🤣🤣🤣 that made me laugh out loud.

Don't be fooled by the UK, public transport in the UK is awful.

The one on the right was great in Wrong Turn 3.

It would be for the best, but tbh, the primates would just pick up where we left off.

They already do;

https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/26/orangutan-was-shaved-made-to-wear-jewellery-and-used-as-a-prostitute-8179714/

I can't find any links but I'm pretty sure I heard of chimps and orangutans being used in factories, might not be true though.

They're incredible creatures, I wonder how long it'll be before they start to create and build things, maybe small huts, houses, shelters.

I'm fairly certain we could teach them how to build and they'd remember it and pass down the knowledge.

Whether or not they're successful, chimps and orangutans organising things and building tools is crazy, they're basically primitive people.

Orangutans and chimps use spears.

Orangutans use spears to hunt fish.

Chimps wage wars against eachother. Full on wars, with designated battlegrounds.

Or as I call it...

Chice

Or the Cheshire cat from Alice: madness returns.

No, no, I don't think i will.

It's not impossible, you just need to keep practicing every day, it'll take about a year before you're at a point where you can play chords cleanly.

Your finger tips will hurt for a few months until you build calluses, and it's gonna be slow for a while, but once you play your first song, you'll love it.

"Hello, might I interest you in some almost cheese? "

Wtf dude I still do this? Can people not do this?

You were both great in "Charmed" and "The Craft"

I say it's an anemic pirate.

No one said it was "all about collectivism"

What is being said is that collectivism is a common theme within Chinese philosophy, which it is.

A good example of this is religion within China.

Buddhism and Daoism- both about helping others, and being communal, the collective outweighs the singular.

Abrahamic religions - about individualism, helping others is minimal, the singular outweighs the collective.

Also; Yang Zhu was regarded as a hedonist, not a philosopher, and was an outlier.

Much like we have people who believe in communism in the west, there's individuals in China who follow capitalist ideals. That doesn't make capitalism the majority belief within China, and doesn't make communism the majority in the west.

That's like saying "well, there's billionaores in the west so everyone is a billionaire", that's not how it works.

You seem to believe that a few individuals within a society believing something the rest of that society doesn't, suddenly makes that society about that individuals beliefs.

Again; not even close.

The entire meaning is "neither of us stands a chance if one of us fails, thus you don't find them hoarding-" it could be literally anything.

They used rice and agriculture as an example because it's the easiest to follow.

Their point was that hoarding and sabotaging in Chinese philosophy causes negative effects to everyone involved.

Read what they put again, but replace the word water with money, or houses, or cars, or literally anything.

In China, there's laws that stop people hoarding property, among other things.

Their example and analogy wasn't in any way literal. You just read it that way, which is on you.

I'm still not sure where you got lost and why you don't understand, everyone else got it.

And no.

Western philosophy is capitalist and individualistic, based entirely on personal wealth and personal success.

In Western philosophy, it's all for one.

In Chinese philosophy, it's very much socialist and communal, based entirely on societal growth, communal wealth and communal succes.

Chinese philosophy is one for all.

Not even close.

Rice was not the reason, at all.

They used rice as an example of how the philosophy works, they weren't saying "it's this way because of rice".

I have no idea how you read it that way, no one else did, which is why you're being downvoted so hard, your take makes no sense.

The original comment was very, very easy to read and made sense, it very clearly wasn't what you think it was, at all.

The entire point of the original comment was a brief explanation using farmers as an example, rice is the most common grain there, so using rice farmers made the most sense.

Do you think it would've made sense to talk about Chinese society and how it works using olive farmers as an example? No. Because the most common grain is rice.

You took it to a racist place yourself, for whatever reason.

You decided it was racist because you read rice and Chinese in the same sentence and created your own narrative.

the only one here who was racist was you.

Also; yes, their philosophy does differ from western philosophy, because Chinese philosophy hinges very heavily on everyone helping eachother. Western philosophy hinges very heavily on everyone helping themselves.

No? Wtf?

The example is "people help eachother because if one fails, they all fail"

Rice is the most common grain over there, it's absolutely not racist to use that as an example.

It's like saying "in Europe, people focus entirely on their wheat farms, and will hoard water to make others fail so they can gain more profit."

That's not a racist thing to say, and I don't see how you couldn't see the example, it's pretty racist of you to make that leap tbh.

Race against musk?

I didn't realise the smell in France had gotten that bad.

If it's stupid, but it works, then it isn't stupid.

Country - a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.

Scotland - 790 Islands, and the mainland, nation of 5.46 million, £166 billion.

Northern Ireland - nation of 1.9 million, £49 billion

Wales - nation of 3.26 million, £98.3 billion.

England - nation of 56 million, £1.859 trillion.

They are different countries, moron.

You've provided 0 evidence supporting anything you're saying, I've provided multiple sources showing that they're countries.

Independence and embassies doesn't = a country.

Palestine isn't recognised by the U.N. but is obviously still a country.

1. She is the current ambassador of Scotland.

2. They all have ambassadors.

3. They are called embassies.

4. The Republic of Somaliland doesn't have an embassy, you think that's not a country? Bhutan doesn't have an embassy, is that not a country?

5. They are legitimate countries, they have borders, they have languages, completely different cultures, completely different people, different landscapes, different climates.

The amount of hatred each four countries has for eachother as well is very high.

If you went to Scotland wearing someone else's family tartan (tartan is a family crest, each tartan is unique and means something specific, usually a family name) you'd get the shit kicked out of you. Each Scottish family has a unique tartan.

They're completely different countries with different cultural rules, different languages, it would be very confusing for an east Englander to try to aclimate to Scottish life, the same couldn't be said for a new yorker in Texas.

An Irish person in Wales would experience a vast amount of cultural differences, the same could not be said of a Floridian in California.

The differences between the four countries are more drastic than the differences between Mexico and the U.S.

Just because you don't get that, doesn't make it not true.

cantons are similar to U.S. states.

Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales are all legitimate countries.

Look up each one, what does it say?

"Scotland/Northern Ireland/Wales/England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom"

You're a moron.

They literally do have embassies, what do you think international foreign affairs offices are?

Embassy - the official residence or O F F I C E S of an ambassador.

The ambassador of Scotland is Nicola Sturgeon.

However, because of the fact that the UK is a political alliance, most international affairs are dealt with as a whole instead of for each individual country.

You not understanding that says more about you being a fucking idiot.