Another inaccuracy is "covered their eyes with wings" being translated as "covered in eyes and wings".
In fact, there are depictions of both going back many centuries, with the former being the most common until memes came along. It even makes more sense contextually, because the accounts would be written by humans and due to the aforementioned fallen angels it was probably not allowed for angels to even make eye contact with Humans.
Competition drives prices down. Bare minimum economic theory for you, you're welcome for that.
deleted by creator
It's incorrect to think that losing access to markets is beneficial for anyone, which is why using it as a bargaining chip to make people stop murdering each other is a good thing. Even if this imaginary Global South organization had another provider for goods, they're at risk of being abused or manipulated by a lower number of trade partners who can increase prices at will.
I'm sorry that you disagree.
I like the idea of economic incentives and I think they're extremely effective, although the ones on the other end of them usually take years before they start to feel the full effects.
Why cancel the angular momentum when we can utilize it?
From where I'm sitting, and I'm trying to paint a picture for you to understand the topic through my eyes, I see a small subsection of society, a bubble so to speak, attempting to shame a much larger more commonplace section of society with absurd misconstruments and twisted definitions which do not reflect reality. The bubble is shaming what would likely be their only allies to achieve reforms in their favor, and in general one of the only sources of good in society and politics. It feels like I watched somebody train an AI on r/the_donald and then asked the AI to write communism pamphlets. My views are only further cemented when those "who understood the phenomenon further than its dictionary use" resort to petty namecalling when I bring up the dictionary definition of the terms they are misusing. It is further cemented when they have to provide their group's own private dictionary separate from society's use of language.
If you have a political stance directly opposing certain choices and beliefs, then use words to define that which people will understand and agree with, do not simply try to rewrite words and history as you see fit. Do you oppose Democracy? Do you oppose Civil Rights? Do you oppose equality and guaranteed standards of living? If you answered no to those questions then you are a Liberal. If you're opposed to unchecked power of political entities or parties, if you're opposed to the abolition of term limits, and if you're opposed to economic disparity and inequality, then what you oppose is not Liberalism, what you oppose is fascism, authoritarianism, plutocracy, and capitalism.
I am very much aware of that.
Neither is Oxford, chum.
The worst part is when people don't sign off on your use of the interview because they're afraid of their signature being used against them, which is an understandable concern of course.
How dare I "missuse" dictionaries to "define words" which contradict your "alternative facts."
and FYI, Oxford is British.
Take it up with oxford, Words mean what the majority believes they currently mean. Anything else is just some shit somebody made up. This discussion is about the current meaning of Liberalism in today's political context.
Yeah, I'm glad you're slowly starting to comprehend the conversation. I'm informing you that making up definitions for words is wrong and is the source of confusion when you try and fail to converse with others.
Oxford Dictionary:
lib·er·al
/ˈlib(ə)rəl/
adjective
willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. Similar: tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened, forbearing, permissive, free, free and easy, easygoing, laissez-faire, libertarian, latitudinarian, unbiased, impartial, nonpartisan, indulgent, lenient, lax, soft
noun
a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare. "she dissented from the decision, joined by the court's liberals"
a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
Opposite: narrow-minded, bigoted,
You are free to argue with dictionaries, but if your enemy is liberalism as defined by civil rights, democracy, and welfare then you are the enemy of all people, in my eyes.
If the majority of people don't agree on the proposed meaning of a word then that isn't what the words mean. In other words, it is wrong.
Lol I'm sure Prolewiki is an unbiased source that the majority of people would agree with on the definitions of words. /s
So to speak, you see, quite understandably so, I can speak however I like, indeed, quite right, shitbag.