6 years, I don’t think the micro details of it really matter but as a rule of thumb there should be elections at least twice a generation.

If we say a generation is 25-30 years that means every 12-15 years at a minimum.

Ukraine elected Zelensky in 2019, so it’s been 6 years since the last election.

All of this seems reasonable at this stage for me to say Ukraine’s government is 100% legitimate.

If 4 more years pass and it’s been a decade, I’m starting to think it’s time to give the next generation a shot at defending their land.

At 15 years i think its lost its legitimacy. Though I will likely still support it’s right to defend itself against occupation, I think a legitimate government would allow the new generation of Ukrainians to have a say on that and elections are necessary.

What are your thoughts? In 20 years do you think it’s okay if Ukraine still hasn’t held elections?

Yes, countries can invade and occupy other countries, suspend their governments, block future elections and violate their civil rights.

That’s what’s so bad about it.

But this shouldn’t be a surprise, Israel is doing much worse human rights abuses to the Palestinians than simply revoking the legitimacy of their government. They’re massacring them, they’re starving them and blowing up aid workers trying to bring in food, not even to mention the sexual violence I can’t even stomach thinking about.

It’s important to understand the severity of what a genocide implies. These are a people without a voice. If someone doesn’t stop the occupation and reallow legitimate elections, the very idea of a Palestinian people might be eradicated.

Hamas aren’t the ones preventing elections.

No, we’ve already gone over that it’s their occupiers fault for that

They don’t lose legitimacy just because other parties have illegally halted the electoral process. They’re not the obstacle.

No they do not.

They lose legitimacy over time as it becomes longer and longer since the last election.

75% of the population has never had an opportunity to vote for anyone at all and 50% is too young to have even been born at the last election. I don’t see how we can say these people have legitimate representation despite that.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank have blocked elections since then.

Right, this is the primary reason I would argue that there’s no official representative.

But it sounds as though you’re presenting it to counter the point I was making. Can you elaborate on how this fact legimizes Hamas as an official representative?

But you are right that half of Gazans weren’t even born when Hamas won the last elections.

While that’s correct its even worse, once you factor in the minimum voting age of 18 years old, over 75% of Gazans were unable to participate in the last election.