Total posts: 112
-->
@Moozer325
I see. I’m no expert on this either, I’ve probably spent less than an hour researching this topic but from the little I have read “the actions that triggered this event” are the following:
1. Arabs and Jews have been living there for centuries under the control of the British, Ottoman and other empires.
2. After the Holocaust and after being pushed around from country to country it was decided that the European Jews definitely needed some place to go. It was decided by the UN that this place is nowdays Israel where theres already a lot of jews residing for centuries living with the arabs.
3. Israel and almost every other country agreed to a two state solution and Israel agreed to occupy only 20% of the land. At that time there was no country such as Palestine so they were not really taking anything from the Palestinians. The way I see it, if the land was under the control of the British it was theirs to give if they decided to.
4. The arab community basically refused and started a war which it lost, then it was followed by other muslim countries invading Israel (unsuccessfully) and this process of starting and losing wars resulted to loss of a lot of territory (and obviously other misfortunes)
5. Now apparently they agree to a two state solution but Israel refuses maybe because they feel they cant trust them anymore and living together is not possible.
This is very shortly and dumbly summarized and theres obviously a lot of events in between but if Im wrong about something anyone feel free to correct me. Im sure its probably more complicated than that. (Im most definitely wrong or misinformed about something, like I said I haven’t researched too much)
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
...horrible violence, but Israel kinda had it coming...
Could you elaborate, I'm not too informed on the subject btw so I'm not being sarcastic or something like that. Did Israel "had it coming" because they are there unrightfully or did they "had it coming" because they retaliated with too much force. And by "horrible violence" Im assuming we are referring to Oct 7th?
Created:
Posted in:
So scientists can be wrong or corrupted same as everyone else about everything else. Whats the big news?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Ok it is not a fact, are you capable of moving past that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Ok then lets say you’re not a troll. Do you want to learn anything about evolution or do you want to talk about the word “theory” and what does it mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
@Double_R
You guys really think there’s still a chance he will get it?
He is either fucking with us or his brain cannot process the information given to him. Either way its a waste of time imo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Hurry up and disprove that because I have more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Evidence for common descent.
What is a scientific method.
Phylogenetics.
Morphological parahomology
Molecular parahomology
Morphological analogy
Molecular analogy
Morphological suboptimality
Molecular suboptimality
Irreducible complexity and suboptimality
Protein functional redundancy
DNA functional redundancy
Transposons
Redundant pseudogenes
Endogenous retroviruses
Intermediate and transitional forms
Reptile-birds
Reptile-mammals
Ape-humans
Legged whales
Legged seacows
Chronology of common ancestors
Anatomical vestigial structures
Positive evidence demonstrates lack of functionality
Negative evidence is scientific when controlled
Atavisms
Newborn babies with tails
Molecular vestigial structures
Ontogeny and developmental biology
Present biogeography
Past biogeography
Change and Mutability
Feast your eyes upon facts. Empirical facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
In your recent debate about evolution you say this probably referring to this thread.
I thought so. It is a theory like I said. Everyone that has denied that, recant and agree with me.
