Also, it’s been awhile but don’t plastic bags make it easier to carry more things at once because the handles are so thin and flexible? And I don’t remember handles ever ripping on plastic grocery bags.

If the math works out in favor of charging for bags it would imply that the margin is incredibly thin in the literal sense of the word incredible. Like the average purchase has so little profit that 10 cents per bag is meaningful? What is the average profit on a bag of items or on an average purchase? Surely more than 10 cents, no? Like I know grocery stores are notoriously low margin, but that’s among businesses it’s not almost 0 in an absolute sense.

But having to bring your own bags limits how much you can buy. If someone has a plan to just use their own bags, they will likely forgo purchases at a higher rate than if the bag is not in the equation for them.

It's not obvious to me that the buying limit effect sales decrease would not outweigh the savings on physical bag purchases. Maybe I'm not following?

Is there evidence of this?

This is one of those things where I’d love to get on board with the popular view but I haven’t found evidence that anything beyond a sit in was intended and the arguments seem to be floating in air if you follow them down to their root. But I haven’t done that much research so I’d appreciate if you could share what makes you think this, thanks!

My understanding is that Austria was the Germans who ended up running a multi ethnic empire ruling over Slavs also, while Germany was the Germans who didn’t do that.

Then once the Austrian empire fell apart only the German part was left in “Austria” and it basically has no reason to be separate from Germany anymore because the Slavs are no longer part of the same territory and there is no “top of the caste system” benefit anymore to the Germans there.

Feel free to chime in if I’m wrong. I’ve found topics related to Germany to be hard to actually figure out due to a lot of morality noise that gets injected into those topics (the Nazis wanted to unify and Nazis bad etc stuff like that).

* If it’s an interactive conversation, anyway

If you stop financially supporting guy A and sincerely apologize to guy B, and guy B continues to be pissed at you, THEN you can act like he is unreasonable and take steps to protect yourself, even if those steps hurt guy B.

You can’t pretend guy A is blameless and act confused why guy B is pissed at you, which is what is happening in real life.

If it’s the latter (like it is in reality, AFAICT), I would first do some serious reflection about my friend.

It’s not that war in general is stupid, it’s that the wars America has gotten involved in for a long time now have all been stupid.

Right, they did. But in retrospect, was it actually?

If the US had stayed neutral from the beginning, do we think Japan would have bombed America's military base?

First one is definitely true and isn’t emphasized much and tbh I feel like that demand wasn’t unreasonable. Shipping people and things and providing defense would be a lot harder to an exclave than to contiguous territory. They did seriously overreact by invading, of course, and it seems like Mr H had some serious temperamental issues.

Second one I’ve never researched enough to know if it’s true or German propaganda.

I don’t recall the Germans ever claiming that Poland was about to invade them? Maybe I missed it.

Human food preferences are also just an idea by this standard.

A hunter gatherer tribe failing to defend its territory could result in its death just the same as not acquiring and eating appropriate food.

The feeling of defending territory is natural and is not words

Only what constitutes the territory to defend has been warped by words.

I can’t be like “it was self defense” if I beat somebody up because they are getting too big at the gym and they could beat me up later if I don’t beat them up first.

That doesn’t mean such a thing is never ever justified, in international relations, it just ain’t “defense”.

However, if I think through what this process would look like under modern living arrangements, what would happen? Intensified serial polygamy with a massive increase in single motherhood? Full on polygamy?

Our social structures aren’t really set up to handle that. It seems like it would be so bad for society that I wouldn’t really say men are “disposable” under the current arrangement. More like they are the roof and women are the foundation, maybe.

It’s better to lose your roof than your foundation, sure, but losing your roof is still really bad. It does not really compare to, say, throwing out a paper coffee cup.