anchor
stringlengths 100
28k
| negative
stringlengths 105
28k
|
|---|---|
This has nothing to do with being awkward.
The damage is done. You can either cap off this bad experience with a harsh criticism of the stylist (which is a difficult thing to do, even for extroverts) or just go home, live with it for a few weeks, and never go to that stylist against. What benefit will you gain from criticizing the stylist? Nothing...for all you know, most other people would love that haircut.
This is like when someone rear-ends you. You can very easily lose control of your emotions, make a scene, yell at them, and accuse them of being shitty drivers...but what will that solve? Damage is done. Sort out insurance and move on.
| Germany and Japan were on the "front lines" of the Cold War.
Germany literally was *the front line*, as it was divided between The Western Allies and the Soviets. An economically strong and stable West Germany was a top priority for this reason. The stronger and more successful 'free' West Germany became...the weaker East Germany and therefore the Soviet system would look by comparison.
Japan was an outpost in the other Cold War hot spot, East Asia. Rebuilding Japan was important because the United States wanted a long-term strategic partnership with the support of the Japanese people (the US was aware they couldn't simply occupy Japan forever). Look at Japan's location. It is an made up of islands and yet it is surrounded by places bordering the Soviet Union where communism was spreading...China, Korea, Indochina.
Italy was just a lower priority in the context of the Cold War because the US wasn't worried about the communists storming over the Alps. That said, Italy did receive substantial Marshall Plan aid. |
They knew it was fucked up. I was over there for my brother's birthday party and they just happened to mention that something was wrong with it. It was a complete pain in the ass just trying to download avast in the first place, pop-up after pop-up after pop-up.
I'm not really super technical when it comes to computers, so I just scanned it and had avast remove them and then did a full factory reset just to be on the safe side.
| It's all about habits. It is pretty fucking hard to go running after a bowl if that goes against every habit you've set up for yourself over the past 10 years.
Don't let your habits control you, always be ready to break out and make new, awesomer habits. |
>No one should be blaming you if they got stolen
Can you actually *read* my original comment? I'm not victim blaming, but that doesn't mean we should defend people's ignorance. They don't know how insecure the internet is, but why do we allow that to be the norm? People should be aware by now, especially with the NSA and other agencies, that anything can be accessed on the internet. | >Social experiments such as Bitcoin, are testing this very question and seeing the benefits and huge drawbacks of this model.
What drawbacks? Sure, the stability of Bitcoin is questionable, but nobody is being *forced* to use it. I think there's a stronger argument to be made against the US Dollar, which people *are* mostly forced to use, both in the US and in other countries that have adopted it. |
>Are you actually trying to fucking argue that things that are considered racist CAN'T be culturally ingrained into a society?
Yes. Racism as I understand it means prejudice on the basis of race. Prejudice is not possible unconsciously. If you think it's awful when cultural biases lead to unfortunate outcomes for people of different races, that's fine and that's a different debate, but calling it "racism" is dishonest. Using the same word to refer to conscious prejudice and unconscious societal biases is really really sloppy thinking.
>Jesus Christ you're insane
And just watch as the mods ignore this, despite calling me out for not being "civl and polite".
>You actually believe that every time someone does something racist, they consciously say to themselves that what they're doing is racist and wrong? My god, man. That is truely not understanding an issue.
I explained why.
>Look at how we expect Black people to dress and act in this country. We expect them to "pull up their pants" and "talk like a normal person." These things seem reasonable to most people in this country, but that's super racist.
Because you say so?
>That's telling someone to do something different because we don't like it.
Yeah. It's opinionated, it's cultural bias. I don't see the evidence of racism. | >You don't need absolute certainty, but I think when levying accustations against someone for being racist, sexist, or whatever, you should reserve judgement until some more concrete evidence is available.
Why? It's not like this is a legal proceeding. Nothing happens after you call someone racist except that they get called racist.
People have to have the ability to call out racism and sexism in public discourse, because if they don't do that it becomes more acceptable and more difficult to stop.
>I still don't agree that the jokes can be taken as evidence. They're done with comedic effect in mind and should only be judged in the context of a comedy routine and only on the basis of how funny it is (which is fairly subjective)
Jokes are not just commands to laugh. Jokes are funny for reasons. If you think that "haha look at those [slur]" is funny than that says some very nasty things about you and your sense of humor.
>I feel as if this is drifting away from the original topic. Overall, I agree with <PERSON> when he said: [cut for space]
But I AM judging comedians on their opinions and behavior. Jokes are behavior. There's not some special "joke realm" where comedy lurks with no consequences to anything else. |
Yes, this was done secretly by <PERSON>. Because of the secrecy surrounding the program and <PERSON>'s grant of amnesty, the world was (to some extent) uncertain what had happened in the case of Unit 731, and who had done it.
Only when Soviet and US archives were published did the world really get confirmation of what was done, and much of this process occurred around the 1980s, beginning with the investigation that led Chinese expert <PERSON> to find documents in the US Army Archives detailing human experimentation. The Globe and Mail, in a February 1, 1992 article, says this:
>As explained in an internal War Department memorandum, dated June 23, 1947: "Since it is believed that the USSR possesses only a small portion of the technical information, and since any war-crimes action would completely reveal such data to all nations, it is felt that such publicity must be avoided in the interests of defence and security of the U.S. It is believed also that the war-crimes prosecution of Gen. <PERSON> and his associates would serve to stop the flow of much additional information of a technical and scientific nature."
There was, until the 1980s, a great amount of secrecy regarding Unit 731, and that made it harder for anyone to really consider the whole "prosecution" idea. Most of the people who were still alive by this time were interviewed, but by 1992 most of them were dead, and word was still having trouble getting out as far as what exactly happened. The grant of amnesty made it even more difficult to consider trying them then for war crimes, due to the question of getting extradition from wherever they were and trying them even after the Supreme Allied Commander (<PERSON>) had given them amnesty.
So yes, there were these promises of amnesty in some cases, but there were no real attempts to prosecute later when this was all revealed, and it was *very* hard to prove anything before archives were opened and researchers in the 1980s really got on the trail.
Sources:
<PERSON>, J. (1998, Feb 13). New evidence found on notorious unit 731. China Daily
<PERSON>, E. (1992, Feb 01). JAPAN: The Awful Secret of Unit 731. The Globe and Mail | Probably not exactly the same, but in Soviet history, <PERSON> fills the same shoes. He was a distinguished officer in the Red Army even before the Great Patriotic War. When the war started, he was successful in a number of engagements, and played a key role in the defense of Moscow for which he was awarded Order of Red Banner - one of the highest awards one could achieve. He was promoted to deputy commander of the Volkhov Front, and commander of the 2nd Shock Army which was in danger of being encircled. Efforts to save the 2nd failed and <PERSON> himself was eventually captured. (The circumstances of his capture are kind of interesting on their own - a plane was sent for him to extricate him but he refused to board it and stayed with his men. He was hiding from the Germans in the countryside but his location was given up by a local Russian farmer.)
In captivity, <PERSON> agreed to collaborate with the Germans and lead an army of Soviet PoWs against the Soviet authorities. The army was called "Russian Liberation Army" or ROA (from Russian). <PERSON> denounced Communism and called for the overthrow of <PERSON>. The Germans were convinced enough to arm and equip an army from the ranks of Soviet PoWs but didn't trust them enough to put into actual combat. The only action that ROA was a part of that I'm aware is the liberation of Prague in 1945, just before the end of the war. At the end, <PERSON> and his troops surrender to the Americans but was given up to the Soviets who executed him for treason. |
Free speech is a necessity to any democracy.
For the people to have power, the people have to have the right to speak and to be heard.
The only reason to need guns in a democracy is if you ultimately don't trust the democracy, or if you believe that your voice should be more equal than others. | Without artificial barriers to entry for small business that are historically introduced by governments, a monopoly can only exist by providing a superior quality of service, disincentivizing the creation of such a business.
Government is an institution of violence that only has authority due to it's ability to use force of action to enforce their laws. |
>If my friend likes tender, juicy meat (many if not most people who eat meat do), BUT still eats his steak well done, I might say he’s just deluding himself by preferring his habitual practice rather than changing ways.
I don't follow. Wouldn't this prove that while he is open to eating juicy meat, he simply prefers morw well done meat? | >The whole point is that you can't be disadvantaged without a baseline to compare to. And being white or male is by no means some kind of baseline state: if we call anyone who isn't a white male "disadvantaged", then we're assuming that the norm is to be white and male.
Can you elaborate on this? If you can't be disadvantaged without a baseline, how can you be *privileged* without a baseline? |
> "God creating all living things"
[John 1:3 MSG] All things came into being through God. Natural selection was designed by a designer, and easily explains the diversity in organisms. I don't see a problem with this in relation to "God creating all living things" if he created the life and the material world, and placed laws that it were to abide by.
> unless you want to weasel around the definition of day
*Delegitimizing criticism* isn't a good debating practice. | >if someone says that believe that God will save babies they should also believe in obeying Him and not try to outsmart Him.
If someone believes that adults risk hell in their choices, but children are spared due to their innocence, then it would be a loving sacrifice to burn in hell for killing your children before they could sin and risk hell.
The parent is aware of the consequences, and pays the price so that their child ***will enter heaven***.
> reflecting the things God values is. Things like love, honor, integrity, and not murdering little babies.
Oh I agree - but then again, I find value exclusively in the life I know I have - not the one *afterwards* that my parents told me existed.
"love, honor, and integrity" in risking your child immortal soul to torture and damnation by giving them the choice to disobey God?
Or is it torturing all the souls that refuse to worship you? I forget.
>What do you do about Revelation 20:7-10 where Satan is released after a 1,00 years? Is it to allow those who never reached an age of accountability to be accountable?
If so, your plan on murdering all babies comes to naught.
You say this like people have never killed their children in the name of God.
Wasn't there a story *exactly* like this in the bible?
There is a lot less baby killing when people start to value the life we have- not the invisible one.
|
I understand the reasoning completely but the same thing could be achieved by putting harsher punishments on drunk driving such as a zero tolerance rule (I don't actually know if this is in place already) but as a 19 year old who can legally drink in my own country but doesnt drive, i would feel a little bit indignant about being denied alcohol (Not that i actually drink that often) because other people are reckless. | I don't wanna start some political stuff here , but whoever tries to break my country apart and whoever wants to take a part of it for his/her benefits is my enemy and i will fight it until I die. I can agree that the large part of the military action in the world is for money but i will fight for my countries benefit ( i mean really , not for those filthy politicans )
Also , terror only understands its own language. |
He used the German word for "Aryan" ("arisch") in several speeches. Had he meant "Nordic," he would have used "nordisch." Examples:
Speech to the Reichstag on 30 Jan 1941 [German](http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Hitler%20Speeches/Hitler%20Rede%201941.01.30.htm) and [English](http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Hitler%20Speeches/Hitler%20Speech%201941.01.30.html):
> Schon jetzt aber sehen wir, wie unsere Rassenerkenntnis <PERSON> um <PERSON> ergreift, und ich hoffe, daß auch die <PERSON>, die heute noch in Feindschaft gegen uns stehen, eines Tages ihren größeren inneren Feind erkennen werden, und daß sie dann doch noch in eine große gemeinsame Front mit uns eintreten werden: die Front einer **arischen** Menschheit gegenüber der internationalen jüdischen Ausbeutung und Völkerverderbung!
> But we can see already how our racial peoples which are today still hostile to us will one day recognize the greater inner enemy, and that they too will then enter with us into a great common front. The front of **Aryan** mankind against Jewish-International exploitation and destruction of nations.
Speech to the Reichstag on 30 Jan 1942 [German](http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Hitler%20Speeches/Hitler%20Rede%201942.01.30.htm) and [English](http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Hitler%20Speeches/Hitler%20Speech%201942.01.30.htm):
> Ich habe am 1. September 1939 i<PERSON> es schon ausgesprochen - und ich hüte mich vor voreiligen Prophezeiungen -, daß dieser <PERSON> nicht so ausgehen wird, wie die Juden sich es vorstellen, nämlich daß die europäischen **arischen** Völker ausgerottet werden, sondern daß das Ergebnis dieses Krieges die Vernichtung des Judentums ist. Zum erstenmal werden nicht andere allein verbluten, sondern zum erstenmal wird diesesmal das echt altjüdische Gesetz angewendet: Aug' um Aug', <PERSON> um Zahn!
> They have already spoken of the breaking up of the German Reich by next September, and with the help of this advance prophesy, and we say that the war will not end as the Jews imagine it will, namely, with the uprooting of the **Aryans**, but the result of this war will be the complete annihilation of the Jews. Now for the first time they will not bleed other people to death, but for the first time the old Jewish law of 'An eye for an eve, a tooth for a tooth,' will be applied.
A speech on art in Nuremburg on 6 Sept 1938 contained at least three examples [German](http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Hitler%20Speeches/Hitler%20on%20Art%201938.09.06%20G.htm) (English translations from Google, so not the best but they work):
First quote:
> Wir wissen, daß, wenn je ein Jude eine innere Stellung zu dieser unserer deutsch-**arischen** Kultur gefunden hat oder in der Zukunft finden würde, dies nur dem Umstand zuzuschreiben sein könnte, daß in den Stammbaum dieses Ahasver durch Zufall oder Mißgeschick einmal ein Tropfen fremden Blutes kam, das nunmehr gegen den Juden selbst zu zeugen beginnt.
> We know that if any Jew has ever found an inner attitude to our German-**Aryan** culture or would find it in the future, this could only be attributable to the fact that by chance or misfortune a stranger to the family tree of this Ahazver strangled Blood came, which now begins to bear witness to the Jew himself.
Second quote:
> Entweder das Judentum konnte mit seinem bolschewistischen Ansturm die **arischen** Staaten zerschlagen und die blutbedingten führenden eigenen Volksschichten ausrotten, dann mußte die aus diesen Wurzeln bisher erwachsene Kultur der gleichen Vernichtung entgegengeführt werden.
> Either Judaism, with its Bolshevik onslaught, could smash the **Aryan** states and eradicate the blood-conditioned leading social classes, and then the culture which had hitherto grown from these roots had to be led to the same annihilation.
Third quote:
> Wie alle diese Prozesse sich nicht in schlagartigen Ereignissen abspielen, so ist auch die versuchte Entthronung und Vernichtung der **arischen** Staaten und ihrer volkseigenen Führungen durch den jüdischen Weltfeind nicht ein Geschehnis von wenigen Wochen oder Monaten, sondern ein langwieriger Prozeß, bei dem wie bei anderen geschichtlichen Entscheidungskämpfen ein Höhepunkt der Krise eintritt, in dem dann nach der einen oder anderen Seite endgültig die Würfel fallen.
> As all these processes do not take place in sudden events, the attempted dethronement and extermination of the **Aryan** states and their national leadership by the Jewish enemy of the world is not an event of a few weeks or months, but a protracted process in which, as with other historical events Decisive battles a climax of the crisis occurs, in which then one or the other side finally the dice fall. | > If preferences are ordinal …
Traditional economics doesn't just assume ordinal preferences. It also assumes that you can order differences.
For instance, say you have four planks of wood, each a different length. Let's call them A, B, C, and D with d() being the difference in length. Since you can say whether d(A, B) > d(C, D) including all other combinations, you have a cardinal measure. In psychology, this would be called either an [intervall or ratio scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_measurement).
Additonally, economists assume, there's no maximum in utility. If I'm not mistaken – sorry, I've learnt this decades ago –, these two assumptions lead to the so-called law of diminishing marginal utility. |
> It's relevant with <PERSON>'s history of fanning the flames of white resentment.
