sure, it based itself upon slavery and excluded most people from the process of governance but for those who were counted as citizens it was every part a democracy.

as with offline therapy the ethics vary depending upon execution. for instance, whether a therapist discloses the unique security and privacy risks of online therapy is not especially different from whether a therapist discloses the general security and privacy risks of offline therapy (e.g. insurance claims, note taking and storage, colleague consultations, research information gathering, etc.). similarly, whether a therapist informs and avails themselves of adequate secure online data transmission options is similar to whether a therapist informs and avails themselves of adequate offline security options (e.g. office location, reception practices, etc.). and so forth.

hate speech fundamentally incites violence.

that deconstructionism is compatible with my nihilistic perspective does not entail that they are the same. there are deconstructionists who are not nihilists, for whom my deconstructionist position on globalism could be of interest. moreover, not everyone is so closed-minded to suppose that perspectives are uninteresting merely because they are different.

your misidentification of philosophical positions and disinterest in engaging those who disagree with you is not at all convincing to anyone other than people who share in your misinformed disinterest.

my original point was not that the visage of unity serves well enough for nations, cities, and towns. my point was that unity is a visage and does not exist. also nations, cities, and towns do not exist.

ah, well fair enough then. tho im afraid i cant do much more with that since i don't understand how it connects up with globalism being viable.

no. ihdk why u even think it could be enough.

a 'global state' will only ever be a visage of unification, just as current non-global states are and always have been.

in defense of ur rep, hummingbirds are better than humans