Nobody has denied that evolution is a theory. It is a scientific theory. I am very inclined to believe at this point that you could be an atheist troll who is trying to make “believers” (or idk who) look bad because theres no way so many people explained to you so simply what the difference between “scientific theory” and “everyday theory” is and you still dont get it. We explained to you how something to be established as scientific theory it needs to be based on confirmed empirical observations and experiments (aka f-a-c-t-s). Now the reason I think you are a troll is because you have failed to respond or acknowledge anything anyone has said to you and you have continued to ask the same question without showing any intentions of engaging with the information presented to you and digging your feet into the mud being stuck on the question “but whats a theory”. Even after I told you I will give you for the sake of the argument that evolution is not a fact you refused to move on with the conversation and explore it which shows me you never actually read a single book about evolution so you cannot have any real questions about it.. What kind of questions can you ask me if you cant understand the definition of “scientific theory” because it has the word “theory” in it. Am I to expect that after we move past this, if at all, you will then start asking me actual questions about evolution? If you were an honest person, you would have moved past what scientists define as scientific theory because thats not up to debate and thats a term with already established definition in the field if science and thats how they use it and thats how we use it too. Or like I said you are simply trolling
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Mall
@FLRW
@Double_R
You ain't gonna be able to handle any more questions
Yes, God is my witness that I cannot take any more questions about whats “theory” from you, especially after 5 more people explained it to you too multiple times in detail. You are right about that. We are all wrong (sorry guys but its time to admit we were all lying to him and we got our stories mixed up thats why we “contradict” each other )
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I think you concede on there being no evidence for that
Absolutely ! I was actually lying about everything but you saw through conspiracies ! Everything I said about Evolution is wrong and human came from Adam and Eve . I’ll know not to try to fool you again ! Thanks for the discussion 👍
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Wont discuss what theory means with you anymore, like I said lets assume you are right for the sake of your argument and we say Evolution is not a fact and theory is just a guess.
Now you can start asking me questions about this “guess” and see if my answers make sense.
You said yes to the question that empiricism is involved in science. How do we get empirical input of a thing that has become a complete man?
Evolution (definition) :
“change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.”
The theory of evolution explain how does that work:
-Through random mutations and Natural selection .
Everything we know about random mutations and natural selection and how it leads to change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations is based on observations that later became facts. How they became facts? I will copy what I told you already earlier:
1. Observation: Scientists observe patterns…
2. Hypothesis: They propose a hypothesis to explain the observations,…
3. Testing: Scientists conduct experiments, gather data, and analyze evidence to test the hypothesis.
(EMPIRICAL)
4. Peer Review: The research and findings undergo rigorous evaluation by other experts in the field.
5. Consistency and Predictability: The hypothesis must consistently explain the observed data and make accurate predictions.
6. Broad Consensus: If the hypothesis is supported by a large body of evidence and is widely accepted by the scientific community, it can be elevated to a scientific theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I am not sure if you’re trolling at this point but its obvious that for some reason you cannot understand what scientific theory is even if its spelled out for you.
So instead of going in circles I will give you for the sake of the argument that Evolution is not proven as a fact and its just a guess. Now lets see if this guess is true or not. Tell me what you know about evolution and where do you see the problems with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Relax brother . Let's have a laid back exchange
Im relaxed and we are having a laid back exchange. If my use of capital letters made it look like Im not relaxed sorry. When I type certain things in caps its just because Im trying to focus your attention on a specific words. Im just too lazy to put it in bold sometimes so caps is faster. For example when we keep talking about scientific theory and you keep leaving the word “scientific” out of your questions I have to start putting SCIENTIFIC in caps.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Don't you agree with the point that "theory" is another word for fact?
I have answered that question. No.
The word “theory” on its own is not a synonym for “fact”, its a synonym for “an idea or hypothesis”.
“Scientific theory” is also not a synonym for a “fact” but consists of our best explanations for certain FACTS so it could be considered as a fact. But the definition of “scientific theory” is more than that as mentioned before
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
OK, sentience just evolved. Like a bird beak
Yeah, although not sure if it was exactly like a bird beak. Maybe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Well Evolution does not deal with that specific question precisely but it does give us some ideas. I dont know much about it so if someone here has more education in neuro science or evolutionary biology they can probably give a better answer. From my understanding evolutionary biology suggests that over time, our ancestors underwent changes that led to the development of larger and more complex brains. These changes allowed for the emergence of higher cognitive functions, such as self-awareness and complex thought. The evolution of sentience may have been driven by factors like the need to navigate social interactions and solve problems. As humans developed the ability to communicate and cooperate, our brains and cognitive abilities continued to evolve, leading to the development of language, culture, and advanced thinking skills. There’s obviously a lot more details to this and every factor can be analyzed separately. From social interactions and problem-solving, the development of tools and technology, the ability to create and use tools allowed our ancestors to manipulate their environment and solve problems more effectively, which likely contributed to the growth of their cognitive abilities.