If you want to establish that <PERSON> has "fanned the flames of white resentment", by all means try to do so. But the use of the phrase "civic society" won't help you do that.
> He was a cabinet member when this article was written.
That's factually inaccurate. | > Is the granting of continuance at the sole discretion of the judge
Yes, within reason.
> or can my friend's lawyer force the prelim to continue without the witnesses, thereby giving an advantage to my friend?
Your friend's lawyer can't force <PERSON>.
He can argue against the motion, especially if doing so would cause difficulties for his client. But he can't force it. |
The tuition is 2000 euros in total and we'd be getting 1000 euros back if I de-register by the 1st of February so it's 'only' 1000 euros going down the drain. The money isn't the problem. The courses I've been looking at don't share any modules with my current course so I can't carry anything over. It's just a shitty feeling to not be doing well academically. I'm flunking because I'm failing the class so it's not really up to me at this point anymore sadly. | This won't work in your later year courses where you must read the papers and books assigned if you're going to have a chance of properly answering essay questions and do assignments. The good thing is that a fair amount of the reading is available for free through your library but not all of it. The occasional annoying $90 paperback comes up. |
Yeah, I was picked on for a very long time, to a very bad extent. I ended up leaving the school in ninth grade because I was having glass bottles thrown at me, being pushed down flights of stairs, had my life threatened, threatened to rape me, etc.
The school did nothing, so I had to leave once my friend was physically assaulted while trying to protect me. (The principal told her he would have punched her in the face too. That was the end of that.)
Very bad school for kids who weren't from well-off families.
| Wipe it off and say sorry.
(My uncle told me this joke when I was five. I didn't get it at the time, and he knew I'd get it someday. That makes it kind of funnier. One day when I was like 14, I suddenly remembered that joke and went, "Oh! Now I get it!" and laughed my ass off.) |
The point is that you are where you are because you left your plans hanging in the wind. She is clearly moving on so if you want her to not do that then you need to let her see your plans - you need to express your hope, faith, and love to her. That's where you need to start. If she expresses disinterest then you should move on too. | She's got some brain issues bro - maybe postpartum depression undiagnosed. It sounds like she's got some manic tendencies. You are making the right choice to keep her away from your boy. He will need to be older and she needs to be mediated before they can have even a slight relationship. |
There are risks associated with casual sex. These include STDs, pregnancy, or even rape. STDs can be lied about easily, as can birth control. A really obnoxious person might even use an intentionally faulty condom. These risks are relatively low, but I find that someone who's careless about their health where just a little more effort would prevent harm to be somewhat less respectable than people who take care of their bodies.
I think casual sex with friends or decent acquaintances probably should not be looked down on, but with complete strangers opens up a lot of risks which could be alleviated significantly by just getting to know the person a bit better first. | There are certain standards of beauty for women today. Women have to wear makeup, not to look hot, but just to look neutral. It's like how a frumpy one piece bathing suit would have looked super immodest in 1900, but looks really plain by contemporary standards.
The goal of a hijab isn't to look absolutely hideous, but to remain on the modest end of the spectrum. In a hypothetical future where everyone walks around naked, then wearing a bra and panties would be considered super modest. In the same way, a women who wears a hijab with makeup in Saudi Arabia would look relatively immodest compared to women who cover up head to toe. But in a Western country, if they wore a hijab with makeup and exposed hair, they'd be among the most conservatively dressed women in the country. |
Lol adverse possession. You need to utilize the property like its actually yours. Fix it up, get utilities to it, actually use it. You need to do this for 20 years. As for the back wall of the house, it needs one. Think of it as this is really gonna be your home for the next 20 years. | And here's your problem though. The law doesn't work in grayscale. Everything is cut black and white, its the way laws have to be to function. Otherwise who do we have that determines where on the grayscale it should be? It would have to be done before the court case because you have to be charged with the crime first. So this leaves it down to the police or the district attorneys. Neither of them have jobs in which they should be deciding just how guilty a person is. |
I agree that you should not shame a person for being fat. It doesn't directly affect you in any way. But if that person wants to spread **potentially harmful** misinformation and falsehoods that could ruin the lives of impressionable children and teens, then yes, they should be ashamed.
It is no different than if I were to go to an elementary school with a presentation about how smoking cigarettes isn't actually bad for you and can actually have health benefits. That would be shameful as hell. | If we do treat livestock totally humanely, I guess I'd be okay with that. But just because we are biologically designed to do something doesn't mean we should. Human males are biologically designed to be able to start mating in our mid-teens. That does not mean we should. |
You shouldn't ever really lose that drive to create. You haven't lost it. You're just in a slump. Get out in the world and have an experience, then draw or write about it.
I've felt the same way that you do, many times throughout my life (over 40 now) but it's always come back. Get out there and experience things. You say "when I was younger" but you're still so young. Go find some trouble to get into, go observe something that you've never been exposed to. Go discover. It's all still out there. When you get back you will have ideas exploding out of your ears. | Sure, they have "won" if they have a lot of money, or have subjugated others to their will, etc. But do these people have inner peace? Are these people truly happy? Can they find true inner peace and happiness from material objects and other people's suffering?
If you look at a lot of these cheaters, exploiters, corrupt officials, etc you might find that a lot of them are led by primitive, negative emotions. Anger, jealousy, greed, arrogance. They want more and more and when they can't get it they become embroiled in their own suffering. They can't be grateful for what they have because their entire mindset revolves around exploitation and cheating.
Compare that to a person who exudes compassion, peace and harmony. Influences the people around them by treating them with love and kindness. They may have no material objects but they don't need them because they find value in happiness and compassion and kindness.
You can't take your material objects to the grave. A kind person will have the least amount of regrets on their deathbed because they have cultivated inner peace and happiness by treating others with kindness. Essentially they are shaped by their environment and if their environment is kind and warm, they will be as well.
Compare that to the cheater who is surrounded by negative emotions all the time, surrounded by suffering, surrounded by people with ill will and a desire to harm. Always scared of losing what they have and having someone else take what you have through force. Constant paranoia and suspicion, even of their closest loved ones. They have no inner peace.
If you find value in material objects, power, etc then you would think the cheaters are the winners of the world.
But if you find value in kindness, compassion and inner peace, then such people would not be the winners of the world. You would be the winner of your own world. You would come to the realization that you can't control the whole world but you can do your part by spreading kindness and compassion to those who you come into contact with.
I suppose one would have to live a life of "chasing material goods" and then a life of "cultivating inner peace and compassion" to truly understand just how insignificant the former is compared to the latter. One cannot know what they never knew. |
How widespread is holocaust denial though? I don't encounter it very often. I have only once met a person who could be said to deny it, and even then, she was clearly just a crazy, slightly racist old lady, and it was more like she hadn't *heard* about the holocaust than that she was denying it. She believed us when we explained it to her.
Maybe it is more common in some other parts of the world? I imagine there may be those in the Arab world who play it down for political reasons. | I don't understand - and perhaps it is partially because I have never heard this term before - but I would think that "feminist biology" would just be looking for biases, and questions results when biases are found?
We have a huge body of research, and we can go back and look and find clear errors in older studies. Teaching people how to find those errors, and not include them in the future doesn't seem akin to "teaching the controversy". |
You said "development". Human life will develop if you get a fertilized egg to attach to your womb, so to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to your womb, either by getting rid of a fertilized egg or by preventing it from being fertilized in the first place, or by not enabling a fertilized egg to attach to your womb using the best methods available (IVF) is to fulfill your condition of "the willful prevention of development or continuation of human life", because you are preventing a human life from developing by not allowing it to even begin to develop in the first place.
To actually test your logic on this: Can you reasonably articulate why should I consider the prevention of a sperm and egg from forming a zygote a moral act and the prevention of a zygote from developing into a baby an immoral act? What reason can you give me why I should consider one to be okay and not the other? | Apply basic reasoning and logical skills.
If you have to pay all of your workers more money, you have to raise the cost of goods to keep making a profit. If costs for goods go up, then wages across the board must increase to stay "the same" (buys the same amount of goods and services), which would further increase the costs of goods and services across the board. If both costs of goods and wages go up, then the value of each unit of currency goes down (inflation), since each job, with income relative to other jobs, still buys the same amount of goods and services relative to other jobs. |
> No, but if part of perfection is to desire another will that is not your own and also perfect, it would require creating something like myself.
So is part of perfection creating the imperfect? Creating something evil? Creating beings that you knew you'd have to kill with a flood?
To me, nothing about <PERSON>/Yahweh is perfect (when we see them act or speak). Would I not recognize perfection to some degree? | > So ive noticed in alot of these posts you guys ask loaded questions to the christians and I know its probably just for shits and giggles.
And I've noticed that nearly every Christian proselytizer asks loaded questions. Just look up <PERSON>, or answer the door next time a JW knocks.
> But these post seem to repeat and then gets boring.
Perhaps, but for the person who's seeing it for the first time, it may be very informative.
> Why not ask for christian views on topics and then state yours
Because we generally know enough about Christianity to not be terribly interested in the general views. If you have specific views you'd like to discuss, feel free to talk about them.
My views on the subject are pretty simple: I reject god claims due to a lack of (or existence of contrary) evidence.
> rather than just trying to prove your right and im wrong
This **IS** a debate forum, not a discussion forum. Further, that's kind of the key issue: you believe in god, I don't. |
You aren't allowed to use deadly force to defend property, only to defend the safety of a human being. If there is no human being there, only a turret and cameras, the law doesn't consider the stakes high enough to allow killing.
Two problems w/ booby traps: 1)indiscriminate and 2)often kill intruders when there is no threat to human safety. Turrets or some kind of smart booby trap only address the first problem. | More like they don't realize an abortion is what will happen. When people think abortion, they think teenage girl with no condom. They don't think grown, married, settled woman who doesn't want kids. They think she will change her mind, or worse, have a happy accident she loves.
My hypothesis is that it is unconscious eugenics, because I'd have no problem getting sterilized if I had a mental handicap or drug addiction. |
If that is happening?
Why can't you admit that mass transit is being used by men in those situations to prey on women who are forced to be near men who want to prey on them. You make it sound like women aren't being groped on mass transit. Or that feminists created this evil plan to screw over men.
Women who pay to take mass transit should have the right to take their trip without having parts of their body being touched. Clearly in some mass transit systems this isn't possible.
Women should be able to take a subway trip without a stranger touching them. They should also be able to take a trip with their husband without having to separate.
Since the management is unable to stop the groping then the only alternative is certain segregated cars.
I have no idea why you have decided to look at the effect and ignore the cause. | You making odd claims how computers would work when talking about tech that you are only speculating on.
And if experience is just information entering the brain a brain having information entering it will be experiencing things.
There really is no difference.
And if we were all billions of users plugged into one simulation we would all think we were real and we would think that we were experiencing things. You really can't make the claim that you're not software in a machine. |
not the guy you replied to but
>Phil <PERSON>'s opinions have no real effect on his job.
Yes it does if he publicly says them. His job is to attract viewers to his show and network. If he says something that causes viewers to not watch his show or his network then he is effecting his job and their employers. An actors job is to attract viewers. If your actions cause the opposite to happen, then you are not very good at your job and therefore should not be employed in said job. | >Since the basis for your view is that the taxes go to things that are beneficial, would that mean your view would be changed if you were convinced that tax money is going towards things that are not beneficial?
well many people see wars and bailouts as not beneficial yet it never changed their views on taxes. So mine are strict as always, if it is not beneficial then it is a necessary evil. |
As a medievalist, when I tell people that's my specialization, they assume that I know all 1000 years of history. Saints preserve me if I get something wrong, about something that happened in X location at Y time.
I usually distract them by talking about illuminated books or heavily decorated saintly remains.
I also cringe at "When are you starting the Ph.D?" "Have you found work?" questions. | A teacher is impartial if they grade people without regard to extraneous characteristics like religion and politics.
Everyone (except infants too young to grasp the concepts) has religious and political views, however wishy-washy some people's may be. If we assume that no one with any religious or political identity can teach and grade impartially, we'll have a problem getting qualified teachers.
If we require people to lie, and say that they have no religious or political identity, in order to be teachers, what are we teaching about honesty? |
> maybe vandalism, or other types of destruction or harm
corrupting the youth was a reference to socrates; but whatever
may i suggest that u follow the non-aggression principle, since u have been following it up till this point? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle (for i really indeph defence of of it i would suggest the book upb by <PERSON> http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx) | I am not an expert on North Irealnad troubles, but they dont strike me as being on the same magnitude as the arab-israeli conflict.
It is true however that big conflit with a lot of ressentiment were also overcomed, and i think the German-French history might be a better representative of that. However, this has needed a dismantelement of the German state and ideology.
> To do that, both people will need to have bold, brave leaders who care more about peace than winning. We haven't had that on both sides, but it doesn't mean it will never happen.
I think it is more complicated than that. While palestinian certainely do want peace, the arab israeli conflict is the nexus of various influences and hates, and i fear that many arab countries or religious leader would not let them have it, and would destabilise any palestinian leader leaning to peace, and in their views, betraying its people, or they would start to support more radical groups, but it is a good point i should think about. |
>Well with only 21 variables the results were dramatically reduced. Their might be more variables that could explain the difference.
Well yeah, there can **always** be more variables. That criticism is sufficiently ambiguous to apply to any study but not strong enough to really mean anything against any, unless you can actually name a variable they didn't correct for which would have affected the results.
>Even if their aren't a slight difference might not be worth it.
You're assuming people can afford a private school, which the OP's wife mentions they can't, and my parents definitely couldn't have. The real question of this discussion is between public school and homeschooling.
> ... by homeschooling your kids you are taking away a system that most kids in at least America go through. That's taking away a similarity that will definitely help any child connect with others.
I haven't had any trouble connecting with non home educated people that I've met taking college classes, at church, etc., and neither have my brother or most of my homeschooled friends. Do you have any data at all to back up the idea that home educated students face more social issues?
>In addition Even if the prejudice is unjustified it still exists, which may hinder homeschoolers later on.
In my experience Colleges don't discriminate against homeschoolers; if anything they try to attract us. And I expect employers care more about someones experience and college education than who printed their highschool diploma. So where do you think the discrimination will come in?
(Sorry for the long wait I've been out of town all week.) | They don't have the identical same meanings. I'm not even sure the difference in meanings are similar enough to generalize them as all having the same meaning.
>*Thou* shalt not kill
*You* shouldn't kill. Being this is presumably demanded of humanity and not a specific person or group, then it means nobody in the world should kill. And yet, many passages in the Bible encourage killing for various reasons, so this demand is misleading considering its caveats. But also, in context it could be referred specifically to a person or group, in which case the meaning would be that certain people shouldn't kill.
>Thou *shalt* not kill.
The only truly basic representation of this simply command.
>Thou shalt *not* kill.
Eh, I guess this is also a basic representation.
>Thou shalt not *kill.*
You can do whatever you want to a person no matter what, as long as you don't kill them.
Language is like water. It will either flow smoothly, or even just slight nuances will change the flow significantly. Even in the same emphases you can get different meanings, much more the difference in meanings between all the emphases. |
Right- i sort of meant people going to food places and reviewing them- there's a series on Youtube called 'worthit' (by buzzfeed) and they go to three different places with three different price points for a specific food. (E.g. ice cream, taco.. hot dogs)
Its pretty fun just to sit there and watch that sorta thing. Not a fan of just plain ol' eating though.. haha | I think what OP and many others find offensive... is that a person can be paid so much more than the amount of money needed to survive and live in full comfort.
