anchor
stringlengths 100
28k
| negative
stringlengths 105
28k
|
|---|---|
It doesn't because Germanic warrior is a subset of Germanic man as Roman soldier is a subset of Roman man.
The min. height for a roman soldier was 165 cm, the average is estimated to be 170 cm (The Logistics of the Roman Army at War: 264 BC-AD 235). Elite legions had an average height of 172 cm to 177 cm (Vegetius).
So for a roman soldier, the average height (depending on the quality of the legion) was anything from 170 cm - 177 cm.
The average height of the Germanic man can be quite well estimated from the average of Northern European men in the 9th to 12th century (These are different populations in a different time, but they can be quite well estimated because of the similarity in diet and genetics to the Germanic tribes during the time we are speaking about) which comes out to about 168/169 cm (<PERSON><PHONE_NUMBER> cm (Roesdahl, The Vikings, p. 31)
To help understand these averages more, you can look at the simplified picture:
http://imgur.com/l9EjGtQ
You probably have the distribution differences of A in your head when you hear something like "An average of 165 cm vs 170 cm" when in actuality it is more akin to a distribution difference depicted in B.
So the average Roman soldier was probably taller than the average Germanic man, but the average Germanic warrior was probably taller than the average Roman soldier. The average Roman man would be smaller than all of these. | All the cities you mention changed their names during the Revolution before returning to their original names during the Restauration. Saint-Nazaire was renamed *Port-Nazaire*, Saint-Etienne became *Armeville*. Saint-Denis became *La Franciade*.
The revolutionary toponyms only existed for a short time (from 1793 to the Restauration). However, some villages and cities kept their revolutionary names or reused them. The small village of *Anstrude* in Burgundy (named after the saint, although there the *saint* was not in the name) was renamed *Bierry-lès-Belles-Fontaines* in 1793, changed back to *Anstrude* during the Restauration and then took the name *Bierry-lès-Belles-Fontaines* again the 1880s and it still has this name today. In 1848 and after 1877 there was again a tendency to change the toponyms for more "republican" or "secular" names but it was not a governmental initiative.
I hope this answers your question. Revolutionary names for cities and villages did not last very long.
There is an interactive Google Map on this [newspaper article](http://www.leparisien.fr/info-paris-ile-de-france-oise/carte-interactive-comment-s-appelait-votre-ville-pendant-la-revolution-30-06-2014-3965453.php) with the revolutionary names of (most) of the places that had one. |
Ik was laatst eens in een Chinees restaurant. Komt er een bloedmooi Chinees meisje naar me toe en vraagt: 'Wilt u menu?' 'Doe maar straks,' zeg ik, 'ik wil eerst effe eten.'
I went to a Chinese restaurant recently. So this beautiful Chinese girl comes up to me and asks, *"Do you want menu?" (me now)* "*Can't that wait?"*, I ask, *"I wanna eat first."*
The other one isn't really funny. I don't get it anyway. | Well, I was on a business trip once and had to drive from Rotterdam to Amsterdam (I think). So I rented a Mercedes, and took off at a very high speed. I had always wanted to drive on an autobahn. I was pulled over, and explained my dream. The policeman said, "The autobahn is in Germany, sir. Not here." And let me go without a ticket.
I'm sure he was thinking, "stupid Americans". But he was very nice about it. |
the main channel is kind of like the other commercial tv channels, though maybe a bit more restrained, a bit more serious. the other two channels are not very commercial and very interesting.
I like it. their live football commenters, during world cup, were like this wonderful drop of sanity, politeness and tactical awareness compared to how trashy and wrong the private (some pay) tvs were. | It seems to me that drinking a soft sort of beer or ale, with a low percentage of alcohol, was a very common thing to go with meals etc. when beer (made with grain) was a seen good nutritive beverage more than as a "strong" drink.
Regarding wine and cider, they also seem to me like pretty common, easy ways to preserve through controlled fermentation the nutritive value of different fruits.
And people like wine, beer and cider. The figure of the "drunken man" so hated by the prohibitionists comes to me as a whisky or rum drinker, or gin, not a beer-drinker.
Maybe my assumptions are wrong? Could somebody enlighten me there? |
What you're essentially arguing is either
1) If you happen to exploit someone you are mentally superior and such an action is also moral.
2) It is only moral to exploit someone who is mentally inferior.
3) It is moral to do any action whatsoever, and mental superiority is just a phrase that helps me justify what I do because if I happen to exploit someone, in that transaction I am mentally superior.