Additionally, environmental pressures and challenges could have played a role. Adapting to different habitats, climates, and food sources would have required increased cognitive flexibility and problem-solving skills. This constant need to adapt and survive could have driven the evolution of our cognitive abilities. Also we had to get smart since we are not really the perfect predators and we cant hunt successfully with our small teeth and nails alone. We had to learn to co operate.
It's also worth considering the role of natural selection. Traits that enhanced cognitive abilities, such as increased memory, problem-solving skills, and social intelligence, may have provided individuals with a survival advantage, leading to their increased prevalence in future generations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
So the "theory"of evolution is not very well known or is it just rejected?
Theory of Evolution is one of the most solid theories in science . It is well known and it is accepted from all of the scientific community. Endless number of scientist have tried to disprove it as part of the testing process but nobody has succeed in "rejecting it". It is proven by biology, geology, paleontology, chemistry, comparative anatomy, embryology , biogeography and more. It is so well established and known that if you throw half of the evidence it will still be one of the most coherent and verified theories.
Do religions just reject this "fact" or are religious folks just ignorant to it?
I wont speculate why they reject it. They are multiple reasons. Some do some don't. Some Christians do some don't. Christians who deny evolution are mostly the people who take the bible literally and reject all kind of science that contradicts the Bible (even hard proof). Those religious people I speculate are very likely a minority and are mainly in USA. The fundamentalists. I might be wrong about the statistics tho.
The "theory" (fact) of water being wet is pretty widely accepted. But this "fact" of evolution is not, why?
Evolution is accepted and it is rejected mainly by Muslims and fundamental Christians like protestants. I wont make any guesses about other religions. Ill leave the water being wet for someone else to answer.
When you talk about science, does that involve empiricism?
Yes. Science does involve empiricism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes you’re correct, although I wouldn’t say the string theory is a “scientific theory” in the same way. It is not our best observation / description of what it tries to explain and its just a theoretical framework still very far away from being established as the “theories” discussed here.
In the scientific community, “theories” like the string theory are considered as promising ideas that have the potential to explain fundamental aspects of the universe, but they require further investigation to establish them as widely accepted theories.
I guess Im strictly talking about established scientific theories like the ones mentioned here and I think we all established that other things can be called theories too without being facts. Im just trying to explain to him what theory can mean in scientific terms , dont need to confuse him more with string theory lol
Lets just add “established” infront of “scientific theory“ so theres nobody confused
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Brother….. for the hundred time.. SCIENTIFIC THEORY is a fact yes. The word “theory” outside of science means something else.Scientific theory is a term which is used by scientists to explain BODY OF FACTS AND WHAT they mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
That makes no sense. I told you there are multiple other scientific theories that are facts as well. And outside of the scientific field when you use “theory” in an everyday conversation, normal people mean “an idea” by that. The difference between scientific theory and theory is that the first is a term used by scientists that means more than a mere idea. Scientific theories were first an idea, then a hypothesis, then they were tested and tried to be falsified etc, eventually if it passes all the experiments, if the hypothesis has been verified, scientists have gathered vast amounts of evidence and facts , they can establish a scientific theory. I hope you now understand how what you mean by theory and what science means by theory is not the same thing. When I say I have a theory of how to make money out of funny shaped rocks this is not the same as when scientists talk about scientific theories.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Yes, same thing. Saying Evolution or Theory of Evolution has absolutely no difference.
But everything outside of that conveniently is not a fact when it's called a theory.