I dunno exactly how many dollars per year someone needs to "survive and live in full comfort"...
But salaries of 20,000,000+ are clearly well beyond that line.
So if a person never has to worry about bills again, and they can live in a huge home, drive a nice car, etc, they should be content. They have the 'millionaire lifestyle'. Money paid above and beyond that is arguably 'wasted', it's just to indulge in excesses and keep score with other rich people.
So, even if the CEO's good decisions are directly responsible for that money being made, the cash should be distributed to the other employees who don't have the millionaire lifestyle net. It will improve their lives a lot more than it will improve the CEO's. There can't be that much difference in happiness and comfort when you have 15 million in the bank vs. 20.
|
That's all to the good, then. My worry here was if they found out after you moved, they'd likely fire you for concealing it.
Given the nature of your question, it might be a good idea to call a defense attorney in the city you'll be moving to and find out the procedure for transferring supervision with your conditions. | Talk to an attorney. Beyond the cost of possible fines, a conviction will be on your record and could cause trouble with jobs, housing, public assistance, and a host of other areas of your life. An attorney may be well worth the expense.
It is possible you'll lose your job. That is regardless if you're guilty or not. Generally, your employer can fire you for any reason or none at all. |
You may have to get a loan and go into debt. You may not like this, but the alternative is going to jail. And if you dont have a lawyer representing you this is a very real possibility even if you are innocent. It takes just one wrong thing said. | You need a lawyer and to file for custody. If there is no custody agreement he has just as much legal right to the child as you do. If you absolutely cannot find a lawyer you can afford than waiting until September may be the quickest you can get things done. Him cutting of contact will not make him look good in the eyes of the court, but without a lawyer you could screw up and incorrectly enter evidence and get you evidence blocked. This is especially true if he has a lawyer. |
>Your entire premise is apparently based on the idea that people who aren't reporting are too stupid to weigh for themselves the pros (chance of the rapist being convicted) and the cons (chance that accusing the person will ruin their life).
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. It's not that people are too stupid, it's that rape is an emotionally loaded subject which makes it incredibly difficult for *anyone* to do what they ought to do. No matter what the statistics are of conviction, reporting it is the only way to make it go up. If every victim did what they ought do do and report rape, then conviction rates would go up. *Your* entire premise fails to take into account that successful conviction rates are hampered by the sheer amount of people who refuse to report, and as a result can't even enter the study.
>That's not only incredibly disrespectful of rape victims, but it reveals that you have what I can only charitably term an under-informed understanding of how rape cases are prosecuted, how frequently rapists are convicted, and what often happens to rape victims after they make accusations.
First, keep it civil. If you believe I'm mistaken, you could at the very least go through the trouble of 1) saying it politely, or 2) actually provide some studies to back up your point. I try to make sure what I say is backed up by information and fact, and I don't really see what I've missed here. If you have an example, I would be glad, because I honestly want to know the best answer. The only thing you could say about my misinformation would be my example of a serial rapist, which I would agree is not the typical example. However, it was a hypothetical example to prove a flawed point.
[Out of every 100 rapes, 40 are reported, and of those 40 reports, 8 will be prosecuted.](https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates) Of those 8 that will be prosecuted, 3 will spend a day in prison. A 20% prosecution rate and a 37.5% success rate in trial.
What the numbers show, clearly, is that you don't need to go to trial to report rape. Often times, as I've stated previously, prosecutors will not continue to trial without consent of the victim. What I'm saying, is that people have the obligation to, at the very least, contribute by reporting their rape to make the prosecutor's job easier when the next victim does want to go to trial. A single report won't ruin someone's life. Maybe trial, but that's not the question here. It's reporting rape. It can hurt, that's definitely true. There are plenty of anecdotes to look to that prove this point. *But*, if it helps stop the pain of people in the future, then it's worth it.
| >And when you're considering judging someone for minor spelling and grammar errors, it's worth considering if the errors you see are actually hindering communication, or if you're just being fussy.
Fussy? That's not the word I would use at all. We have a standard way of using language not just because that makes it easier for us to communicate, but because it provides us with an indicator of someone's educational attainment, intelligence, or base of knowledge. There is a *right* way to speak and write because that acts as a heuristic so that we can at least get some preliminary indications of whether a person actually knows what they're talking about. Someone who doesn't know how to spell or format a sentence is less likely to be intelligent, educated, or a trustworthy source of information. I may be able to understand the message, but the way it's delivered is also pretty important. |
This argument is a little like arguing that prostitution is bad in itself because of sex trafficking. This might sound far fetched, but hear me out.
People who argue against prostitution on the basis of trafficking are really just arguing that slave labour is bad. Burger flipping trafficking or quantitative finance trafficking would be bad as well, because you'd still have people getting kidnapped and forced to work without pay.
The argument doesn't say much about whether a person of sane mind and mature age should be able to sell the service "sex" under the same rules and regulations as he or she should be allowed to sell the service "driving a taxi" or whatever.
How is this relevant? Well, it seems to me that you're not actually arguing that the niqab should be illegal. Rather, your arguing that if you can't wear a mask in some location because you just feel like it, you shouldn't really be allowed to wear a mask in that same location just because your imaginary friend told you to. And I could agree with this, in principle at least.
The thing is, what you'd then be asking for is most likely already the law in most places. I mean, if a country has a law that states that you don't get to wear a mask in a public protest or demonstration, for example, that country also has a law that says you can't wear a niqab at that same rally. Because a niqab is functionally a mask. The exception is if there is an explicit exception in the law. That is, if the law actually says that the only mask you're allowed to wear at a demonstration is a niqab.
The only real issue would then be one of enforcement. In the example case, maybe police (etc) don't view niqabs as masks even if the law does. The solution to this should be to send cops to law seminars or other training courses. I imagine that some mechanism like this is already in place - after all, the state needs a way to tell cops how to enforce new legislation.
A different, and probably more likely scenario, is that even if being masked in public *for any reason* is legal, you'd be more likely to be seen as suspicious by law enforcement of you wore a ski mask than if you wore a niqab.
And I'd argue that this isn't a problem. Cops du these kinds of risk assessments all the time. Wearing a ski mask *is* more suspicious than wearing a niqab, for the simple reason that unless the temperature drops to - 40 (which, conveniently, is the same in Celsius and Fahrenheit), you have very little reason for wearing a ski mask. On the other hand, women who follow a certain Islamic sect have a reason to wear a niqab every day. | You lie about whatever you need to lie about, but usually playing devil's advocate is a lot more difficult when you have to play with words to avoid a direct lie. That kind of talk makes it a lot easier to spot someone "playing" a side.
If I actually thought lying was wrong, and that you should always stick to your side of the argument, then I wouldn't have been able to say that lying is the best way to engage some people.
The people who aren't willing to state a direct lie about the exact topic of discussion are the ones that sound suspiciously ingenuous, and those are the people who don't seem "friendly." |
"Subreddits" is way too vague.
There are subs with all sorts of different goals. Some are general purpose, some thrive with debate, some... are really meant to be for one specific thing.
A sub for mental health to try and stop suicides should absolutely ban anyone from a large range of subs. Do you want to risk someone from watchpeopledie or similar posting?
Another good example is rightwing or unpopular position type subs. They are justified in banning opposition simply because they would be inundated otherwise.
Imagine you went back 50 years and there was a queer club meeting, 5 members and 3000 bigots show up. Well, maybe it would have been better to have a safe place to discuss this.
From a moderating perspective banning other subs is simply a shorthand. Back in the IRC days it was common practice to ban AOL because over 90% of shitposts and spam came from them. Perhaps it wasn't fair to AOL users, but it made the mods' jobs far easier with one line in the rules. Communities have no reason to be infinitely permissive. In the same line of thought, 99% of incel/redpill subber's comments in a women's sub are going horrible. Easier to nip it in the bud. | I think you and perhaps some of the people you have been talking to have a few misconceptions about what it means to be gender fluid.
People that identify as gender fluid don't say they were born as both boy and girl. They identify at some point in their lives that they feel themselves to be a dynamic mix of both girl and boy, some days feeling more girlish, some days feeling more boyish.
Saying that someone who is gender fluid is probably transgendered is like saying someone who is bisexual is probably gay. It's an insult and very revealing of your lack of education in this area.
Gender fluidity isn't really a choice, nor is it something you're born with, exactly. Their brain and hormonal chemistry isn't really their choice. It is their choice to ask people to refer to them as gender fluid though, or to refer to themselves that way, and you should respect that. |
Do you know which friend she's referring to when she says you raped her friend? Is she talking about the frat guy? Or someone else you haven't mentioned?
Unless you are contacted by the police, the only thing you can do is save your text messages, etc. If you're contacted by the police, the most important thing is to never make any statements to the police without an attorney present. This is a fundamental right that all citizens have, and should follow. So unless the police contact you, just live your life, and I'd avoid talking about this with other people. I know that may be psychologically difficult, but legally, it's your best move.
It's possible nothing ever comes of this, the police never contact you, and you just move on with your life. I know you feel like you need to *do* something, but the only thing you really could do now is identify a lawyer you'd want to use if the police contact you.
If they do contact you, they will either call you and ask you to come in, come visit you personally and ask you to come in, or arrest you. In all scenarios, you must be very respectful, but say "If you'd like to interview me, my attorney will need to be present," or something to that effect.
The principle is that you do not talk to the police directly, even about the most minor, seemingly inconsequential detail. Do not admit you were at the frat house. Do not talk about anything that happened, even the tiniest detail. You just tell them that you'll have your lawyer contact them to set up an interview. The point is that **you and the police should never interact directly, and that 100% of your interactions with them must be handled by your representative (your lawyer).**
The police, of course, don't want a lawyer involved, but no matter they say, no matter what they promise, it is true 100% of the time that it will be worse for you if you talk to the police without a lawyer present, especially because you're innocent. You don't have to go to the station unless they arrest you. They will try to make it seem like you do, but you don't. If they arrest you, you do need to go with them, but you are still not required to talk to them at all.
I can't say for sure, but it's possible nothing is going to happen and you just had a bad night. | Ironically, if you had left all your shit after lease expiration throughout the house, then throwing your property away would be an illegal eviction. But leaving shit in one unused storage area probably gives the LL protection under IC 32-31-4-2(b), as you surrendered the lease completely. LL's defense is simply, "OP surrendered the property, I went to clean out the garage that hadn't been used in a while, and junked everything I didn't want in my garage."
Also, check your lease to see if the detached garage was included. If it wasn't, then you never had access to it anyway, and you trespassed to dump your shit there. New tenant is probably out of luck, because there's no way for LL to know who's shit was who's.
You could go to small claims and try, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. |
>I'd question the statement that they weren't rare in the context of wider Catholicism
That depends on your frame of reference, of course. I don't know any numbers, but the heretical movements had only a small fellowship. On the other hand, their role in "preparing" the reformation can't be overestimated. They were the first organisations which put the universal doctrinal competence of the Church into question. Eventually, most of them were suppressed (one notable exception are the Waldesians which exist until today), but the memory lived on, so to speak.
>I'm right in saying that their charter more or less implicitly states that they have a goal of wiping out heresy or an equivalent term?
Yes, not only "wipe out", but also stop the spread of the movement. <PERSON> was influenced by his visit to southern France just after the failed crusade against the Albigensians and noted that their members had a high learning. That's why the order was called "Ordo Praedicatorum" (OP, Order of Preachers), and that's why the Domicans went to all university cities in Europe to have his brothers educated.
Regarding the Augustinians, it is really complicated with them: There were/are several congregations with that name and there are even more who make use of the "Canons of St. Augustine", one of them the Dominicans. Augustinians who bear that name are to be separated between the "Regular Canons", a congregation of secular priests (i.e. not monks), and Augustinian-Eremites, a mendicant order, founded in the 13th century and similar to the Franciscans and Dominicans. (<PERSON> was member of the latter order, btw) So I don't know which Augustinians you are referring to but probably to the eremites as they were involved in the university system, although not as heavily as the Dominicans.
Edit: Typos. | The role of the pope is also to define the doctrine of the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Ghost (in unspecified and imperfect ways, of course, it wouldn't be fun otherwise). Liberal catholics usually present the pope like you do, like just a representative, but <PERSON> said clearly that this kind of cherry-picking believers were bad catholics. Who should I trust?
Disagreeing with the pope can bring sanctions like excommunication. Popes can also, exceptionally, make "ex cathedra" statements, which are considered infallible. Finally, the pope is at the head of a state and has legal immunity in most countries.
I would like to see <PERSON> try to excommunicate someone from atheists community, just for the laugh. |
A few weeks ago i had a pretty bad week at work, lots to do and no time to do it. Usually i came home pretty late, ate whatever didnt need any preparation at all, watched some tv and went straight to bed.
On saturday i was helping my sister with some stuff because she bought a house together with her husband recently, when i came home my girlfriend (we have been together for almost 11 years now) had made a wonderful dinner for us with candles, wine, and you could tell she had put a lot of work into it. At that moment i thought to myself that i really must have hit the jackpot.
It doesnt even have to be something major either, it can be something so simple as just accepting me for who i am when we disagree about something. That she doesnt hold a grudge, and she sometimes admit she was wrong about something.
She lets me live my own life, she doesnt try to control it, she doesnt make decisions for me, and when she sometimes is forced she tries to make decisions which she thinks is the one i would make, not the one she prefers. | The problem is that there is no one best thing, but only what is best for the situation.
If the situation is that you have a bunch of enemies that you would really like to not be there right now, sure, a mage with a fireball is the thing you want.
But if the situation is that you have a bad guy charging towards you and you want the bad guy to not be able to attack your healer, a mage is absolutely not the thing you want. You want a paladin or a barbarian, a big hunk of meat and metal between the enemy and the thing you want to protect. |
> It sounds like a personal problem that those individuals are having, much like my getting exasperated with traffic yesterday. Traffic wasn't MORE of an issue yesterday than any other day. I just chose to make issue with it that day.
Well no. It's a systemic problem in our society that results from the interplay of various biases, specifically in this case racial bias. It's a *societal problem* that needs to be addressed and confronted. It's not a "personal problem" that individuals are having.
> They BOTH play equal roles, especially in something as trivial as entertainment aesthetics. These people who take issue with such things never seem to realize they actually have a choice to just...move on with their own life.
And all the black people who want to get a job in entertainment, be actors, etc. should just move on with their life and accept that only a very small minority of them can even have a chance because of racism? That seems to be ridiculous. | > UNICEF followed up to find out what those children were doing - you can see their report here. They found that the laid off children were, almost to a man, not in school, but working jobs that were far more dangerous. They were working as street grifters, stone crushers, or (most horrifying) as child prostitutes. The outrage over sweatshops in America was responsible for 50,000 children working in incredibly dangerous jobs, instead of the comparably safe "sweatshops".
> Arguments like yours commit the same sin that you accuse others of. You say that others aren't aware of the working conditions in the third world, but actually you're the one who isn't really aware of the alternatives. If we stop child labor in the third world, the kids aren't suddenly going to go to Harvard. And, if you really want to see horrifying conditions, look up what unemployment is like in the third-world. I guarantee it's more horrifying than any sweatshop you'll ever see.
I don't agree with your POV. Historically, similar arguments were used in the US to rationalize sweatshops existing in less well-off areas of major US cities. That persisted until the moral outrage over the triangle shirtwaist factory fire forced some legal changes. Those changes basically made sweatshops illegal in the US, but that DID NOT result in the domestic rise of desperate poverty. Certainly not in the long run. If anything, the implementation of improved standards lead to imprvoements in human development. Similar stories can be told for numerous other industrial nations, like the UK or Germany.
