I feel like it changes the meaning of “day”. In some contexts, day is the daylight hours… but in this context it is from when you woke up to when you went to sleep. So it feels a bit more timezone agnostic. But only a tiny bit. This would be more ture if you were comparing have a good afternoon to have a good day.

But the real answer. Someone just didn’t like saying the same thing over and over, so threw in some variation. Someone else who wanted to suck up to them started using it. Others just happened to follow.

You started out decent, then went off the deepend. You are connecting plants to refined sugars in the end. An apple (from a plant) has no refined sugar. No plants do. And the milk thing sounds like a conspiracy theory. They ban raw milk because if it isn’t handled correctly, it can make you sick. While this is a bit of an over reach, in most places it started long before thier was an industry to protect.

I wish their were, but I’m not so sure. They started arresting people who simply wrote articles they didn’t like. They have declared an organization that doesn’t actually exist terrorists. So now all the have to do is is say, you’re antifa and you are under arrest. Any peacful solution will just result in the people involved getting arrested. Or at some point they will just declare a peaceful protest a terrorist attack because one person threw a rock that they thought was a gernade… and they then just open fire. They are clamping down on the media so that only thier voice is heard. And they are meddling with elections so they can’t lose. But here is a simpler answer. If thier were peaceful ways, then the people of more countries would have used those in thier countries. But if you look, the vast majority are under the control of corrupt governments. The US is the result of a violent revolution. It just didn’t last. Corrupt rule is the steady state that all large organizations trend toward.

Noone would ever confuse me for someone who dresses for others. Lol

In this case though he said he was in a union. So committing to something sets precedent that can be used against the union. If there was no union involved, then I agree with you. I just suck at lieing.

Dictators care about how they are perceived because they used skills in manipulating how they are perceived to get into the position they are in. Making it a self selecting group. But when you change “how” they get there to simply be that they were given superpowers at birth, you remove the self selection. So now it is just a random sampling of the population, which in my opinion skews toward not caring as much about how they are percieved if they don’t need to.

There are certainly people who do. But I think they are the minority. They do sort of bunch up though. So if you are one, you probably don’t realize you are the minority.

That is too much of a commitment. Should end with I’ll consider that, or I’ll look into that.

Nope, cause pharmaceutical company would produce a drug that you take for a short time and never need again. Not enough profit. And they would have no actual control over the superheros. In the boys, all of the sups seemed to care what the public thought of them so much, they would do what the corp wanted. In reality, the ones who didn’t care would outnumber the ones who did. And they would just kill whoever they wanted, and threaten to kill others to get what they wanted. Kinda like the oligarchy we have today, but with far less constraint, and no need to even try to hide things like being pedos and racists and such.

Only workers are expected to be happy with good enough. The elite will never say the balance of thier bank account is good enough. And thus companies always need to grow bigger.

This was texas, why didn’t the good guys with guns fire back.

Honestly, I don’t think it is the men saying you can’t be topless. It’s other women. I am pretty sure that even though I would get used to boobs everywhere, I would still be in a generally better mood. Boobs just make most guys happy. I don’t know if it would make women who are attracted to women happy too, but maybe.

AI slop, or brainwashed person. Does it really matter? No, both hallucinate.

But God created everything. So he must have created Evil or it wouldn’t exist.

Wait a second. You argued that God made the babies… so if the babies were going to be evil… he made them that way. That sounds more like evil to me.

I see. Focusing on the least relevant thing I said to avoid the main point that you can’t contest. Thanks for confirming that.

As for the committee… how do you think the new testament came into being. Some person collected all the writing he liked and declared it the new testament. Then everyone else said sure… we would like to buy a copy…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

By the time it came into being, the church was an organization with power. Such an organization always draws ambitious humans who crave that power and influence. The new testament was crafted to help grow that power and influence.

It is very likely in my opinion that Jesus never even claimed to be the son of god. Probably he was a very charismatic person who actually cared about the well being of people. And so he got popular with the people. Which is why he had to be killed. Then ambitious people leveraged him and his popularity to get what they wanted. Several other modern religions took a similar road.

Interesting. None of that is evidence that God exists. Without a doubt, someone going by the name Jesus (or something like it lost in translation) existed. And a religion was founded based on him. Lots of things happened. People wrote down a lot of things. But those people all had a bias. The vast majority were trying to build a religion. So without a doubt, they embellished and picked the “witness” accounts that supported what they wanted to say.

As for the 3 famous figures mentioned at the start. The same is true. Historians often say that we don’t know the real truth, just what was written.

As for the new testament. It was created by commitee. They hand picked stories and such that created the picture they wanted to present. And plenty of religious historians have pointed out that Christianity borrowed concepts and stories that worked well from previous religions.

So all that proves is that a human being going by the name Jesus existed and had a very influential life. It proves nothing of God.

Do sure the evidence for the god you believe in.

There’s no evidence for God period, so your “because” doesn’t support your statement. Of course you also don’t seem to understand basic logic. The lack of evidence never “proves” anything. The presence of evidence “may” prove things.

The kid spread religion online. God killed him for it. Pope makes him a saint. God facepalms and says “How many more kids do I have to kill to show you that you should stop wasting time in church and just be a good person”.