Everything outside of what and what is everything that is not a fact and is a scientific theory ? Please remember the word “scientific” which is in-front of “theory”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Remember, before you say something of the sorts of “hhaaaa see it says “guess” in the definition of hypothesis so therefore the whole theory is a guess”
The creation of the hypothesis comes from an idea yes but thats only a part of the process. The beginning. Also this idea has to be grounded on something like we said. After that it has to be tested and verified to be considered a reasonable hypothesis and to move forward to the other stages of becoming a coherent scientific theory. At the end after its confirmed and tried to be disproved unsuccessfully by the scientific community it is established as a theory that describes something of our world. Based on facts. Like the fact that atomic bombs work and they are based on the atomic theory that describes atoms and how they work. Atomic theory is still “a theory” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Atomic theory is a fact and if you knew a little bit about evolution you would know that it is even better established that all of the other theories that you probably have no problem in believing. Like the germ theory. I hope you agree germs exist. We know that from a THEORY that seems pretty damn accurate so far considering we have no problem curing thousands of diseases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Its also relevant what is a hypothesis while we are on the topic.
“Hypothesis” - an educated guess or explanation for an observation or phenomenon. It is a proposed solution to a problem or a tentative explanation for a particular event or situation. A hypothesis is typically formulated based on existing knowledge and is used as a starting point for further investigation or experimentation.
“Scientific hypothesis” - a tentative, testable explanation for an observation or phenomenon in the natural world. It is an educated guess or prediction about how something works or why it occurs.
Some key characteristics of a scientific hypothesis are:
1. Testability: A hypothesis must be possible to test through observation, measurement, and experimentation. It should make predictions that can be verified or falsified.
2. Logical reasoning: A hypothesis should be based on existing scientific knowledge, logical inferences, and rational thinking. It should not be merely a wild guess or speculation.
3. Specificity: A good hypothesis is narrow in scope and focuses on a specific relationship or explanation for a particular observation or problem.
4. Falsifiability: A hypothesis must be possible to disprove or show to be false through empirical investigation. If a hypothesis cannot be tested and potentially refuted, it is not considered a valid scientific hypothesis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Thanks for accepting! So, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory that explains how species change over time through the process of natural selection and random mutations. In science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation based on evidence and observations. It goes through several stages to become a scientific theory:
1. Observation: Scientists observe patterns or phenomena in the natural world, like the diversity of species.
2. Hypothesis: They propose a hypothesis to explain the observations, like the idea that species change over time.
3. Testing: Scientists conduct experiments, gather data, and analyze evidence to test the hypothesis.
4. Peer Review: The research and findings undergo rigorous evaluation by other experts in the field.
5. Consistency and Predictability: The hypothesis must consistently explain the observed data and make accurate predictions.
6. Broad Consensus: If the hypothesis is supported by a large body of evidence and is widely accepted by the scientific community, it can be elevated to a scientific theory.
Now, the term "theory" in everyday language can mean a guess or speculation. But in science, a theory is different. It's a comprehensive explanation that is backed by substantial evidence and has stood up to rigorous testing and scrutiny. For example, the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity are well-established theories with overwhelming evidence, even though we use the term "theory." They are indeed a fact. Like I said in science the word theory is used as a highest standard of certainty since the next step would be to claim absolute truth with no room for improvement which scientists don’t do because they are not ignorant.
It's not just a random guess, but a well-supported explanation that has shaped our understanding of the natural world. Grounded on facts. Facts.
1. Observation: Scientists observe patterns or phenomena in the natural world, like the diversity of species.
2. Hypothesis: They propose a hypothesis to explain the observations, like the idea that species change over time.
3. Testing: Scientists conduct experiments, gather data, and analyze evidence to test the hypothesis.
4. Peer Review: The research and findings undergo rigorous evaluation by other experts in the field.
5. Consistency and Predictability: The hypothesis must consistently explain the observed data and make accurate predictions.
6. Broad Consensus: If the hypothesis is supported by a large body of evidence and is widely accepted by the scientific community, it can be elevated to a scientific theory.
Now, the term "theory" in everyday language can mean a guess or speculation. But in science, a theory is different. It's a comprehensive explanation that is backed by substantial evidence and has stood up to rigorous testing and scrutiny. For example, the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity are well-established theories with overwhelming evidence, even though we use the term "theory." They are indeed a fact. Like I said in science the word theory is used as a highest standard of certainty since the next step would be to claim absolute truth with no room for improvement which scientists don’t do because they are not ignorant.