Based on that sort of historical evidence, I think that it's perfectly reasonable to establish some minimum standards for what we import, how, and from whom.
The trouble with the argument of *"but they USED TO be in absolute unambiguous poverty even in comparison to where they are now."*, is that there really isn't much evidence for this specific counter-factual. There is evidence of the things were prior to the industry's arrival (which may or may not be positive), but it doesn't say very much about what would happen if we would now implement some minimum standards.
For the rest.... your mention of comparative advantage is spot-on in this specific case, I'd say. ***BUT***, it doesn't exactly mean that labor-intensive production has to be miserable or insufferable. |
But there are no other restrictions on employers to have requirements related to political beliefs. Are you in support of restricting jobs from making any requirements that may conflict with political beliefs? This seems like a case where you have a very specific political problem with unions, but you are unwilling to generalize your rule to requirements outside of unions. Personally, I think jobs should be able to make whatever requirements of their workers that they want to. You don't have to take the job. It is optional. You are essentially arguing to take away an employers right to run their business the way that they want to. | It is not rational to believe in something for which no one has ever been able to provide evidence. Just like there is no evidence for unicorns and big foot, yet some people claim that they have seen him. Their anecdotal claims are not evidence. I can not tell you what evidence I would find acceptable for the existence of god. However, I have yet to find anything that would count as evidence at all. Therefore, lack of evidence makes a belief in anything irrational.
|
You're the one making claims. How about proving yourself. Link to a time that you supported a religious claim with "scholarly material" and were ignored or tossed out?
My guess, is that you have no such exchange in your history. Show me one claim that you clearly proved and were ignored, and I will concede. But the evidence better be clear and solid.
I see many religious claims hold up here, just not many scientific claims. But plenty important historical events do have primary sources and can be proven to have taken place. It just depends what your trying to prove. If its the existence of a religious figures, or recorded events, nobody can argue good evidence. If its purely scriptural (eg the bible said it so its true), you won't convince anyone.
But nobody is ignoring real evidence. That's why were here. To discuss and debate ultimate truths.
If you make extraordinary or supernatural claims, you better have rock solid evidence. If the evidence is there, the claim has been supported, regardless if everyone agrees. Truth is truth. But if your claim is lacking ir reaching, good luck.
>Can you imagine trying to hand a Creationist studies on genetic drift when he's stammering on about how he didn't come from no monkey.
Well I would have plenty of supporting evidence, supporting scholars and there would be no contradiction issues. A scientific consensus to a fully supported theory is as close to truth as a human can come. Its upto the creationist to decide whether to believe the truth, as presented with repeatable and provable evidence.
The evidence is there in the case of evolution, unlike say, any metaphysical claim ever. | I think you mistake it for a requirement. I'm suggesting a flat tax, with no loopholes. Except in the case of public works. Which you could send in for credit. Clearly actual work flow would have to be outlined, but its not getting rid of the taxes entirely. Just giving the businesses the option to remove government from the picture and use their "tax money" directly toward the public good.
Why the government would need to be told, is because the community in theory would need less federal tax dollars allocated toward it. |
First of all I don't suggest that you "comfort" her. Be there for her and let her be as bad as she needs to be around you if you want to be a good friend.
One mistake people tend to make is to make other people's pain about themselves. So, again in order to be a good friend one needs to suspend his/her ego during such rough times. | >I am not familiar with the concept of graces, does this mean that everyone is not equal in heaven?
We are all equal in dignity, however the more graces one earns in life the more revealed the beatific vision becomes so that heaven becomes "better" for you.
Basically, the more righteous your life is the more you become "like God" (since God is perfect the more perfect you are the better you are able to understand him). The more alike God you are in spirit the clearer the beatific vision becomes so that your experience of heaven is richer.
To use an analogy a ten year old will understand simple arithmetic and will be able to perform most mathematics but a twenty year old utilizing algebra and calculus will be able to perform even more mathematics. The ten year old can still solve math problems but is unaware of the math problems he cannot solve due to his lack of understanding.
>Also, does this mean that a children who die receive fewer graces in heaven than adults?
Yes.
>Or people who live today receive more graces than people who lived a 100 years ago because of the increased life expectancy?
Not necessarily, if society as a whole is more sinful then we earn less graces than people did in previous centuries. A thirty year old virgin who died in 1200 would most likely have more graces than a sixty year old average person today. |
This s definitely a your mileage may vary thing. A lot of people do look at them like parks. A lot of people don't. The atmosphere feels different to different folks. Sort of like the big Battlefield Parks, a lot of people don't like to go there unless they intend to pay respects either, some people don't give the monuments or history a second glance, most show up with a mix of both. | No, I see what you saying, I too find it fascinating. It has some core tenants like the Wiccan Rede and the belief in a God and Goddess, at least with the language, not all people see them the same way. If you interested you could as this kind of question over on /r/wicca, you'd get more varied answers there. |
> Contempt of court, such as was shown here, is a violation of a law.
This would not be contempt of court in most jurisdictions. Contempt of court is usually defined as rude or disrespectful behavior while in court, or failure to follow court orders afterwards. This type of criticism of the judge, who is a government employee, would almost certainly be considered free speech in the US. | > We want to appeal the case but we're not sure what to do
You need to find legal help. Filing an appeal is difficult, and nearly impossible to do on your own.
Note, by the way, that you can't appeal solely because you think the judge is wrong. You need to appeal a specific legal or procedural error. It's unlikely that you'd be able to articulate this on your own. |
A man’s wife had just bought a new line of expensive cosmetics guaranteed to make her look years younger.
She sat in front of the mirror for what had to be hours, applying the “miracle” products.
Finally, when she was done, she turned to her husband and asked, “Darling, honestly now, what age would you say I am?”
He nodded his head in assessment, and carefully said, “Well, judging from your skin, twenty. Your hair, eighteen. Your figure, twenty-five.”
“Oh, you’re so sweet!” gushed the wife.
“Well, hang on,” he replied, “I’m not finished adding it up yet.” | Polish peasant digs up an old lamp, rubs it, genie pops out—the usual scenario—and offers him a wish. <PERSON> scratches his head, says, “I think I’d like the Chinese to invade Poland.” Genie does a double take, shrugs, and wham! The Chinese roar across Poland, burning and bayoneting everything in their path. But this weird, perverse wish preys on the genie’s mind so bad that he appears to the Pole again as the Pole is sitting in the ruins, staring at the columns of smoke where his house used to be.
<PERSON> says, “Look, I just don’t understand that wish of yours, so I’m gonna give you another, OK? This time, please, think a little harder!” <PERSON> scratches his head a little more, says, “Well, I think…yeah, I’d like the Chinese to invade Poland again!” <PERSON> just stares at him in disgust, vanishes, and whoom! There’s the Chinese hordes ravaging Poland again. When the dust clears, the <PERSON> finds the Pole again, sitting on the ground this time because the second invasion didn’t even leave any rubble to sit on. <PERSON> goes, “You have to tell me — why? Why’d you make such a stupid masochistic wish, twice in a row?” And the Pole smiles for the first time, says, “See, for the Chinese army to invade Poland, it has to cross Russia!” |
If anyone is liable here for <PERSON>'s bills (besides <PERSON>), it ought to be whomever went to town on his face.
As a driver, your primary responsibility is the safe operation of the vehicle. <PERSON> was seriously getting in the way of that. Also, it sounds like <PERSON> left the car voluntarily, which, if nothing else, or ought to terminate any social contract you may have had. IANAL hopefully your lawyer would be create a much better argument. | In general, you can only argue inadequate assistance of counsel if it can be shown that, had you had a different defense attorney, the outcome would have been different.
Since you took a plea, likely not. Feel free to consult with another defense attorney if you're worried. That's your best bet. |
>While the reasons could seem malicious to you or me, they wouldn't be malicious, since <PERSON> came up with them. It would be a logical contradiction.
I'm saying that God could self-describe something as malicious and you'd still call it good. I don't know why you even use the word good or bad. They have no relevance in your worldview.
>As opposed to what other form of morality? The kind of morality that is obedient to your personal preferences and whether something makes you happy or not?
Even hedonism would be better than your system of morality but alas no, that is not the only option.
>The kind of morality whose ultimate goal is the preservation of humanity, our own survival?
Yes, that'd be better.
>I figured I put it this way so it would be less quotable in case you want to play the "that's so morally outrageous!!" card. I mean, I can't do all the work here, can I?
It is still morally outrageous that you'd be a rapist if God told you. | >Yes, I see what you mean. But why would "expected justice" not also be "to love being with God" ?
Because those are two different things. If someone owes me something, loving them doesn't necessarily follow. If God is just, love can't be a prerequisite for said justice. He must be just regardless, no?
>Is what is just commanded by god because it is just, or is it just because it is commanded by god?
>>Both, necessarily. If God is Good and if the entire structure of good works is built on virtues like temperance, fortitude, prudence and justice, then it must follow that God can only command things which are just, precisely because the highest form of Justice is found only in God.
If God is good then God can only behave like a good God because God is goodness? Well that's entirely circular.
So if God commanded me to murder my son, or the firstborn children of others, it would be just because god commanded it. Then the foundations of justice are arbitrary to God's will and justice loses all meaning. There is no real justice only God's opinion.
And you also say that God's commandments *are* just, so God is no longer the author of justice, but a mere recognizer. He discovers it and is restrained by it. God is not completely sovereign and lacks the will to do otherwise. |
Here's my modified version for football:
--------
Three football fans walk out of a bar. They turn a corner and see a pair of legs sticking out from behind a bush. They push the bush aside and find a woman dead and completely naked. They call the police and as they wait, they decide to cover the woman up.
The Panthers fan takes off his hat and covers her left breast. The Broncos fan takes off his hat and covers her right breast. The Steelers fan takes off his hat and covers her crotch.
The police arrive. The detective walks around the scene and writes in his little book. He lifts the Panthers hat, looks underneath, sets it back down and writes in his little book. He lifts the Broncos hat, looks underneath, sets it back down and writes in his little book. He the lifts the Steelers hat, looks underneath, starts to set it back down, stops, does a double-take, sets the hat back down slowly and starts to write in the little book.
The Steelers fan is upset by this. He asks, "What was that? Haven't you seen one of those before?" The detective replies, "You misunderstand. Normally when I look under a Steelers hat, I see an asshole." | A blonde and a brunette are going up in an elevator. On the way up, it stops and a man with dandruff boards the elevator.
The ladies notice the dandruff and quietly giggle. The elevator stops and the man with dandruff gets off.
As the elevator continues up, the brunette says "Someone needs to give that guy some head & shoulders."
The blonde replies with "How do you give someone shoulders?" |
OK. Well, you can *try* pro se (going it yourself), and family courts are supposed to be more helpful to pro se litigants than other courts.
That said, "supposed to be" and "are" aren't always the same. If you cannot afford a lawyer, check out the forms on OKLaw.org, contact [Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma](http://www.legalaidok.org/), and/or drop by one of the free legal aid sessions they have.
Also, if it's involved with a tribe in any way whatsoever, you absolutely want a lawyer. | In addition to calling the police, which you should be doing NOW (get to that), you may also want to contact the Missouri Department of Corrections: Division of Probation and Parole, since the boyfriend is on probation.
When you call the police, be as specific as possible. Tell the police when you exactly how you know the mother and her boyfriend are drug addicts. What have *you* seen, what has your girlfriend seen, what drugs are being used, when, where, how long this has been going on.
In fact, write down what you know **now,** and get your girlfriend to write down everything she knows (or record saying everything you know about this case). That writing isn't of itself cannot be used as evidence, but you can keep it around to remind you exactly what you know if you are ever called to testify in court (you won't be able to read from it during the trial, but you can reread it and keep recalling your recollection up to the minute you are called to take the stand.) Your memory is going to slip, so put down as much as you can to paper now. |
> I really would have the gall to have <PERSON> stand by his words-- Christians believe <PERSON> will judge the world-- that he told me to live by to get into heaven.
And, according to these verses, God will only let in those who have clothed and fed the poor, took care of the sick, and visited criminals in prison? | > We do have a thorny problem in that there are people who self-identify as Christians but do only one or neither of the things in that verse. This would lead me to question whether or not they are actually Christians in the proper sense. Of course, if self-identification is the only requirement then they are by definition Christians.
And wouldn't those who call themselves Christians then point fingers at other denominations calling them out for being false prophets? |
>Telling people to *$#% off if they don't debate religion the way the subreddit was intended is mature and appropriate and those of us who can't see this need to leave.
I fixed that up a bit for you. Now you're good. And for the record, OP was defending the subreddit, not his own personal agenda (although I'm gonna go out on a limb to say the two are similar). | >Liberals always think they're smarter than everyone else, they feel they should tell others how to live their lives and raise their kids because most people aren't enlightened.
I was right with you up until this random tidbit. Fun factoid, liberals (in America, at least) tend to be for individual freedoms, while conservatives tend to tell people how to live and raise their children. |
Okay first, chill. Second, SJW is ill defined since I've been tagged and screamed at for pointing out racism and sexism both online and IRL. It's something I won't ever stop doing so telling people to disengage is poor advice since SJW means anything people don't agree with right now. | 1. It depends on what type of incest you're talking about. Incest across generations will always have a power imbalance and therefore be abuse and rape.
2. Incest within a generation can still involve abuse given age differences and the extremely young age at which the pair was introduced.
3. You are arguing from morality, parents should not have the moral right to produce children they know may struggle their entire life due to deformities |
> as soon as a corporation would behave in such a manner they would lose out to any competitor that comes
That's not even true in our current society, much less a libertarian one. You can't think of a single corporation with shady business practices and no real competition? Want to meet my ISP?
>The only way in which this situation can even happen is if a corporation can keep competition out, and the only way they can do that is government regulation.
Not at all. In the city of Ancapville, my corporation owns 80% of the roads. Don't want to pay me $10/day to use my shitty roads? That's fine, feel free to never leave your driveway so long as you live in this town.
I also own the only hospital in town. Don't like my services? See if you can get a competitor to put forward $1.5 million to build another hospital just to compete with the guy who owns the entire market share. If he ever gets it built, I'll buy him out. I can afford it since I'm overcharging you.
>Corporations cant just steal intellectual property willy nilly
Who's going to stop them? A government agency, which contacts law enforcement, which arrests and brings the accused to a federal court, which fines them or sentences state jail time? That sounds like a great system to me.
>The deeper you go into anarcho capitalism the more of a regulator the free market itself becomes
Ah yeah, free enterprise: the pinnacle of self-imposed regulations. Why do you think these regulations exist in the first place? Why do you think we had to write laws that say meat companies can't sell tainted meat, or that workers have to be given a lunch break, or that chemical companies can't dump their toxic waste into our water supply? Every regulation has a story behind it.
| > As opposed to the Government system that resulted in populating the earth with tyrannical warlords? Your fear has already come to pass with States running the show. How is that a serious objection?
The funny thing is, all of this was already argued thousands of years ago. We did have a "libertarian" world with no government dominated by competing tribes and warlords, and people chose to form states and governments because that turned out to be a far more efficient system and better way of providing for security and the common good.
The closest thing to libertarianism in today's world would be places like the favelas in Brazil where the state has very little ability to enforce law and order (if you have ever seen the movie "City of God" you will know what I'm talking about). Another great example would be Kowloon Walled City near Hong Kong, which had no government for half a century.