Which one is it? Because the three are distinct ideologies.
That said - basic studies of the prisoner's dilmemna show that in iterative playings you maximise your payoff by adopting a strategy other than "always selfish".
Edit:
Another question worth asking is why you don't consider social and legal sanction part of this exploitation game. Clearly you should also account for beating it instead of demanding that the system accommodate you. | The difference is this:
You perform action XXX. Action XXX fails to result in violence.
Scenario 1)
If action XXX was performed by a competent actors it would have resulted in violence, but in your case it failed only due to your incompetence.
In this case - yes XXX is a criminal attempt.
Scenario 2)
If action XXX was performed by a competent actors it still WOULD NOT have resulted in violence, in fact action XXX is generally harmless no matter how competently you would perform it.
In this case - no XXX is not a criminal attempt.
This resolves inconsistency nicely.
|
I guess it's not that important. I guess you can appreciate how easy it would be to keep chasing that feeling though, like everything's just fine and you're wrapped in a blanket? It's a slippery slope and I'm happy you came out ok, it's not worth going down that road.
I think education without trying to scare people is the key to preventing addiction, help give kids an actual understanding so they don't want that life. Demonising the drug or this war on drugs stuff isn't helping anyone. | The way I see it, people who are suicidal or depressed use humour as a way to escape their feelings. It's not easy to reach out to people for help when depressed. The stigma associated with it is reducing and the mentality is going in the right direction but still a lot of people don't come out and say anything.
The voice in their head is already telling them other things like they are a burden to friends and family, they don't matter to anyone, they're weak for thinking these thoughts, none cares about how you feel. All this stops anyone from actually coming out and saying it.
Think about this scenario, you're just sad about something and go out to hang with friends. If they ask you how you are, especially when the setting is to have fun, you wouldn't bring it up. You would say things are fine so that you're not a downer. Imagine that sad feeling all the time (I'm not depressed nor do I claim to know anything about it so I may be venturing into unknowns) but I think that's how it is. |
Jumping from "not a compliment" to "passing judgment on a massive amount of people" is a huge leap.
I already explained what a harmless usage of the words are, if you just want to find excuses to be offended on behalf of others I am sure you don't need my help. | No way, being sheltered for your entire life does not justify overreacting when you are exposed to adversity.
It is warmongering to excuse the wars in Iraq *and* Afghanistan as results of 9/11. 9/11 was a criminal action and should have been dealt with through the criminal justice system. |
I believe the chief issue of real AI is the question of consciousness itself. If consciousness is a property of thinking things then we might be able to identify it in a machine. If it is an experience then it's possible we might never really be able to tell a passable simulation for the real thing. <PERSON> seemed to be satisfied with a rounding up solution to this. If you couldn't tell the difference then you had AI. I'm not sure that's an especially satisfying answer but without that or some huge fundamental advances in our understanding of consciousness we may find ourselves always searching for a secret sauce of the mind which may not really exist | > they're incapable of acting out of principle
If I can't know for sure that ants are instinctual automatons it seems difficult for you to claim you know what they can't do. We've only just begun to understand the brain and we can't know for certain what is going on in their head.
>It's not a matter of intelligence, is the thing. A soul isn't something that can emerge purely from the physical process of evolution - it's a different kind of thing.
Is it a supernatural thing? If not then what physical attribute do we have that gives us consciousness if not the brain? If it is a part of the brain then what's stopping animals or AI from developing to that point?
If they are separate things, are you saying you can have human-level intelligence (or greater) without a soul? Does this mean you could have a soul without intelligence, or are they inextricably linked? I.E.: Could God give a rabbit a soul and yet keep it at the same level of intelligence? If not, then what is the minimum intelligence requirement? What about people who are extremely mentally handicapped from birth?
>I don't think that true consciousness is computable.
Is this just your opinion or are you basing it on reserach? We're getting closer and closer to creating AI indistinguishable from humans, with no sign of stopping or reaching a limit. In fact, the advancements of technology are moving faster and faster, possibly towards a singularity. Will we one day reach a point where computation is physically limited? Even if we reach the singularity? In 300 years it might be possible to build an AI the size of a planet using microscopically small chips.
EDIT: Also - if we did manage to create an AI that we couldn't tell apart from a human, would this affect your faith in any way? How would we know if this AI did or did not have a soul? What if the AI appeared to decide to convert to Christianity of it's own free will simply after observing other humans? |
Depends on where you live, and what hobbies are 'normal'. I play video games and am trying to write a novel while everyone else is out playing football (To be fair it can get pretty fun from the time I played)
God, why cant I be interested in fads like everyone else is?