It's not just a random guess, but a well-supported explanation that has shaped our understanding of the natural world. Grounded on facts. Facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Atheism is a form of theismThis is amazingAbstinence is a form of sex
Ignorance is a form of knowledge and silence is a form of noise
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Mall
Atheism refers to THEISM. Theism refers to god as creator or designer or ruler of the universe. ALL ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN GODS OF THIS KIND. It does not matter if the Sun is your God and I know the sun exists. I still believe the sun exists but i dont believe the sun exist as a GOD. Theres no atheists that are THEISTS. If you are a theist you believe in a creator and thats what god is. EVERY KIND OF OTHER DEFINITION OF GOD is irrelevant to atheism and theism. So the answer to your question do atheists believe in gods will always be NO. If they do they are not atheists. If you define god as something else like drugs,sex,sun,jupiter, doesn’t matter, we are no longer talking about atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yeah I agree with that, thats why I was confused why people are not understanding what atheism really is. This word play with what god is and what is considered to be god to some people and then that it exist is just waste of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Can a atheist become a beliver ?And.Can A believer become Atheists?
Yeah
Created:
Posted in:
I have skipped through most of this thread so can someone let me know why the answer to the question “do atheists believe in gods” is yes and no? It should be no all the time unless you define god as something else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Your question is absurd. Do atheists believe no gods exist? Yes, some believe no gods exists which is positive or gnostic atheism and some (mostly all) atheist are simply not convinced by the theistic concepts presented to them so far. Your question should be “Does atheism say no gods exist”. The answer to that is no. Atheism does not make any positive claims by itself and does not deny the possibility of the existence of god or gods. It simply means this person is “not convinced by the evidence for God and withholds believe at this moment”. Some atheists can have stronger opinions and claim that not only they dont believe but they KNOW god doesn’t exist which is bs but anyway. The definition of atheism is very simple and if you are not convinced theres a god you are an atheist. Literally anything else that you can add to this will be not about atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
We are constantly bombarded with claims that Theism is illogical, irrational, and unscientific, but none of those spiritual detractors will ever debate it, not ever.
I’ll debate you
Created:
Posted in:
Its good for bringing attention to the boxing world.
On the other hand it doesn’t matter who will win because
1.its most likely rigged
2.special rules might be in their contracts so it will be like exhibition
3. Tyson is old as shit
4. Jake Paul is irrelevant in the boxing world except for bringing money and attention for the sport
Created:
Posted in:
Lol
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
USSR had more soldiers than Germany had bullets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I guess I could agree that racism can occur due to natural occurrences (pattern recognition + some bad experiences) and/or unnatural occurrences (propaganda, brainwashing or different influences)
Created:
Posted in:
Pattern recognition does not have to lead to racism but it’s undeniable that it exists as part of our evolution
Racism is related
pattern recognition is closely linked to our brain's ability to process information ... This process relies on various cognitive functions … While there may be individual differences in the strength or efficiency of these cognitive processes, pattern recognition is a fundamental aspect of human cognition that has evolved over time.
We have evolved to recognize patterns
- I never said racism is natural, I said pattern recognition is.
- If pattern recognition leads to racism or not is debatable and will vary depending upon the situation. Other factors can make someone racist too. (Example: propaganda, bad experience, brainwashing, cultural environment, etc.)
- Even if racism was natural I already answered the question “why doesn’t everyone do it” and you didn’t address a single thing about it. So again, while pattern recognition is a natural cognitive process, the extent to which individuals excel at it can vary. Some people may have a natural talent or inclination for pattern recognition, while others may need more practice or training to develop this skill. It's similar to how some people have a natural talent for music or sports, while others may need more practice to excel. As for other examples of natural processes that not everyone does, one could be critical thinking. Critical thinking involves analyzing information, evaluating arguments, and making reasoned judgments. While it's a natural cognitive process, not everyone actively engages in critical thinking in their everyday lives. It's a skill that can be developed with practice. So, while these processes are natural, their development and application can vary from person to person.
