Interesting. A first-person shooter is the view from the perspective of the shooter. A third person shooter is the view from a neutral party - a camera watching the action.

A second-person shooter would be from the viewpoint of those being shot by the protagonist.

A telepathic assassin. You read the mind(s) of your target(s), and somehow use their eyes to kill them.

That sure musta been something. I can only imagine.

Securities tax, payable in shares of the security. 1% of all stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments transferred to the IRS annually, to be auctioned slowly over time. The first $10 million held by a natural person may be exempted from this requirement. No exemptions for artificial “persons”.

Sadly, he is. This is what the enemy looks like. It is simply not possible to ethically acquire even a tenth of the wealth that he hoards for himself. The damage he has caused in acquiring and retaining that wealth is far greater than his net worth.

The sooner he starts his redemption arc, the better.

Gabe and Swift are not obligate billionaires. They both have the capacity to adjust their wealth to avoid the cutoff.

That violates the very first Rule of Acquisition. You clearly don’t have the lobes for business.

My Canadian girlfriend.

In establishing universal healthcare and universal basic income, we will do more to solve violence problems than any gun-centric approach ever could.

Aircraft turned away from you while climbing away, making it appear stationary. Kick on some afterburners, and it’ll take off like a bat out of hell in front of a 200’ flame.

Government is also the entity that will be prosecuting/persecuting you when they don’t like what you have to say.

The more complex answer is that the stock market at this point is just a speculative mess where numbers are made up because the price isn’t dictated by what the company is currently capable of doing but rather what the company potentially could be doing in thue future.

You seem to be under the impression it was ever anything else.

So are most people.

Reviews are one of the things that online storefront platforms consider in their algorithms. More reviews means their algorithm pushes my listings in front of a few more faces, and I get to make a little more money.

I don’t ask for reviews myself. The people who do are trying to game their platform’s algorithms.

I’m pro-abortion with few limited exceptions.

If you’re under 30 in today’s society, statistically, you are not economically prepared to adequately provide for a child. Choosing to have a child before 30 is tantamount to neglect, both of that child and of any future children you may decide to have.

All children deserve to be planned and prepared for. Finding yourself unexpectedly pregnant, the only reasonable decision is abortion.

Blocked.

and part of that is that adults absolutely do buy stupid status symbols to flex on each other.

Exactly. And when they do, we don’t say “Well, that’s just what humanity does”.

We say “Despise these covetous pricks”.

I use “philosophy” to mean one’s individual, personal relationship with reality: how they choose to interact with the world around them. I understand this is a somewhat atypical use. There is probably a better word for that concept. It eludes me at this time.

As I used the term, “Christian teachings” (etc.) would only qualify as a philosophy if the individual actually adheres to those tenets. If not, those teachings are just a work of fiction.

There certainly are “striking similarities” throughout the the populace and time. My point is that we don’t need to accept, excuse, explain, or tolerate those widespread behaviors simply because they are widespread. As I see it, “Human nature” is a slightly more egalitarian synonym for “boys will be boys”.

What’s the culture where people don’t covet meaningless status symbols?

While there are numerous examples of such philosophies and cultures around the globe, I don’t actually need to identify such a culture to demonstrate my point.

If one can remain human without engaging in this behavior, this behavior is not a characteristic of the human condition.

The question before you is whether the members of such a hypothetical culture are inhuman specifically because they do not engage in that covetous behavior.

The abhorrent behaviors being described are conditions of ideas held by certain members of the species. The species is not lessened by the rejection of such ideas. The “certain members” are lessened by their adherence to those ideas.

Don’t pretend we’ve ever been better than that as a species.

Will you make the argument that people who refuse to follow such fashion trends are somehow inhuman?

If you are unwilling to make such an argument, I will not accept your premise that this is a trait of the “species”.

What you (and the parent comment) are describing is a characteristic of certain childish behaviors, philosophies and cultures.

The sophomoric behavior of these geriatric children is not an indictment of humanity in general.

Those aren’t adults. Those are geriatric children.