Edit: To clarify, I wasn't trying to say everybody who played outside was an obnoxious jock and I still dont understand why the entirety of reddit is bashing me over spelling a word wrong. Maybe I should have phrased it better but Im letting it stay up.
Edit: Oh, I wrote stupid sports. That definitely will get my point across. Fixed it. I meant to say fads but I was also thinking of football
/s | Playing devils advocate here but if you think you need to lose the weight and he thinks you need to lose the weight then don't you actually perfectly agree? And if he were to gain an unreasonable amount of weight would you still find him attractive or would you think 'I can do better than this fat slob'? Lastly, if you were so concerned with the amount of weight he gained would you threaten to break up with him to force him to adopt a healthier lifestyle for his benefit, even if it meant he could become spiteful and dump you? A couple pounds isn't justified I think but a hundred pounds is a problem.
Edit: <PERSON> said in a [comment](http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/22zoq2/my_boyfriend_told_me_hed_dump_if_i_didnt_lose/cgs36y2) that she's 12 years old, 5.5 feet tall, and weighs 120 pounds with a bmi of 22. Perfectly healthy and hasn't even put on weight since the start of the relationship. It's confirmed: <PERSON> should dump his immature, controlling ass and find someone (in a few years) that deserves her. |
> > If it were true I would have heard a reasonable argument for some to be a believer.
> Can you justify this claim?
I am surrounded by Christians, many who have attempted to convert me in earnest. I directly asked them for good arguments. And you sound like a poor excuse for an apologist.
> > I never have
> I'm sorry to hear that. Perhaps you should do some more research on the topic, I'm sure you'll encounter some
I have done more than enough research on the topic. There is a much better explanation for me never encountering a good argument than lack a research. | > But I will NOT tell someone "there is no God" or "you shouldn't trust God."
I will. You are right, it is for them to decide. But it is also for me to decide, and I have. I won't be rude in that pronouncement, and I won't use it as an excuse to be an asshole. I will seek common ground and courteous discussion with those who hold opposing views, but I will not remain silent, nor should I.
I especially won't remain silent when certain gods or sets of religious values de-values human life and accomplishments. |
At a certain point you need to cut your loses, realize you are dealing with less than professional folks and do whats necessary. The jewelry is a frigging idiot to not realize that no one needs a size 8 down to a size 4.5. No one is that far off on ring size and jeweler should have known that. The jeweler is unprofessional/unethical to not tell you that going from 4.5 to 8 is a bad bad idea. The jeweler is a fraudster to tell you to submit claim for a lost gem when there is no lost gem so he/she can get paid to do the work they should have already done correctly.
Never knowingly submit false information, never knowingly create false documents.
I would advise you to get your ring back. Take it to a real jeweler and sue this moron for your money back. Heck, contatc the protection plan and see if its covered/do they know the jeweler does such shitty work they are underwriting. | If you both electronically file and claim the same person as a dependent whoever files first will get their claim accepted. The system will then automatically reject whoever is second to file.
This doesn't mean that you cannot file yourself, its just that you cannot file electronically. Print it out, stuff it in an envelope, put a stamp on it and drop it off at the post office. Mail it in the old fashioned way and it will be accepted.
That said, the IRS will now wonder why two people have claimed the same individual as a dependent. This may trigger an audit or investigation. The IRS is going to want an explanation for this. This will all happen after tax day, so at least your taxes will still be filed on time. Taxes can always be amended later on, after filing. If you both claim the same child as a dependent in separate tax filings one or both of you will need to explain whats going on, the tax forms will be adjusted after the fact, and someone may end up owing the IRS taxes due. |
While nothing is absolutely guaranteed, it's enough of a guarantee to say OP is mistaken. The fact that it's virtually unanimous agreement among those who study it means you should act as if it's true. If 97% of doctors say smoking causes lung cancer, it's reckless to side with the extreme minority. There will always be outliers that are good at persuading laymen, but that doesn't make them right. | Anything but death runs the risk of being cheap in the opposite direction. It's the knowledge that no one's plot armor is thick enough to save them if the story demands it that adds to the show's tension. It's easy to say the show is simply giving us deaths for shock value, but I can't think of many that aren't either the culmination of a plot thread or part of a specific thesis about life in medieval times. |
It looks like I'll be in DC at the end of June, provided my abstract is accepted for the International Cartographic Association's conference. I've wanted to give this paper (on a cartographer who's been persistently misread by historians) for about four years now, but there hasn't been a chance before. The result will be a new book in the ICA studies series, which will be great, and they definitely want the essay.