- “You saying the words "suck at it" is indicative of a lack of or without but something natural is within. ”. Weird that thats the only thing you addressed, obviously I used that expression metaphorically and if you want me to reword it literally I would say exactly what I said first but you wanted it simplified so that’s what it is. People’s natural cognitive functions work on different levels and are based on their environment too.
- When dogs hear the loud fireworks during New Year’s Celebrations its natural for them to get confused or scared. Meanwhile you can have a dog that’s used to them, has been exposed to them before, knows what that sound is, and is not scared. That doesn’t make the hiding of the other dogs unnatural. Can they be trained? Yes. Does that make their first initial reaction unnatural? No. Could you say metaphorically that they sucked at first at not being scared of the fireworks? Yes. Does “suck at it” means that they lacked something natural? No, actually the opposite. They reacted naturally before they were thought to not be scared. Loud unidentified noise=potential danger. The brain registering a potential danger=the natural reaction of being scared. Same cognitive functions are happening in human brains. If you interact with 20 new people every day (10 red and 10 blue) you can eventually see that 6/10 of the red people that you have met so far were on average 6”3 and 8/10 of the blue people were Australians. The next time you see a blue person your brain knows theres 80% chance he is Australian based on your history. If someone tells you they are expecting a red person to walk in any minute your brain will automatically predict its likely to be a tall person above 6”. Are some people worse and some better at this? Yes. Can it be improved with training? Irrelevant, bc it would still be something thats natural.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
In other words, specifically layman's.....it's not natural.
….
I mean let's simplify all this to get an understanding of the bottom line.
Well I think to understand something you need to do the opposite and talk about it in detail and not simplify it. But if you must simplify it, I would put it like this. Racism is related (not solely but largely) to pattern recognition and survival instincts. Both natural. The reason why some people don’t have it is just bc they suck at it.
Another example outside of pattern recognition is any other cognitive process. Like “planning”. Our brains engage in complex decision-making, problem-solving, and organizing information. Why some people suck at planning? Obviously there’s perfectly reasonable and scientific explanation for that and its not bc “planning” is not natural. Same goes for “pattern recognition”. Just because some people suck at it doesn’t mean it’s not natural for the general population of the human race. Pattern recognition does not have to lead to racism but it’s undeniable that it exists as part of our evolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
WhY don't we all do this?
“In terms of the science behind it, pattern recognition is closely linked to our brain's ability to process information and make connections between different stimuli. It involves the integration of sensory input and the activation of neural networks that help us identify and interpret patterns. This process relies on various cognitive functions, including perception, attention, memory, and learning. While there may be individual differences in the strength or efficiency of these cognitive processes, pattern recognition is a fundamental aspect of human cognition that has evolved over time.“
Via quick google search
Created:
Age of Empires 2, Age of Mythology and Lord of the Rings Battle for Middle Earth 2 are goated for me.
Created:
Eh, I have played some strategy games, but I usually think that most of them suffer from "military first" North Korean policy type of gameplay.
Could be the case. I haven’t played enough games to know. I haven’t even played HOI4 I’ve just heard it’s good and Ive been eyeing it. When Ive played strategy games I used to go for more basic and mainstream ones like Age of Empires. HOI is not the same type of strategy game but I still might try it.
Created:
Posted in:
They dont have to prove it to themselves but if they want to convince someone else its a different story.. God by definition is not possible to be proven unless he decides to interact with us and come down to Earth but I guess he gave up on that.
Created:
An adult should never have sex with a child because it could give child a disease.
Alongside with many other reasons why adults should stay away from kids but yea overall you made the right choice.
Created:
Why not. Beauty is subjective, art is subjective. Anyone who finds anything beautiful to them can call it art. Maybe not anything because “art” requires some kind of “expression or application of human creative skill and imagination” by definition but you get my point.
Created:
If you’re into grant strategy games probably. I’ve heard its pretty good but haven’t given it a chance yet.
Also I think only countries with growing populations and need for extra resources should try to extend their borders. There could be exceptions but that should be the main reason
Created: