The existence of the divine is unfalsifiable, so it cannot be rationally proven or disproven. Still, something may exist even if it cannot be proven. Some classical arguments do not prove God outright, but may make the existence of a creator slightly more probable than not. The strongest of these is the cosmological argument: since the universe appears not to be eternal, it suggests a cause or creator beyond it. If such a creator exists, then the creator is not identical to what is created. Therefore, nature is not God.

Yes, but you can’t say that you made money before the sum of the dividends and the reselling price is superior to the buying price. If you invest 100€, the probability to loose 100€ is small; but to loose some of these 100€ not so much. If you invest well, the probability to lose money at all may be small, but if you gamble intelligently on sports it is too.

It’s the same equation: more risk=more potential profit, less risk=less potential profit. I fail to see the difference with gambling.

So, not unlike sport gambling. You study the teams, their forces and weaknesses, their history, and make the informed decision to gamble. It’s still gambling.

And sometimes is even contradictory. The Danish Left party is right-wing (agrarian conservative), the French Radicals are centrists. These names have historic causes, but it’s still confusing.

That’s why you can click on “Hide infrastructure”, it then shows only $135B in revenue (for $1.2T spent).

https://isaiprofitable.com/

Yes technically. Practically some software would be objectively awful without a graphical interface, like image modification.

You pointed to China punishing corruption as evidence of “your capitalist country” having “less corruption.”

No, I didn’t. I say two things but never used the first as a proof of the second. For someone who tries to look like an intellectual, you seem have reading troubles… like when you thought that I said that classes don’t exist while I said the contrary.

we are talking about class, not income, which is not useful for our purposes at all

It is though as, on average, higher classes have higher incomes.

Also not sure why you abandoned the point about large industry and administration being necessary, did you just silently concede that point?

Because it’s irrelevant. The question about the necessity or not of hierarchies is an other debate. Something can be bad and inescapable at the same time.

This is absurd.

It would be right? It’s not what I did.

it equates income to class which is just wrong.

It’s in theory. In practice it’s a good way to have data. Not perfect data, but meaningful trends.

Don’t hate who you envy.

Socialist countries simply do not face the same scale of problems with corruption as capitalist countries.

Hundred of thousands of trials for corruption 63 years after the foundation of the People Republic (this declaration is from 2012)… it does look like a pretty huge scale to me. There’s corruption in my capitalist country, but far less than in China.

is in actual fact a result of differences in class

In fact, both play a role.

It’s totally wishful thinking. Even Xi Jinping recognized that corruption was an “existential threat” for China. Or isn’t China socialist?

Socialist countries simply do not face the same scale of problems with corruption as capitalist countries.

Wishful thinking, again.

Administration is not the enemy, class is.

Both are.

I still wait for one of you to answer to the message were I post actual scientific papers. It would be more constructive than designing strawmen.

And you still do that, apparently.

Yes, but did that changed how the brain worked?

You can repeat “supernatural” as much as you want, I’m still speaking about scientific facts. Different experiences shape the functioning of the brain differently, there’s nothing magical with that.

How is class an “interesting theory?”

That’s not what I said. I said that the fact that a new mode of production will change the way the practice of power change the the biological functioning of the brain is an interesting theory. Of course classes exist.

It’s an interesting theory. But without a study in an other mode of production, it’s wishful thinking… and to hope for a new mode of production to change how the brain works, and in such a deep level, is not a very credible one. Moreover, it’s not relevant for communist organization within capitalism.