In addition, we're doing a spate of hiring in US history this year, and it has the promise to be transformative for our department. I know most of the candidates personally or by one degree of separation, and it's been great catching up and having really excellent dinner chats about subjects of common interest. I don't get that often enough here, even though it's really a lovely, drama-free (!!!) department. | You may be interested to know that the Catholic Church saw the two movements as linked, in a roundabout way. In the last few centuries, the papacy has turned to the encyclical as a way of asserting the Church's position on a host of issues. Essentially, an encyclical is an open letter to either the whole church or to a particular region. In March of 1937, the papacy issued three encyclicals. This was an unprecedented move, as there are entire years that don't see three encyclicals (and even some decades that don't). It is my opinion that these three encyclicals sum up the Church's attempts to deal with the problems that beset the world in 1937, and two of the three deal with Communism and Fascism.
[Divini Redemptoris (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19031937_divini-redemptoris_en.html) is the papacy's take on Communism. (The link goes to the English version, but other languages are available. The title comes from the first words of the Latin version) In short, it details that Communism and Catholicism are wholly incompatible. Communism is described as ultimately materialistic, and as having explicit denials of God's existence. Fascism is dealt with in [Mit Brennender Sorge](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html), in which the papacy is highly critical of any ideology of racial superiority. (Again, the English version is linked, others are available, and the title comes from the first few words of the German version) While the possibility of coexistence with fascism is acknowledged, the papacy had several areas of concern regarding education and freedom of worship, as well as what was seen as an overemphasis on material concerns.
Now, it must be noted that there were many Catholic communists, as well as many Catholic fascists. Obviously, many of them did not heed the papacy (hardly a first in the Catholic Church). Also, the papacy had its own agenda to advance, especially as it was entirely surrounded by a fascist state. Also, the view that these encyclicals were released as a group *on purpose* is my own. Others could argue that it was mere coincidence. I have come to the conclusion that the papacy rarely does anything that has not been long considered before it is revealed to the public. So, I would argue that <PERSON> and <PERSON> were meant to be read as a whole, and that the gradations of disapproval were meant as a deliberate message. That message would be, in short, that while fascism is dangerous, communism is a direct threat to the Church (and by extension, humanity).
----------------------
The third encyclical is [Nos Es Muy Conocida](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_28031937_nos-es-muy-conocida_en.html) which deals with the situation in Mexico, and also touches on some issues in the then-ongoing Spanish Civil War. (Again, the English version is linked, and the title comes from the first words of the Spanish version) |
> If America is a burning house (which I tend to agree) how can Christians best be firemen to the those who are suffering?
By not trying to put out the fire with gasoline? Seriously, isn't your question presupposing that Christians aren't a big reason why morality in the US has degraded?
Most of the US Christians I encounter have attitudes like *'No one can judge me but <PERSON>!'* and *'Whatever I do, <PERSON> will forgive me!'* That is a veritable swamp upon which to build a moral foundation. | > So, if the prophet were to teach something as being from God, each member is expected to then pray about that thing themselves and gain their own independent verification of that thing prior to its application in their lives.
This statement seems pretty matter-of-fact, so I have to question how 'faith-based' this is? It talks about 'independent verification', but in science, this means something very different. |
Don't forget that the car has depreciated. If you originally paid $10k, she paid you $1k and it's worth $8k, one reasonable way to look at is that she has paid 1/10 of the total cost, and so is entitled to 1/10 of the worth of the car, or $800. (also don't forget to add in maintenance costs, registration, etc). | If the insurance company totals the car, that means they own it, and then you will have to buy it back from them if you want to keep it (usually around 1k). If they don't total it, but offer you a check for repairs, you don't have to make the repairs. You do have to inform your insurance that the vehicle isn't being repaired though, so that if you have another accident they will know not to pay for the same damage twice. |
> How is it legal for a bank to force an individual to keep a bank account open?
It's because otherwise people could charge $1000 worth of manicures on their debit card and write someone a check for $3000 to purchase bone saws, then race across the street to their bank and cancel their bank account, and then run off laughing with their new bone saws gripped tightly in their freshly manicured hands.