In neither case do we get utopia. Instead, organized crime simply moved in and assumed the role of a government, except without any kind of democracy. Just as I imagine the world existed before the invention of nation-states in the first place.
The point is that power relations, and the desire of some humans to dominate others for material gain, has always existed and will always exist in the world. Simply abolishing government with no replacement doesn't solve that problem, it makes it worse. |
If you want to change one person's mind, you have to listen to them first.
If you want to change *a society's* mind, ridicule and disparagement is a valid tactic.
This is because societal change is mostly generational. Making these views and ideas the subject of mockery and derision makes them 'uncool' for teenagers who are establishing their political identity for the first time, which is a big part of why younger people are always more liberal than older people.
When we treat bad ideas with respect, it increases the danger that other people who are on the fence or establishing their views for the first time will think that those ideas are respectable. | If I may try to change your view back, it's not just conditioning. The purpose of the sex drive is to produce healthy offspring. Your brain has tons of ways to assess that that you don't even notice. This is why men find women more attractive when they're ovulating, and women who use hormonal birth control less attractive than women who don't.
Even a well-passing trans person is sterile with hormone levels that, unless their doctor is *very* good and *very* lucky, are not well consistent with their chosen gender. Dating a trans person is like dating that robot from Ex Machina. The biology is not there, and you have every right to be bothered if that important fact is concealed from you |
This is such a slippery slope.
Right now the bidding value for college level labor is 0 dollars for these unpaid internships. Many more places would also join in on this if there were some laws in place to protect these workers.
I predict in the future (or even currently) our children will have to BUY their first few years of work experience, essentially putting our labor at a negative value.
What employers need to do is to stop posting "entry level" positions that have ridiculous requirements. | I hate to say it but, when you're a college grad you don't get much leverage.
A "great" offer that requires you to fork over your password is a pretty easy pill to swallow when you don't have a job or you're looking to go from McDonalds to much better paying pastures.
The problem here is that if there is no law preventing it, it can basically equate to blackmailing a person for their information. |
Ireland joined Britain with an act of Union in 1801 creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1921 Ireland was partitioned between Southern and Northern Ireland with Northern Ireland remaining within the Union and the Southern part gaining autonomy but swearing allegiance to the crown (something similar to Canada, there was a whole host of rules and agreements but the general principle of they can do what they like stands) eventually the Free state (southern Ireland) declared itself a republic when it knew that the UK would not retaliate. Northern Ireland remained part of the Union and does to this day as part of the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Before 1921 there was just Ireland, the idea of Northern Ireland only came into existence around 1914 with the idea of partition. | The Burgundian inheritance. Essentially in the 1477 the Duke of Burgundy died with no heir and so he had his Burgundian possessions given (probably more of a take than a give to be fair) to France. However, to balance out the French he gave his possessions in the low countries to Austria as his daughter <PERSON> was married to Archduke <PERSON> This strengthened Austria and gave them direct control over those lands which would discourage French expansion to the Rhine. When the Hapsburg crown was divided after the death of <PERSON>) it would pass to the Spanish Hapsburgs.
The Dutch did soon revolt as the 80 Years War began in 1568. At the time however nationalism was not like it is today. It was common to be ruled by foreigners. It was burdensome rule by the Spanish Hapsburgs in combination with their incredibly Catholic policies that encouraged the revolt.
*Corrections to dates and whatnot. |
Do you feel superior to or more skilled than <PERSON>, <PERSON>, <PERSON> or <PERSON>? Will you change the world more or give more to help more people? I'd imagine they would all prefer to have been fit all their lives but if doing it required them to shift their attention away from accomplishing their achievements and into counting calories and containing hunger I don't imagine the world would be a better place.
I'd encourage you to look just one level under the fat. Before you make a judgement, figure out if the person there is lazy, content or careless. There are a lot of people like that out there so you will find them but you will also find people who, for whatever reason, cannot accomplish weight control in addition to everything else they do - and the other things they do are great things. | I saw the title and my first impulse was to support your point. I love words and poetry has never been my favorite. After reading the entire OP I'd reconsidered. Poetry isn't my thing. I enjoy finding the beauty in larger pieces which often require supporting passages that lead up to great things but I suppose others could prefer the condensed forms.
More words are not always better. If an idea can be conveyed briefly then more words will make it muddier as easily as make it clearer. Even the clearest water blocks light if it's deep enough. I'd love to expand on that point but those words already express my point in a manner I believe to be clear and unambiguous. I'd make the point again in a different way but if I do it differently it may create a dissonance that reduces clarity. I will continue on the topic of poetry in particular however.
Because I've never been interested in poetry I haven't paid much attention to the definition. It's not all cadence and rhyming. I don't care for that much. When I appreciate words it's for their meaning and the thoughts they provoke (maybe this is one reason I dislike dad jokes). I would describe short, profound things that stand alone as poetry. <PERSON>'s comment would qualify. Sometimes short passages of a novel are poetic but they get part of their value from the story around them. They are improved by their inclusion in a larger work. Is it not possible that shorter poetry could be similarly moving without the additional words around it? The practical benefit of not having to read as much alone could be an argument in favor of poetry. If I spend an hour reading and find two beautiful moments in literature is this still better than reading three beautiful poems in the same time? Is the maximum magnitude of longer literature larger? Can the words of shorter work not be supported by other means such as the common experiences we share throughout our lives?
[](/twiveryyes) |
>Purely anecdotal, but I had to rely on the government for money for a year. I liked it. I didn't want to give it up. If it hadn't been for the fact that I moved up in life I don't know if I would have bothered. I'm content with being lower class, and it's literally free money. Why would I say no to free money? Many people don't like working. That's not innovation, that's the opposite. **Necessity is the mother of invention**
Or maybe the government should stop threatening to take that money away from people when they started working? Welfare is an incentive to keep people out of a job, but taking that away from the poor is not going to help when they need a roof to get a job. Have you considered basic income instead? | >Well I didn't say this yet, but what if everyone got free money from the government each month? What if you give everybody $300 per week regardless of how much they make and just have a slightly higher tax rate on other income? Would there be any less incentive to work? Well yeah, the people who are really opposed to working (or truly unable) will be able to refuse to work and survive, but people will earn what they earn without any penalty from the government. If I work a minimum wage job 4 hours a week I'll have my wages and my free $300. If I work full time as a high tech consultant I'll have my significantly higher wages plus $300 per week.
Yes I agree.
>As a bonus, by giving everyone in the country the same thing, you eliminate almost all of overhead costs from the welfare programs.
I doubt this. Administering a system where 300 million people get a payment seems like chore. The IRS sort of does this now but only once a year. I say sort of because I'm sure only a fraction of the US population get a tax refund whereas under this plan everyone gets the $300.
|
I've had attractions as well to boys and girls, ever since I was little. However, I believe it was learned. Somewhere and somehow.
By fetish, I mean something that you use to get off on. Like, if a person masturbates every time they eat paper, they will eventually develop a fetish for eating paper.
Nobody is born with a fetish. Someone who has a balloon fetish has chosen to get off on it. They were not born that way, they learned to get off on it. They choose to get off on it. Sort of like a bad habit or addiction in a way. They would never choose to get a balloon fetish, but in a way they did choose to. They learned to like it and choose to get off on it. Fetishes are a choice and something that is learned. Same goes with bisexuality. | Yep. I feel like I have a respectable amount of karma for having this account for a few months, obtained through respectable measures. I still don't give out my username, I like being able to speak my mind.
But wait, I'm a girl. I must not have a mind, just boobs and an ass. Therefore, all my karma must be from gonewild. There's no other way. |
> are you really arguing that corporate donors don't drive the agendas of our politicians?
No, that's why I said what I did at the end. I think that donors do provide a conflicting incentive. My point was just that, in response to your specific statement which I quoted, it's only one piece of the puzzle. Fixing it will help, but it won't come close to creating politicians that "would have no incentive to do anything other than serve you" as you said. And, in reality, a lot of the same powerful people will remain powerful because their power tends to mean they have many other kinds of influence in society than merely paying for things. | Here's the difference. You sometimes can get loans with just a stable income. But, you are of a much greater risk and thus your APR will be extremely high in comparison. As /u/straighttoplaid said, your credit score doesn't show that you pay back your loan but that you're a low risk of default. Someone who pays the minimum payment every time on time is going to have a fairly decent credit score. The only calculation that might be negative is the total utilization of the card (it's best up to 30%), so if it's over 30% it will start to negatively affect the credit score.
If you have little or no credit history, they don't know whether or not you're a big risk of defaulting on the loan and that risk is sometimes too much for the US banks to take. Because, you know...they like to make extremely large profits.
The credit score system isn't bad. It's a little wonky, but it's not bad. Just too many Americans don't understand how to use credit to their advantage and are often too irresponsible with them (maxing them out, forgetting due dates, etc.). |
I love this sub too!
How cool that you're writing a novel (I think being a writer is the absolute fucking best career imaginable) - who are your favourite writers? And what kind of writing do you do?
I'm a Brit - how have you found moving here?
I wish our population was more welcoming to foreigners but at the moment everyone is so mean about it (UKIP becoming horrifically popular etc.), like they want to put walls up around our country. | > There's also quite a bit of city specific vocabulary. One thing which is pretty interesting is that the dialect changes *drastically* as you leave the city.
My city (Hull, England) is the same! Like for instance most people here (not me, because I'm posh :p) don't pronounce a h at the start of a word, so e.g. hard is pronounced 'ard, etc. |
I'm curious what your position is on all of this.
> I explained my view, or I tried, would you like to explain yours? You said you think we differ on what evidence is, wanna explain your view?
I tried to explain how we could build off of what we already know. The idea of a resurrection seems to contradict what we already know. | > In other words, I am an apatheist because I am not convinced that a relationship to god (or lack thereof) has any significant impact on my everyday life.
If a god exists and cares about the things you do, there could be eternal torment in your future. Additionally, a god that answers prayers and gives blessings can tangibly improve your life. That seems like something worth caring about. |
Yes if you're aiming for college GED isn't the best option. I don't know the rules for everywhere. For me, I had to wait until my 18th birthday, or the graduation date of my class before I could take the GED. 2 years off of school isn't the best way to start college.
For those who do want a degree, leaving high school isn't helping, earning credits early is what helps. Fortunately, there are plenty of opportunities to do just that... without leaving high school. | I've seen walmart and 1 person handles about 10 self checkouts. You should definitely be worried unless you work in a specialty market.
The checkout systems are only going to get better and better. Amazon stores have the capability where you walk in... grab what you want, and walk out of the store and your credit card gets charged.
However, the fact that cashiers won't disappear within the next 5 years, or probably 10, is basically my point from the start. |
No, that video is incredibly oversimplified.
Basically you hash a number and if it comes out below a threshold value (which is the difficulty of the problem), you win and are rewarded a bitcoin prize. This number you just guessed is used to verify the blockchain, which is the list of transactions.
So you are solving by guess and check.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_protocol | It takes several hours to cook beans from dried state (which is the cheap way of getting them). So no, going to the fast food store is much faster.
Vegetables are expensive. There are some on the burgers as toppings, but you would have to buy and add them to the rice and beans. |
I've only been once. Returned home from Army orders and was with a large group of underage servicemen. We all decided that we could per sway the doorman/bouncer to let us in. He did and we all sat around feeling uncomfortable. I was the only one to get a lap dance, and I only did it because I knew I wasn't coming back. It's not even worth it. | I can't speak for Army basic, but Air Force basic was the exact same. The most fun I've had that I never want to go through again. Number 3 works even after basic. I work on the flightline, so I always have forms and tools nearby. If you appear to be doing something, no one wants to bother you. |
>"Man can do what he wills, but he can not will what he wills."
Yes this is a description of free will, which is how our minds work.
> If you commit an unforgivable sin by blaspheming the Holy Spirit, then that is essential.
If you are acting morally you cannot blaspheme the Holy Spirit. | > You are basically saying god is non-contingent because you are only accepting definitions for god in which god is non-contingent..
No I'm not.
>I am saying there exist definitions for god in which god is not maximally great, and not necessarily non-contingent.
If those maximally great beings are contingent upon something, then how can they be maximally great?
>Your argument really should be: If a definition of god is not logically impossible, and this god is also defined as non-contingent, then this god must exist.
This is not a sensible reformulation of the argument nor does it actually represent what the argument is.
>But it seems that you like to use the phrase "if God is possible" in order to confuse agnostics into thinking that this applies to them in some way. It does not.
That doesn't make any sense. P1 is there as merely a premise and is not there to confuse anyone. |
>legally they shouldn't be provided any less protection from invasion of their privacy
Totally agree. But I also think <PERSON> should be laughed at by the public and the media and no one should have sympathy for her or any other politician who gets hacked if they support mass data collection.
They're getting what they deserve.
Is the law being broken? Yes of course. Is it okay to spy on someone? No, never. Did <PERSON> deserve to be hacked?? Absolutely, and she has no room to be out-raged because she supports mass data collection.
Politicians who get hacked should take it with a smile and brush it off because this is the world they created. | A while ago I took a vacation from FB, I can't remember for how long exactly but I completely uninstalled it for at least a month, probably longer. That is my main social media, I mainly use IG as a vehicle for uploading photos to FB, and I have a Twitter but don't use it and don't even have the app installed.
Honestly I found it to be really great for mental health (self-confidence, etc) to disconnect from the "ideal" that people are showing online and pay more attention to the *real* person. I have since started using it again but there has been a permanent change in the way I use it and how it makes me feel - I'm quicker to unfollow, I hardly share anything myself anymore, and I no longer really feel any anxiety about it because I'm not comparing myself and my life to other people's anymore. I'm not by nature a very anxious person though so for me it was relatively easy to mentally realign and keep it that way - I imagine for those who struggle with anxiety in general it could be worth it to just completely ditch social media altogether. |
> wants to require me to sign a lease with her to rent out my parents spare bedroom and store my belongings on the premises.
Your parents are renting out the entire apartment, right? Not just a single room in the apartment? The landlord can't double dip, because she's already signed away exclusive access to your parents
But she doesn't have to allow you to move in at all, unless the lease says otherwise. With everyone's agreement (landlord, parents, you) she can add you to the lease. She may leverage this for a rent increase.
Of course, she could unilaterally decide to raise the rent or end your parents tenancy at any time, given appropriate (30 day) notice. | The way you avoid being price gouged is to not contract for services at a rate you're not willing to pay. If you knew she planned to charge $245, and you kept going, then you implicitly agreed to the rates she was paying.
Now, you're correct that you can now negotiate with her. But she has a perfectly valid claim to the money. I would tell her that you received less than 100% of the damages in the settlement and can't pay her the full rate, but your current offer (<20%) is probably way too low. I would start by offering her 50%, seeing if she'll agree to that, and go from there. But she has the right to refuse and sue you for 100%, so keep that in mind. |
A meme is something that gets popular and starts propagating naturally.
Forcing a meme is one person or a small group of people trying to get something to take off when it doesn't have the natural oomf.
It's kind of like how some companies try to make viral videos, or assure you that their product is "the hottest new thing".
Or to sum it up in Reddit terms: "<PERSON>, stop trying to make fetch happen! It's not going to happen!" | Same here! Sometimes I just feel like looking what the people that are downvoted the most have written, and I just have to answer them sometimes. And that just ends in a heated discussion sometimes, because people are jerks.
Someone even called me SJW (Social Justice Warrior) one time. I'm not. Like, excuse me for actually thinking that what you wrote was really mean, and excuse me for pointing it out.
