I dont think thats true

Fun fact: camels weren’t imported to the Middle East from SE Asia until the mid-19th century. Germany had a professional camel-driven caravan service before Egypt.

No. 1 spot at the box office was promised to me 6,000 years ago

No idea why anyone would say that. A soft taco has like 2g of fiber. Here’s the menu. Feel free to click around and prove me wrong but nothing I saw on the best sellers list had more than like 5g and those are things meant to be shared

This is true and I was mostly just being pedantic. What I was trying to say is that 99% of modern colonization as been mercantilism. Even the few exceptions to this aren’t relevant because self-reliance on the Moon is almost nonexistent. There’s very little “dogmatic” justification for it, too. There’s no fresh continent of non-believers to convert and the Church is certainly in no position to sponsor missions regardless.

The moon offers very little cost-effective extractive industry, at least not without some wild discoveries or decades (centuries?) of infrastructure buildout. There is an almost-garaunteed $0 immediate ROI.

Whatever happens there would probably be closer to Antarcitc research outposts than the New World colonial craze. Nonnational scientific stations whose funding ebbs and flows with the geopolitical dickwagging of a handful of terrestial superpowers.

It’s low in fiber and greasy. When your body is conditioned to expect whole foods, stuff like that gets shot right back out.

Very doubtful, at least for a long time. Barring some insane discoveries, sustaining any community worthy of calling “independent” on the Moon would take decades of constant trade.

The Moon also offers very little raw material opportunity too, it’s hard to even consider whatever might happen up there to be “colonizing”

Truth 🗣 nuke 🔥 detected 👀

Beefcake didnt wanna cover up his money maker for what looks like some mall-photographer headshot session. Dont blame him.

Yes. See the discourse on the “slave owner” vs “slaver” debate that happened in academia a few years ago.

One implies a simple connection to a opaque action, the other places the actor as a direct perpetrator of the action.

$4,800,000,000 to Israel.

The doublethink is part of it but American Christians are famously uneducated in their own religion and they feel a debt to what they see as Christianity’s originator and ally against the heretical Islamists. Mix all that up with a media industry disproportionately ran by Zionists and you’ve got the current conundrum.

Try ordering a beer in Japan. They think there that the foam contains all the alcohol, it’s not at all uncommon to get glasses with over half foam

One more microscope bro and I swear Ive got it figured out just another microscope

What parts worry you?

Crazy what Nazi gold will buy you

I’m just going to repost my comment above because I think you should read it too and might not see it otherwise:

Not here to participate in good faith

“Good faith” here is saying that there is no correlation between institutional racism and gun violence? That the socioethnic group that’s specifically been calling out for years about about the lack of effective policing and community investment is just… making it up?

Did you actually think I was here to make some “muh fbi statistics” point and dip?

The point that I was trying to make is that there is one minority group that commits the majority of gun violence in the US, which is young, black, opportunity-deprived black men. The biggest victim of gun violence is black men. The biggest perpetrator of gun violence is black men. The most common form of gun violence is black man on black man. The reasons for why gun violence is so prevalent have been well understood for decades at this point and are the legacies of segregation, white flight, and contemporary institutional racism. Acting like these aren’t connected, that gun violence is something that happens at random with no correlation to social power structures, and that, as a result, black men aren’t the specified victims of it (as both immediate victim and victim of circumstances (re: attacker)), accomplishes nothing and ensures that more black men will die, disproportionately, every day because you’re too scared to identify an uncomfortable correlation.

Not here to participate in good faith

“Good faith” here is saying that there is no correlation between institutional racism and gun violence? That the socioethnic group that’s specifically been calling out for years about about the lack of effective policing and community investment is just… making it up?

Did you actually think I was here to make some “muh fbi statistics” point and dip?

The point that I was trying to make is that there is one minority group that commits the majority of gun violence in the US, which is young, black, opportunity-deprived black men. The biggest victim of gun violence is black men. The biggest perpetrator of gun violence is black men. The most common form of gun violence is black man on black man. The reasons for why gun violence is so prevalent have been well understood for decades at this point and are the legacies of segregation, white flight, and contemporary institutional racism. Acting like these aren’t connected, that gun violence is something that happens at random with no correlation to social power structures, and that, as a result, black men aren’t the specified victims of it (as both immediate victim and victim of circumstances (re: attacker)), accomplishes nothing and ensures that more black men will die, disproportionately, every day because you’re too scared to identify an uncomfortable correlation.

Yeah none of that really rebutes what I said

Yes! This narrows the original question down to addressing some very tangible and specific problems