133arc585
Tangential, but there are refillable versions of those vapes that cut down on waste almost entirely (and cost less). You buy the device once, and then a bottle of nicotine salts, and the refillable cartridge. The only waste you’re producing is the cartridge every once in a while when you replace it (no extra cardboard, plastic, etc) and the plastic nicotine salt bottle when it’s empty. You aren’t throwing away a battery, electronics, or the bulky device. And I mean the same form factor as what you’re probably buying too, I’m not talking about the old fashion cloud-blowing box vapes.
It’s literally just a charlatan scam, like homeopathy, tarot card readings, psychics and mediums, etc. The people who perform that are some of the lowest of the low: they admit that people who come to them are at a bad point in their life and very in need of help, and they prey on that because it’s an opportunity for quick money. Vulnerable people who don’t question your bullshit, that’s an easy mark.
(Edit: tarot, not taro)
It could be a genuine mistake by the original writer, but I expect a textbook to have higher proofreading standards. Especially if this is a grade-school textbook (it looks like one), where you can’t reasonably expect the student to reference other sources to verify the contents, then I would expect the textbook publisher to put a lot more effort in to catching this sort of thing. And I don’t mean someone reading over it for typos, I mean someone who knows the field the book is written about, who can proofread for accuracy not just grammar. Genuine mistake or not, this is completely inexcusable.
I’m not reading that first source because I’m not involving myself in this conversation except to point out that this dailymail article mentions Russians, as in, the people. It doesn’t say that it is the government. When average joe citizens in the USA vandalize Wikipedia people don’t say that the USA is vandalizing it.
Is there a transcript available?
I don’t think you’re doing a very good job of attempting to answer the very direct confusion I’m having. You’re doing a lot to make sure it’s obvious how capitalism can and does result in imperialism, which frankly I’m mostly in agreement with. My issue is that you’re asserting that socialism can’t lead to imperialism. You’ve still given no reason that this is to be the case except for this attempt:
Socialism’s goal is to provide for its people by moving past a society based on exploitation. This is why it wouldn’t engage in colonialism.
And I agree that, by definition, it’s a society based on the betterment of its people. Stress should be applied there to its people. I’m not justifying imperialism at all, but it’s a pretty obvious argument that by subjugating other nations/peoples and exploiting them, you can make the lives of your people better. Perhaps you’re trying to say that the type of leadership and ideology that creates and maintains socialism would also be ideologically against imperialism, but that seems more pragmatic than theoretic. You’re saying socialism can’t engage in imperialism by definition but the most I’d give is that it doesn’t engage in imperialism in practice.
I don’t see how that follows.
Because you need to get to imperialism via capitalism.
Socialism’s goal is to provide for its people; in theory, why can’t it engage in colonialism to bring in resources to benefit its people?
There is definitely no other way.
Its obvious how capitalism leads to imperialism, but it’s definitely not obvious how that would be the only way to arrive there.
Any elaboration you can provide would be great because you’re acting as if it should be obvious why what you’re saying is true but it absolutely is not.