Do you encounter lots of asses on here? :P
Haha. Yes, *"one"*. :D
Right now it's Zonaria! |
This is where it gets muddy though; in the case of the U.S., the individual states all preceded the federal government, and individually ratified the constitution. Under 18th Century political theory, this was an act of delegation to a mutually agreed authority by thirteen sovereign states, and this delegation didn't reduce their sovereignty; <PERSON> believed that, the states being sovereign, no legal argument could be produced to prevent their secession, and when the War of Independence was concluded, the British recognized the independence of thirteen independent states.
| Wasn't that simply the condition placed in the Constitution, the "twenty year window" negotiated as a concession to Southern interests? The language in Article 1 Section 9 is fuzzy (and arguably an escape clause) but that was its intent. The only law I know of is the Act of 1807 that basically took advantage of the terms of that section relative to the slave trade, and statutes that followed (1818-1820) on it just changed or underscored its provisions.
[Edit: Identified Act; want to include a link to the Schomburg Center's very nice [recapitulation of the US experience of abolishing the slave trade](http://abolition.nypl.org/essays/us_constitution/) ] |
It matches up to the part in the Bible that says "Be still and know that I AM". Not the part where God tells the Israelites to go and conquest the Canaanites, or whatever (unless you look as Israelites as a metaphor for your higher self and the Canaanites as a metaphor for your inner demons, which is fine but is a less obvious and workable allegory than other biblical stories)
If you read the Bible with this perspective it becomes pretty clear which stories can be used with this understanding in mind and which are included for dogmatic control and manipulation. | I see your point that you feel things in the torah should be rules and allegory and not history, but that seems to be a modern notion. I strongly disagree with your notion that "allegory in the Bible was separate from history by Tradition", this appears to be changing history as it happened. Millions of people lived and died thinking that was real history. For about 1,900 years it was all taught as literal history until science got its act together and people who disagreed were often persecuted.
The church and the bible didn't seem to create that distinction until people with very strong evidence came along (unless you have some sources to back your revisionist claims up). Evidence defeated faith. What happens if evidence emerges that demonstrates <PERSON> never existed? (because there is certainly no evidence outside the bible he was real) |
I think most reasonable people would look at it and see both sides having issues. The husband definitely came off as immature but the wife definitely seemed dismissive of her husband's wants and needs. No idea if it's true but that's how it came across. Overall what they needed was a good therapist, not Reddit. | Kind of agree. Maybe he was thinking he was doing a favor by keeping it out of public view and just trying to be neighborly in his own weird way. Definitely strange but maybe it's just an awkward way to white knight for <PERSON>. Trying to make it seem like he's looking out for her. Not the best strategy. Unless he's literally holding it ransom, I would just call him and ask him not to do it again. |
There's an important thing we should be teaching kids: how to determine whether a source is reliable. If Wikipedia says something, follow the citation and see how credible the source is. If there's no citation, try to find a source for the information--if you can't, don't assume it to be true. Wikipedia articles truly run the gamot from bad to great, so it's a great tool for that. | [](/agree) I have a map of the world in my basement. The scale is 1:1. It has every single detail of the world, down to the smallest virus. Of course, that makes it useless as a map.
Simplification is why analogies work. If they were accurate about everything, they wouldn't be analogies--they'd be the real thing. |
I'm not a qualified user, but dropped by to suggest <PERSON>, a contemporary figure, who wrote *The Book of Contemplation* which contains some interesting accounts of crusaders (he calls them 'Franks') and general life of an aristocrat (hunting, sundry small battles, horses, mainly). It's quite charming and urbane.
You can get this in Penguins, subtitled 'Islam and the Crusades'. I've got no idea how accurate he's considered to be though. | That's not entirely the case. The ban on 'factionalism', honoured more in the breach than in the observance during the 1920s, applied only to the Communist Party. It was a matter of intra-party discipline, not broader electoral law. That had a more convoluted history.
Outside of the party, ie in elections to various soviets, there was no formal bar on 'factions'. Non-party candidates were technically free to stand for election, if nominated by an appropriate state body and approved by the party. This in fact regularly happened, particularly in the lower soviet bodies.
So, yes this was managed process in which elections were non-competitive. But this had nothing to do with the ban on factionalism. |
As per the title, on the surface, there seem to be many overlaps, especially regarding folklore, food etc.
Still, there's often a distinction made, for example between German folklore and Scandinavian folklore.
When did this cultural distinction occur?
Does it have to do with the German lands being Christian for a longer period of time? | I've said this before already, but the ranking just before the worldcup is irrelevant except for the drawings, and then only if you're top 7 (or 8).
If you come from a weaker region, but you beat them all, your score will be inflated. In comparison to the rest of the world though, your ranking would probably be quite a bit lower, realistically speaking.
In other words, if a team ends up 4th place in their group at the world cup, they'll lose quite a few ranking spots as each loss means you lose points on the ladder.
In the same way that, say, a European NFL team may dominate in Europe but gets kicked out instantly against American teams. It's irrelevant on a global level that they dominated Europe since they still don't have shit to say on a global level. |
care to explain then? What is wrong with it?
The first part was, admittedly, only my opinion. What has been done to <PERSON> is not illegal because he's not considered an enemy combatant.
If he were a prisoner of war, international protocols like the Geneva Conventions would apply to him and he could not be tortured. It is my opinion to that which is defined as torture should not be practiced on anyone - the protocol should apply to more than just prisoners of war.
.
The second part about the Bolivian president's plane being grounded to see if he was transporting <PERSON> or something related to his arrest - that's just something that happened. Not much to disagree with there, at least in that it happened.
http://rt.com/news/bolivian-president-plane-snowden-577/ | I can tell you a little but about western Europe's relationship with Israel in the early years of the State of Israel (though it is important to note that some European nations have strong ties to Israel in the modern era - they simply lack the resources to support Israel in the way America does/Israel has no need for their technical and military support in the way that it has America's).
It is worth noting that in 1952 <PERSON>, the conservative Chancellor of Germany, agreed a reparations treaty with Israel agreeing to pay DM 100 billion to the state of Israel as restitution to those Jews who had perished in the holocaust/had their property confiscated who had no surviving relatives. This was a big political risk for <PERSON>, as in Germany just 5% of west Germans admitted feeling "guilty" towards the Jews, and also for the Israeli government - many Israelis and jews felt very strongly that accepting reparations was tantamount to forgiveness for Nazi crimes, which many were not prepared to give in any circumstances. However the treaty went ahead, which gave Germany a big hand in the early finances of the State of Israel - reparations were as much as 87.5% of the state's income in 1956.
Britain and France had a somewhat close relationship with Israel in the 1950s and 1960s. Britain's relationship with Israel got off to a slightly more shaky start as it was Britain that had been in control of Palestine from WWI onwards - Britain had unceremoniously pulled out of Palestine having been unable to combat the rising tensions and attacks by Palestinian and Jewish right-wing groups (see e.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing). Britain's support for Israel had often been mixed, owing to Britain's longstanding interests in the region. Britain was often seen as pro-Arab, and did not want to risk losing support in a region in which for much of the period between the 1940s and 1970s, perhaps even on to the 1980s, it still saw itself as a major player.
France however, despite similar interests in North Africa, Lebanon and Syria, had a closer relationship with Israel from the start - it is worth noting that France, and its North African possessions, had Europe's largest Jewish population post-WWII, so may have been more culturally inclined to cooperate with Israel. In the 1950s France began selling weapons to the IDF, such as Dassault Mirage fighter jets. There have been suggestions that it was France that gave Israel the help it needed to begin its nuclear programme.
However both nations saw the peak of their cooperation with Israel during the [Suez Crisis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis), precipitated by Arab Nationalist/Socialist <PERSON>'s siezing of power in Egypt and nationalization of the Suez Canal, which had been owned by the Suez Canal Company. Egypt, whilst it had been nominally independent since the 1920s, had been heavily controlled by Britain, for whom the Suez Canal was an important lifeline to its possessions in the east. The Canal was similarly important to France. Meanwhile Arab-Israeli tensions had resulted in Egypt's blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba, which the Israeli government was determined to put an end to.
In 1956 Israel, France and Britain hatched a secret plan (ignoring a 1950 treaty that committed France, Britain and America to work together in the event of any threat to the state of Israel) to conduct joint military operations in order for Israel to occupy the Sinai peninsula and Britain and France to occupy the Suez Canal Zone. They were militarily successful, but American and international pressure forced Britain and France to withdraw from the Suez Canal Zone.
<PERSON> posits that the whole affair had a profound impact on all four countries:
Israelis saw that whatever their reliance on French military hardware, their best bet for survival in the long term was to tie themselves to the world's new hegemon, the United States, and align theirs and Washington's interests as closely as possible.
Suez reminded the United States of its new responsibilities in the post-WWII world. <PERSON> was angry that <PERSON> (the British PM) and <PERSON> (the French PM) had simply assumed that the United States would tacitly support their aggression against Egypt.
Even more so, America was angry they had unwittingly handed a propaganda victory to the USSR; it was at exactly this time that the Soviet Union sent tanks to Hungary to suppress a nascent movement to free Hungary from Moscow's shackles and run the country on more democratic lines. This was hidden in most of the world by news of France and Britain's naked imperialist ambitions in the Middle East, and the Soviet Union (which had no real intention of intervening) was able to play protector by handing a diplomatic note to the west demanding British and French withdrawal. The Middle East would come to play a key role in America's anti-Soviet policies, with the US declaring in 1957 that it would oppose all "International Communist" aggression in the Middle East; Israel would be a key partner in resisting Soviet incursions in the Middle East.
It was on Britain that the effects fell hardest - there could be no clearer demonstration that Britain no longer had the resources to back up a global empire. American economic pressure during the crisis had decimated Britain's foreign exchange reserves and risked a run on the pound; Britain could no longer afford to be at the top table alone. Britain had been marginalised and it was from this point on that British colonies would be handed independence at a growing pace, a global retreat which culminated in the withdrawal of all British troops, ports and bases "East of Suez" in 1971. Secondly the UK establishment realised that "must never again find itself on the wrong side of an argument with Washington", leading to the very close international cooperation of London and Washington for decades to come.
France (and future President <PERSON> in particular) drew the exact opposite conclusion from the USA's display of willingness to rebuke its allies - France must maintain its ability to act independently and not rely on the support of its allies. It was this course that would lead to France beginning to withdraw its fleets from NATO control in 1958 and ordering that no foreign nuclear weapons be stationed on its soil. The French military wanted to ensure that, in the event of an invasion from East Germany, they would be able to fight independently from the west and reach a separate peace if necessary.
I have ventured somewhat off topic here, but I hope it demonstrates a point - the close relationship of America and Israel is not just a function of internal American politics (although the relationship between Israel, America's Jews, America's left, and then the American right and American evangelists, explains how it was possible), but also represents the story of America's unparalleled global reach and power in the post-WWII world.
Whether western Europe wanted to be Israel's ally and protector in the Middle East after 1948, both they and Israel came to realise that only America could play that role. The goings on the in the Middle East in the 1950s arguably helped set the future course for Europe's two former imperial powers.
Sources: Mostly *Postwar* by <PERSON>.
|
I urge you to contact the [Landlord Tenant Board](http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/ltb/) for the proper forms to serve your landlord.
Legal Aid Ontario runs free [community legal clinics](http://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/contact/contact.asp?type=cl) where they are well-versed in dealing with tenancy issues.
Also; your school may have an office that provides legal help to students - call the Student Union to ask.
Keep in mind that some of the responses here will be based in US law, and completely incorrect for Ontario - our [Residential Tenancies Act](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17) is far more strongly pro-tenant than many other jurisdictions.
| I am not a lawyer. I was, however, a First Aid instructor in Manitoba.
I was trained to administer Epipens. I trained people to administer Epipens. What I was taught, and what I taught, was that you should do your best to let the victim administer it by himself, only use their own Epipen, and if you hadn't already contact EMS immediately.
>My question assumes the casualty isn't actively refusing assistance.
Unless they're unconscious, you need a yes, not a lack of a no. And if they're unconscious, you *never* administer any sort of medication as someone performing first aid.
This question will vary province-by-province. I am unaware of any case law on the subject one way or the other. I strongly suspect that someone who administered an Epipen to a conscious, consenting victim would be protected (given the similarity to AEDs), but as far as I know there is no definitive answer. |
While I understand your point, you have to realise that the world doesn't work by what's moral and what's not.
The fact is that it is not economically damaging enough to force a legitimate response from the content producers. They will of course try and find options to slow the growth of piracy, such as litigation and government intervention... But it won't stop anything.
With rising internet speeds, and easier availability of illegal copies, the only way to legitimately combat piracy is to make content so easily accessible there is no reason to pirate.
And the only way to ensure that happens is to force their hand, by hitting them where it hurts, their wallet.
You can look at the rise of piracy as a non-violent movement to force the entertainment industries to move into the 21st century, something they have heavily resisted so far.
In most industries, forcing a company to update their methods and make their services more advanced is simple, go to a competitor that offers those updated methods. Eventually the original company will either upgrade or die.
But in the entertainment industry you can't do that. Because movies often become cultural icons, our social instinct is to make sure we have seen the big hit movies, or be left behind and out of inside jokes. So even if they have an absolutely terrible delivery method, you will likely still try and watch/listen/read them.
Piracy is pretty much the only way to make a stand about archaic content delivery for the entertainment industry. And while morally reprehensible, is it any more so than holding an industry back in the past simply to improve profit margins?
| I don't think there's a logical argument to say that a paedophile who manages to completely control their actions is *wrong*. None at all.
But I think there's a strong argument to suggest being a paedophile presents a *danger*. It is natural for people to follow their urges, and common for people to give into them despite their best intentions. Look at people who try and fail to diet, exercise, gamble, etc... Some people succeed at resisting their urges, but some people also fail.
Paedophilia presents an additional temptation for those affected by it to engage in extremely harmful behaviour. Some people succeed at resisting these temptations, but some fail. Each temptation isn't of itself wrong, but each presents an increased risk of harmful behaviour. |
Not coconut or [kinder egg](http://www.megrosoff.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/kinder2.jpg)? I can understand if kinder eggs are not normal enough in the states what with them being more illegal than an a assault rifle (I mean really it's fucking chocolate, just eat the damn toy inside it if you must, but don't fear it!) but anyway wouldn't coconut be better since Oreos are kinda black-white-black? | If you are fairly successful and still single you will have other people cleaning shit for you (maids), and other people doing laundry (laundry service). Appliances help too like dish washing machines. If you cook big batches like I do then you always have fresh food just warm it up. But of course since you are successful you can always eat out and eat healthy at the same time. So that just leaves time for work, exercise and other shit once you take care of the basics. |
The cavity is definitely her responsibility. Insurance may very well be covering a portion and possibly even determining the discounting price, you'd possibly pay the same no matter the dentist. The dentist can't waive whatever the balance is as it breaks your contract with your insurance.
As for the cleaning, tell them that it breaks their contract with Groupon. Unless the Groupon specifies they can bill for that. If they refuse, tell Groupon. I've never heard of "extra cleaning" at the dentist anyway. Sounds like their doing great at using Groupon's business proposition and getting new patients that will stick. | Those are the same thing and that's also known as a bad check. If he wrote a check and it didn't pay the fee initially, they either forgot to cash the check (unlikely) or it bounced. I'm sure your dad knows unless he doesn't look at his bank account closely. |
If anything it did show investors just how ludicrously influential Nintendo's IPs are. Just slap them on an otherwise mediocre game and suddenly you're rolling in millions of dollars worth of microtransactions per day. As soon as Nintendo made it clear that they weren't going to just be handing out licenses to try and milk their franchises, investors started selling in droves. | The new consoles are much more capable of real-time physics and particle effects. Previous-generation games haven't really been able to rely upon either of those working consistently, making games featuring them either almost exclusively built around them or only using them in vague, cosmetic ways that can be cut if necessary. |
wouldn't it be better for a crazy person to not have access to guns in the first place, rather than risk your kid's life? And who can guarantee that the teacher will have time to get the gun before somebody gets killed? sure one person dead is better than twenty seven, but it's still one person too many, and this kind of thing should be preventative, not minute after | We keep doing what feels familiar. If I brush my teeth every morning, it will feel weird to skip one day, but if I never brush my teeth, it will feel weird to start, and probably my gums will bleed and it'll hurt. But that doesn't mean it's bad for me, just unfamiliar. It's actually good for my health.
So, if I were you, I'd talk to him. Something like "hey dad, remember when I said your jokes make me grumpy? that's not true, but I prefer it when you say that I look happy, because I'll start the day even better". So he'll know what to do instead of what is *familiar* for him, you know?
If you don't want to do that, just practice being nicer. Say "hey dad" with a smile, give him a hug, ask him how he's doing, really look at him and imagine what he's thinking, how his mind works, how hard it must be to raise two girls... empathy! |
At the time of the ratification controversy, the terms "Federalist" and "Republican" referred to political principles, not political parties. A "federalist" government was one that was a federation of smaller states, like the Constitution laid out; a "republican" government was one that was based on the rule of the people, like the Constitution also laid out. So, <PERSON> and <PERSON> could use both terms in the Federalist Papers. There weren't any organized political parties at the time with single names. The faction in favor of the Constitution is, and was at the time, normally described as "federalists" because how much the central government would be "federal" (stronger) versus "confederate" (looser) was a legitimate point of disagreement; all sides agreed that republican government was a good thing.
To confuse matters somewhat, when the first American political parties developed in the mid-1790's, they called themselves "Federalist" and "Republican." The Federalists wanted to position themselves as the ones who truly supported the Constitution, and as they had the stronger organization under President <PERSON> and <PERSON>, they got first pick of the name (as it were). The Republicans then adopted their name, in part from the "Republican Societies" that had sprung up in support of the French Revolution, and in part because they positioned themselves as the party truly supporting the people against the Federalists' alleged elitism.
If you want one book on the development of the early American party system, I'd recommend <PERSON> *America Afire*. <PERSON> biography *James Madison: A Life Reconsidered* is also rather good (at least, the first half; I haven't finished the second half yet.) | The term Zhongguo, or Middle Kingdom, predates the warring states period, first being used in the Classic of History. Before the warring states period, China had been unified under the <PERSON> and <PERSON> dynasties, so common identity was hardly unprecedented; the elites of the various states were all writing in the same language, read the same books, practiced similar rites, and identified themselves as being not-barbarians, who were present in every direction. That's not to say that affiliation with one's king or duke were inconsequential, but it was within a broader context of a culturally close knit polity fracturing and reforming into smaller contending states. |
If your rent was late even counting the date the repair happened as when it was due, then you should pay the fee. Otherwise tell them no. And make sure you do it in writing, and tell them you feel the demand is retaliatory.
If they try to evict you you have very good grounds to fight it. Any eviction that begins within six months of you lawfully withholding rent is considered retaliatory by default. If the eviction is over you not paying this late fee, it would be retaliatory even later.
Still, you should probably not renew your lease with these clowns, both because they've made this repair issue personal, and because they handled it so badly in the first place. | It depends. Aggravated felonies and sex offenses can never be sealed.
Otherwise, your record can sometimes be sealed at 21. With felonies Thee are more stipulations. Namely no more convictions since, no more felony convictions after age 17, the case can't have been transferred to a criminal court, and the records can't have been used later as evidence in the punishment face a subsequent trial. If you meet all of these requirements it is up to the sole discretion of the court to seal it, and if they do you can generally get it expunged as well. You will definitely want the help of an attorney through this process.
The upside is if you successfully get them sealed you can truthfully answer "no" to the question of "have you ever been arrested, convicted, or abjucated of a crime?" This is super important when it comes to schooling, jobs, and so much more.
[source](http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/sealing-or-expunging-juvenile-criminal-records-in-texas.htm) |
Yeah, that's pretty clearly fraud. Plus, the girl is complicit and just as guilty as the mother if she has knowledge. /r/Insurance would probably be able to give you an idea of the liklihood of her getting caught simply because they know the way things work and the checks and balances in the system better.
I'm most perplexed that she was able to get state welfare health insurance though. | Nobody is getting arrested over 200$. I doubt you'd get arrested over a 2,000$ bill honestly. Especially since you are contesting the charge from the sound of things.
Although, I would be interested to find out if the credit bureaus in the US contact your local equivalents in any way. I doubt it, but I wouldn't put it past them either. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
> Capitalism is defined as a social and economic system in which capital assets are mainly owned and controlled by private persons, labor is purchased for money wages, capital gains accrue to private owners, and the price mechanism is utilized to allocate capital goods between uses.
Private ownership existed in primitive societies which did not have markets. This definition is rather more complete.
| > Sorry, but do you not think that 50% to 60% of your salary is a rather absurdly high cap? I make a fairly high income and where I live I absolutely could not live on only 40-50% of my income.
It mentioned that there are many states which choose to cap at 40-50% instead, and if there was a big enough push from interest groups I'm sure you could get that reformed to something more reasonable like 25-35%
> Why should that single parent and that child receive a large boost in their living standards because they had a child with someone wealthier?
Why should the wealthier parent be absolved of the responsibility of their actions? If you've had this kind of casual relationship without proper protection and it's resulted in a child, why should you be allowed to walk away and leave the mother with the burden of caring for the child on their own?
>but I do dispute that assumption for every child.
This is why these things go to a court to be decided on a case by case basis by a Judge.
Also, income of the parent that left is not the *only* thing considered in these calculations. [Considerations include:](http://www.alllaw.com/articles/family/child_custody/article48.asp)
* Income of both parents
* Deductions from pre-existing debtors and payments
* Childcare costs
* Healthcare costs
* "Other costs" (e.g. special education for the gifted or handicapped)
* The amount of time with each parent in shared visitation
[Here's a calculator](http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/childsupport) for each state to show how your situation may have been handled. It's not purely one sided **"the one who left pays all!"** though. It's fairly considerate. |
I think there's no way to answer your last few questions, likely only him and the people he owe know exactly what he owes and in what form - credit card, 401k, loans, etc. And it seems like he's past convincing. I'd let him hire that lawyer, and the lawyer will probably be the best person for him to talk to right now. They can sit down with him, look at his finances, and advise him on his best course of action. And they'll have a fancy law degree behind them to hopefully convince him. | It sounds like she has a lot of options to find other work and quickly. Between her former employer and all these other offers, there's likely a lot of jobs she would be a great fit for. Unless she burnt the bridges when she rejected those other offers, at least one of those hiring managers would likely still love to have her. |
First and foremost the Merlin was one of the most capable inline engines available in the world in the 1930s, especially for the UK. This is why it was favored for the Mustang over the Allison inline engine.
Secondly, it benefitted from the leadership vision of Rolls-Royce's <PERSON>. He initially rebuked the UK government's ideas of using shadow factories (factories built using state funds but would sit dormant until needed) due to the impact on quality it would have on the engines. <PERSON> proposed a US styled subcontractor system where the engine plans would be handed over to non-Rolls Royce entities and allow them to produce the engine under license. This was highly successful and allowed Rolls Royce to meet production requirements for the Merlin engine. About one third of the 170,000 Merlin engines were produced under license by Packard in the United States.
While the combination of shadow factories and subcontractors allowed Rolls Royce to meet requirements, again, the requirements were only there due to the Merlins performance threshold.
Source: *Creating Modern Capitalism: How Entrepreneurs, Companies and Countries Triumphed in Three Industrial
Revolutions* by <PERSON> | Austria-Hungary was primarily using their own Steyr-Mannlicher M1895 rifle and carbines. This was a straight pull system with an en-bloc loaded magazine system feeding 8mm rounds.
The principle pistol design of the time would be the [Steyr M1912](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_M1912) but [M1907s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth-Steyr_M1907) and [Rast-Gasser Revolvers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rast-Gasser_M1898) made appearances. On the Hungarian side, there was the [Frommer Stop](http://candrsenal.com/pistol-frommer-stop/) as well.
Because of the dual-monarchy there were mirror arsenals at Steyr and Budapest producing the same rifles. You can even see each part marked with a K or R depending on where they were made. |
I have way too many shows on my plate at the moment lol. AHS, GOT, The Good Wife, The Originals, Arrow, Amazing Race, Gotham, How to Get Away with Murder, Stalker, OITNB, The 100. My favorite finished shows are True Blood and Lost (of course). Things I've never seen but plan to: Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, House of Cards. | Seeking a Friend for the End of the World. It's not even the sad ending that gets me, it's [this scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIIqSKu_RuU). Always makes me sob.
I finally finished House M.D. a little over a week ago though and it did make me tear up. It was sad but happy at the same time. |
Hey, for Germany check out this previous post of mine!
* [How and why did people accept nationalism when it first emerged?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2wragi/how_and_why_did_people_accept_nationalism_when_it/)
* [How did Prussia come to dominate all the other German states?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/34gabd/how_did_prussia_come_to_dominate_all_the_other/)
I like the TL;DR from my first post though:
* French Revolution introduced the philosophical concepts of a nation of equal citizens + the rise of the secular state loyal only to its people.
* ...along with the literal, legal application of removing the privileges of aristocracy and the church. The former was not so much applied to all of Germany but it was, still, heavily performed.
* The plummeting of religious belief in Europe created a void of "social glue" which held society together.
* West Germany would be heavily mediatized giving the power to a few, powerful Princes with a large base constituency rather than a decentralized band of Church, Knightly, and Imperial land with varying loyalty: *Local* Germans had German land now, more aptly.
* Massive boons in the field of communications, industrialization, transportation, and literacy created an interconnected world like never before.
* The memory of French dominance for decades, the removal of the Holy Roman Empire and the persistent threat of internal and external conquest, created the universal want/need for a strong centralized German state for protection.
* With the shared communication, literacy, etc. clubs and societies sprung up like wildfire all speaking and sharing to "German" history, a shared German culture, exemplifying "German" characteristics and traditional clothings and foods. Everyone could now communicate with everyone, a proverbial melting pot, and now they were all sharing the wealth of history and culture from their corner of Germany.
Everyone else began their own journeys at their own times though. France began in 1792 like I said above. Germany began, arguably, in 1803 (mediatization) and 1805 (end of the HRE) but certainly in 1815 after <PERSON>. The Slavic people would begin theirs as they found common identity of oppression under their Austro-Hungarian masters. The Poles under their common oppression from basically everyone who wanted to divvy up their land and people; a shared status of minority split between 3, 4, even 5 other states at times. It took the Russian people, arguably, until 1917 to truly begin their revolution. It's a very case by case basis for why a people took hold of nationalist thought so we must understand it wasn't a "lightswitch"; it was a genie out of the bottle which slowly gripped everyone it touched through various ways and just happened to occur at the most opportune social period in human history. It took some longer than others though and we can't forget that. | > The German Army's control over German politics would later be emphasized during WW1, when two generals, <PERSON> and <PERSON> became virtual dictators of Germany by virtue of being the leader of the German general staff.** <PERSON> was in command of the German 8th army which won a massive victory against the Russians at the battle of Tannenberg. These victories made <PERSON> a national hero, with an enormous cult of personality around him. Now <PERSON> and his chief of staff, <PERSON> (who held the real power and used <PERSON> as a puppet) argued that German should focus more on the Eastern Front. The chief of the German General Staff <PERSON>, argued that the war should be fought primarily in the west. Eventually, <PERSON> got discredited due to his inability to make any progress on the Western Front and <PERSON> was made Chief of the General Staff. <PERSON> held the real power, and using his influence and power was usually able to control the <PERSON> and <PERSON>. This in essence made the Army the unseen ruler of Germany. The fact that a military general had so easily been able to take control of the German government, showed that the Army was without a doubt the most powerful organ in the German Empire.
I just want to add that the <PERSON> government had, through price controls and rationing in almost every part of the economy, almost totally converted Germany over from semi-capitalism to "war socialism" by the end of WWI. This model would go on to be greatly admired by the rising socialists and technocrats, who wanted to emulate it. It was also [furiously denounced](http://mises.org/nsande/pt2ch6.asp) by the likes of <PERSON>, who famously argued that there was no real difference between this "socialism on the German [and later Nazi] model" and "socialism on the Russian model [i.e. Bolshevism]":
> [O]ne must first of all keep in mind that socialism means the transfer of the means of production out of the private ownership of individuals into the ownership of society. That alone and nothing else is socialism. All the rest is unimportant. It is a matter of complete indifference for deciding our question, for example, who holds power in a socialized community, whether a hereditary emperor, a <PERSON>, or the democratically organized whole of the people. It does not belong to the essence of a socialized community that it is under the leadership of soviets of workers and soldiers. Other authorities also can implement socialism, perhaps the church or the military state. It is to be noted, furthermore, that an election of the general directorship of the socialist economy in Germany, carried out on the basis of full universality and equality of the right to vote, would have produced a far stronger majority for <PERSON> and <PERSON> in the first years of the war than <PERSON> and <PERSON> could ever have achieved in Russia.
>
> Also nonessential is how the outputs of the socialized economy are used. It is of no consequence for our problem whether this output primarily serves cultural purposes or the waging of war. In the minds of the German people or at least of its preponderant majority, victory in the war was seen beyond doubt as the most urgent goal of the moment. Whether one approves of that or not is of no consequence.[21]
>
> It is equally of no consequence that war socialism was carried out without formal reorganization of ownership relations. What counts is not the letter of the law but the substantive content of the legal norm.
>
> If we keep all this in mind, then it is not hard to recognize that the measures of war socialism amounted to putting the economy on a socialistic basis. The right of ownership remained formally unimpaired. By the letter of the law the owner still continued to be the owner of the means of production. Yet the power of disposal over the enterprise was taken away from him. It was no longer up to him to determine what should be produced, to acquire raw materials, to recruit workers, and finally to sell the product. The goal of production was prescribed to him, the raw materials were delivered to him at definite prices, the workers were assigned to him and had to be paid by him at rates on whose determination he had no direct influence. The product, furthermore, was taken from him at a definite price, if he was not actually carrying out all the production as a mere manager. This organization was not uniformly and simultaneously implemented in all branches of industry—in many not at all. Also, its net had big enough meshes to let much get through. Such an extreme reform, which completely turns the conditions of production around, just cannot be carried out at one blow. But the goal being aimed at and being approached ever more closely with every new decree was this and nothing else. War socialism was by no means complete socialism, but it was full and true socialization without exception if one had kept on the path that had been taken. |
> Regardless, if this correlation is not grounds to take action because the causation isn't completely known, then why is the opposite generally cited as a cause to take action?
I'm not actually making this argument. I'm just pointing out different ways in which you cannot use correlation to make decisions without knowledge of causation. The way you get knowledge about causation is by maniuplating one variable and seeing if it has a predictable effect on the other variable. Unfortuantely, when lives are on the line, this kind of experimentation is not always ethical.
>As for the pirate example, it doesn't really apply *unless you can establish a legitimate connection between piracy and global warming*. *It's easy to establish a theoretical connection between prostitution and human trafficking*, but not so much with pirates and global warming.
See, this is the thing. A theoretical connection is not a legitimate one. Sure, they have something to do with one another, but we do not have any real reason beyond speculation in what ways they interact.
Now, we have other examples of legalizing commonly trafficked goods (not to be heartless, but you're making economic arguments, and that makes trafficked women a "good" - sorry :(... ).
Marijuana legalization has resulted in reduced production in central and south america so far as we can tell at this point. Since this illicit market works in a way that at least resembles the prostitution-trafficking complex, it is reasonable to think taht tthere might be actual causation to be found here, but again we cannot readily experiment with human lives, whree it is easier to let drug laws ride long enough to learn more about he conomics of black markets. | > Making abortions illegal means banning doctors from performing them. If abortions are illegal, women don't necessarily have to face some sort of punishment, but rather the doctor performing the abortion would be the criminal for performing an illegal surgery.
My point is that, if people support making abortion illegal, then they logically should support making both sides of it illegal: performing it, and receiving it. It's just like drugs--you don't just make the selling illegal, you also make the buying illegal. In this case, the woman would just be buying an illegal service instead of an illegal good. The same logic applies.
> Not all pro-life people think the woman is a criminal for getting an abortion, but simply believe in punishing the doctor.
I suppose that's true. I just don't see how it makes sense. Again, not making a value judgement on it; I don't like any sort of abortion restrictions. It just doesn't make sense to me how people can simultaneously believe that abortion is murder, and not want to punish women who get abortions for murder. |
Ugh, I did this at my local college a few years back. Fell asleep and kept farting repeatedly in my dream. Woke myself up with an abnormally loud one, and the guy next to me had been trying to get my attention. Maybe to ask me for my seat or maybe my farts were bothering him. I'll never know because I booked it out of there without a word. | My gramps was also a POW. He's never really talked to the family about it because the memories are too freaking horrible. He still gets nightmares once in a while. I know this because I heard him sleeptalking a couple times before when I stay over at my grandparents' place.
He's one of the funniest and most cheerful people I know, so it's pretty damn heartbreaking to hear what's happening in his dreams. |
I think you have a real case of stupid-listing-realtor-idus.
Price is not always the final factor in a homes sales. Sometimes contingencies are more valuable to the seller than the price.
If your realtor did not ask what was important to the sellers or even why are they selling get a new realtor. | I wont repeat what others have said but I will give you this piece of advice.
While its not impossible to determine if a woman is pregnant 2 weeks after sex it is not very common. Most at home tests are not accurate until the the 3rd week. This is just a guess but if she is a prostitute there is a high chance that if she is preggo it doesn't belong to you.
So text her back and see what she wants. If she says she is preggo say you want a paternity test and dont back down from that. |
Back in my day it was common for parents to want to talk to the parents of friends before outings. They wanted to get to know each other and talk about what the kids had planned. They wanted to make sure everyone was going to be safe and what to do, who to contact in case of emergencies. Sure kids have personal cell phones starting at 5 years old nowadays, but cell phones aren't reliable 100% of the time. Sometimes the signal is bad, the battery is low, or if you're lying in a ditch somewhere you probably won't be able to get to your phone. | If it's a family neighborhood, you two making out in a car regularly might be disturbing to someone. Just parking a strange car for a long time regularly outside someone's home could be bothering them. Illegal? Probably not. However, with your license plate a determined person can eventually get the name and address the car is registered to, and send a letter complaining of this behavior to the owner. If the owner is your parents, that could be embarrassing. |
It's so icy pretty much the entire city's shut down. School shut down, the community colleges shut down, all the clinics shut down, the mall shut down; pretty much the only thing that hasn't shut down are the emergency response offices. Needless to say, there's nothing to do. See title. | Well I know for a fact that my grandmother's maiden name was <PERSON>, and when another family member tried to tell my sister, she told him to shut up. Our uncle told her later in private. Also, what makes you so damn sure? It's impossible that <PERSON> had any siblings who ever had children? |
The 171k figure comes from Wikipedia's [List of major dam failures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure#List_of_major_dam_failures), while the [article on the dam itself](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam) is unclear. It should be noted that the sum of all other deaths from dam failures on Wikipedia's list is 22.5k, less than 1/7 of the single Banqiao failure.
[A search](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=banqiao&restrict_sr=on) reveals that /u/LukeInTheSkyWith has made two valiant attempts at asking about the disaster, to no avail. | You might be interested in some previous threads on the topic of British and French actions after the Soviet invasion of Poland:
**Britain, France, Poland, and the 1939 Soviet Invasion**
* [Why didn't Britain/France declare war on the USSR at the same time they declared war on Germany at the start of WWII?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1zo2qh/why_didnt_britainfrance_declare_war_on_the_ussr/) - 10 comments, over 11 months old.
* Besides the topmost comments linking to another thread, at the bottom there is a summary of the military situation, an analysis of the specific wording of the treaty between between Britain and Poland, Franco-Polish relations, and the timescale of Poland's defeat.
* [When <PERSON> and <PERSON> divided up Poland, why didn't France and Great Britain declare war on Russia as well?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1g1kbe/when_hitler_and_stalin_divided_up_poland_why/) - 29 comments, over 1 year old.
* A primary source is quoted at the topmost comment and commenters engage in debate over the legality of the situation.
* [Why didn't the Allies declare war on the Soviet Union when the latter invaded Poland in 1939?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/sjhn2/why_didnt_the_allies_declare_war_on_the_soviet/) - 10 comments, over 2 years old.
* The topmost comment is a one-liner that succinctly states the legality of France and the UK's lack of action.
* [WWII started when the UK and France declared war on Germany for attacking Poland. But why didn't they also declare war on the Soviet Union? The USSR also attacked Poland. And the free and democratic Finland as well.](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27k4z7/wwii_started_when_the_uk_and_france_declared_war/) - 45 comments, over 8 months old.
* This thread goes for a realpolitik and military interpretation of the situation to explain why France and Britain did not declare war on the Soviet Union.
* [Why didn't Poland's allies (Great Britain and France) declare war on Germany, but not do anything for over a year? Also, why didn't they declare war on the USSR?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gz09g/why_didnt_polands_allies_great_britain_and_france/) - 8 comments, over 1 year old.
* Commenters here describe <PERSON>'s motive for the 1939 invasion and how it appeared to the British and French governments.
* [Why did France and Britain only declare war on Germany when the Soviets also invaded Poland in 1939?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xedq1/why_did_france_and_britain_only_declare_war_on/) - 9 comments, over 2 years old.
* This thread puts the Soviet invasion of Poland into context with Britain's declaration of war against Germany after Germany launched its own invasion.
* [Anglo-Polish Military Alliance Pact - did Britain and France fail to uphold their side of the pact?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xg69l/anglopolish_military_alliance_pact_did_britain/) - 9 comments, over 2 years old.
* This post puts the treaty in context and also delves into a counterfactual scenario involving a quicker, more committed attack by France at the start of the conflict.
* [The Allies declared war on Germany in response to their invasion of Poland, as per their defence pacts. Why did they not also declare war on the USSR who invaded Poland at almost the same time?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23d42s/the_allies_declared_war_on_germany_in_response_to/) - 4 comments, over 10 months old.
* There's a very brief summary here that also mentions a plan to attack Russian oil facilities that was aborted after the Battle of Poland.
* [Why didn't the Western Powers declare war on the USSR the same way they did on Germany, when the two invaded Poland in the beginning of WWII?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ynp1z/why_didnt_the_western_powers_declare_war_on_the/) - 33 comments, over 2 years old.
* This thread delves into a military counterfactual debate about what the Western Allies could have done during the invasion of Poland.
* [France/England/Poland Defensive-pact 1939 however no declaration of war against USSR?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rog7o/franceenglandpoland_defensivepact_1939_however_no/) - 5 comments, over 1 year old.
* This thread highlights several operations planned by the Western Allies to attack the Soviet Union after the invasion of Poland.
**Reprecussions of the Invasion**
* [Why is that only Nazi Germany is condemned for invading Poland while the Soviet Union also annexed a large portion of Poland and committed nearly half a million troops?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2fusg5/why_is_that_only_nazi_germany_is_condemned_for/) - 4 comments, over 5 months old.
* A commenter in this thread goes into the long-term ramifications that the Molotov-Ribbenrop pact and 1939 invasion of Poland had on the USSR's image during and after the war.
* [Which occupation zone was worse to be in? Soviet occupied or Nazi occupied Poland?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ds4o7/which_occupation_zone_was_worse_to_be_in_soviet/) - 11 comments, over 6 months old.
* Commenters here compare and contrast statistics, policies, and intentions between the two powers. |
This probably isn't in the spirit of a CMV, but I thought this might help your CV/resume.
If you have some SQL experience and unemployed, start going through some online resources to expand your knowledge and try and find a couple volunteer/low pay freelance gigs. Use this on your resume and explain you're learning a new skill while unemployed. This shows initiative, and it's likely you can find a gig. Most software companies couldn't care less if you have the degree, they want good people who can demonstrably do the job.
I don't have a STEM degree, I didn't finish college. I got into doing software product management/IT Project Management after working in a shitty tech support job and working my PMP certification on my own. | Got a good strawman fallacy going on here.
This is a local experience of Tinder. The use of it is widespread, but we were talking about hooking up. Saying it's different where you are means nothing, because elsewhere it's used for other things.
I didn't say fast food sex should replace home cooked sex. I'm saying some people don't have time to, to use your metaphor, cook at home. I said *some people do this and therefore there is appeal for Tinder*. You can't argue against that.
And saying you're not sure you'd be proud of it? That is so narrowminded. Other people live different life styles to yours and it's equally valid. At least since they're more open minded they're not rude about it. It seems you really don't understand what my point is. My point is: "There is an audience for Tinder and here's why; it includes but is not limited to giving people a way to have casual sex with others."
That's the be all and end all of what we're talking about. You can't say it's not. You didn't understand it as a concept, so there it is.
Don't knock people for having "fast food sex", you prude. |
Identity is linked to a continual, causal chain. In order for some future individual to be said to be me, that person must have a history in which they share at least my present body or my present memories.
An infinite number of people can exist without the notion of me existing *again* making any sense at all. I can in no meaningful way be said to have existed before if neither my particular body nor my particular mind existed before I did.
An identical set of genes set to making a new human in a future environment very similar to the one which produced me would result in an individual *very much like* me, but distinctly not me. We could share every thought and still not be the same consciousness.
We only appreciate that a reality exists because we perceive it. We can be convinced that some objective reality exists apart from our senses because we agree *so often* on what our senses tell us.
Your questions and questions like them are mostly nonsense to me. | A hypothesis is a working assumption about the world that leads to predictions about reality.
A hypothesis is only useful in humanity's quest for understanding the world in which we live if it makes a prediction about the real world which could, in principle, be shown to be wrong. Setting up hypotheses in a way that prevents them from ever conflicting with observation is called "immunization" and results in a useless hypothesis.
For example: I could claim the existence of telepathic powers which have the property mysteriously disappearing whenever we try to look for them. This is an "immumized hypothesis" because it is designed to prevent finding out whether it is wrong.
Most versions of the god hypothesis work the same way. Many religions even punish doubting or testing the hypothesis that their deity exists. And when something is so glaringly obviously silly that there is no other recourse, theists will tend to go with "our god works in mysterious ways" to immunize their hypothesis.
So the deal is easy: you tell us a few predictions about the real world that your god hypothesis makes, and we will tell you how we would look for evidence related to those.
It is not unreasonable to request *some* prediction about the real world. If your god hypothesis makes *no* predictions at all about reality, then that would mean the world would work the same way with or without god, meaning your god has no explanatory value and the hypothesis should be discarded as superfluous and useless.
Hope that was helpful. You will find more detail in <PERSON> Logic of Scientific Discovery.
Now - what about that god hypothesis of yours? What predictions does it make? |
I don't think churches should be taxed unless they own commercial properties.
To all the people supporting full church taxation, that would cause THOUSANDS of churches to close in the US alone. Do you know how much art you will lose? All the stained glass, statuary, architecture. It makes me sad whenever a church closes. Religious buildings are beautiful(usually). [Examples because I like church architecture](http://www.ststephenslynn.org/images/480_St_StephensSW_3-25-05_.jpg)
[2](http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2629/3891101541_ac2febca7b_o.jpg)
[3](http://stgeorgelynn.org/images/Panagias/Panagias0.jpg)
Its sad that in my... category of belief.. That we do not really have meetings or anything like that. I lack a community in that sense. | A perfect being who loves his creations might not make them perfect, but he would give them free will according to your scripture. But being gay is *not a choice.*
I know you will probably say that they have free will to not *act* on their urges. But that doesn't seem fair. Straight people can express their love, sin free. Why would god care that gays share love like the rest of us. Seems wrong to create something gay, then send it to hell if it acts gay.
We will have to agree to disagree because catholic doctrine seems *wrong in this instance.* |
Right. So you are free to think this way, but you live in a society that disagrees with you. By your own ideology the only moral option is for you to take your business elsewhere and move to Christiana in Denmark or somewhere similar where you can do whatever you want.
The resources I'm talking about are the schools, roads, fire brigades, telecom lines, etc that you depend on. People invest in the community conditional on the idea that it is *their* community and provides them with a place in which they'd like to live.
The fact that you are willing to contribute your taxes on different conditions doesn't matter. Based on what you've said so far, I would assume that you believe that the community has the right to refuse to accept your contribution and then deny you service. | I can't really make an argument against your intuitions, but I'll present my opinion to see if you might sympathize with it.
If I plant crops on unowned land then I am able to feed myself. If you cannot plant crops because you were born blind, paraplegic, or retarded you do not have a claim to a share of my crops. But can I really argue that I deserve to eat and you don't? My opinion is that deserving is different from having a personal obligation to share. Nobody deserves anything, we were just dealt different hands in life.
Now I might not have a personal obligation to share with you, but the government can decide to force me to share with you. They can justifiably do so because you do not deserve more food than me. Just as a practical matter without government you can't force me to share with me, but in a situation where we live under a government, that practical inhibition goes away and redistribution becomes possible. |
Not so much this summer, but the last day of summer semester, the night before we moved out of the dorms, everyone partied and got shitfaced. I got slightly drunk and then very high with a guy and ended up letting him touch my boobs, like, alot, if you know what I mean. I've never been w a guy at all since I was molested as a kid. I'm feeling alot of feels.
| No it wasn't. Tbh, my schools campus was pretty nice looking, and the little town it was in wasn't bad either. It just wasn't particularly pretty and Philadelphia is an ugly city. I do still have some love for Philly though but all of us love some ugly things. Like yo momma, got eeeeem |
Hey don't get me wrong, they definitely have similarities! That's why I was interested in your comment and bothered to google it in the first place! <PERSON> was the producer for P of C: Black Pearl with <PERSON> composing the music, although <PERSON> was heavily involved in composing too. Looks like it was just <PERSON> on Game of Thrones although he was a protégé of <PERSON>'s so has possibly been influenced by him. He had some input into some of P of C, but I don't think he did in the title track.
I don't know who bothered to downvote you by the way, but you have now been restored! | Are you male? I read that unlike the female brain, a male one is more likely to look for the literal word of whatever it's looking for than the object itself. So if you're looking for paper, your brain is trying to recognise the written word 'paper' rather than what a pad of paper actually looks like. You can look straight at the object and ignore it. Would be nice for a psychologist to explain this in a bit more depth, but it happens to me all the time! |
Subsets and Splits