If the charges are invalid or inaccurate, dispute them individually with the merchant or with the bank.
| > Actually, the owner appreciates the possibility of gaining a returning customer, regardless of whether he lost money on this transaction.
Not if the returning customer habitually comes in at ten minutes before close. "Hey guys, I found this great place that's still open when the bar closes, and they don't mind if I stay for an hour!" |
> I cannot find any details on the city's list of ordinances/laws about cars needing to be off the street during a snow emergency
That's kind of the salient point here. Either it was legally ticketed or it wasn't, and the answer to that will be found in your city's laws. Does the ticket not list any kind of violation code? Have you contacted the city to find out where the laws can be read? | While it makes sense to assume the worst in this town sometimes, there's a pretty good chance that whatever happened with your lock was the result of a misunderstanding. If the building was involved, whoever did it might not want to own up to it, which would explain you were getting the runaround.
So, when you go put your new lock on, I suggest that you also tape up a note right there on the door saying:
> This storage locker belongs to /u/BugabooRoo. You may not enter it or cut the lock unless I have given you permission. If you have any questions, please call me before doing anything. My number is (312) XXX-XXXX. Thanks! |
> insular/"passive aggressive"/"Seattle Freeze" nature where people tend to mind their own business, to an above average degree I'm told.
Really? I visited Seattle and was taken aback by how outgoing and inquisitive everyone was. I swear I had more conversations with strangers in a few days in Seattle than in the preceding few years. But then, I've only lived in New England and old England. Even so, people are a bit too outgoing here for me, maybe I should move to a Scandinavian country next. | > And public transportation 'round here is definitely a little dicey. Guess we've got suburban sprawl to thank for that-- approximately half the "city" seems to exist outside of city limits proper.
Right? I moved to the midwest from Philadelphia and people refer to this huge sprawly area as "downtown". To me, "downtown" means "I can't see the sun because the buildings are so tall and numerous" (or, in the case of Manhattan, it means "south"). I really miss the northeast and am looking to move back as soon as my lease is up. |
>The real reason for the lag has more to do with population and ecology. First, African populations didn't face the kind of disease die-off American populations did. Only after the beginning of the 19th century could European entities be assured of a good chance of overcoming a (tropical) African military force of equal size, and only after the 1820s was quinine prophylaxis available widely enough to let them survive long enough to undertake the task.
That's what I was wondering about: so because Africans had better immunity to European diseases (being more connected to Eurasia, I guess things would have transmitted in the past), Africa was less devastated by disease, and was more "occupied". So it would have more of an obvious "conquest" and less of a "colonization"? | >All of this is moot seeing as how God could grow kidney's on trees and give them out to every single person that needs one. Or not let their kidneys fail in the first place. These are within God's "power", and seemingly would be effortless for him, yet..... you get the picture.
Maybe my ignorance of accepted doctrine is showing when I ask: do we really know that such a thing would be *effortless* for God? Certainly, if he is omnipotent, it would be within his *power*. But omnipotence doesn't necessarily mean that his power comes without a cost. I would point to the account of him resting after creating the heavens and earth, or the fact that sending <PERSON> to earth was supposedly a sacrifice for him. Do we know that the nature of his power is limitless and effortless?
(I'm sorry if I'm sending you in circles, since I don't directly believe in God already. But if we are breaking down the concepts in the search for truth, I want to be sure that we're targeting the right issues.) |
<PERSON> new song was awful. I liked everything till Ill mind 8 but after that it just got weird... I can listen to his old stuff all day long, I really like old Hop and Tech because they weren’t taken away with the trapwave that started and flood all over the place... have you heared of Token? | Like the post said: If there is an option, you buy commercial you would be wise to buy it if thats what you plan to use it for. You can only buy what is for sell and an artist asking you to buy a commercial license is really good evidence that all ownership rights are not contemplated in the transaction. Whether or not the artist bifurcating the rights goes against the TOS of Fiverr, I have no idea, I only heard of Fiverr today but Fiverr likely will never be considered a true and complete owner of any work of art (maybe, again, I don't know what Fiverr requires of its artists) but the general rule is creator has all rights unless otherwise and you can only buy what is for sale. |
This wasn’t a big truck. SUV the same size as mine, and the spot was spacious enough. No one else in the whole lot was parked backwards. I’m pretty positive he just didn’t see it. He didn’t say he was planning to back into it. He just said he was there first. | And I decided you’re both right.
That’s the problem with the Bible. We are trying to get you to see that there is no way to prove your interpretation correct when there are other verses contradicting it.
That’s why you’re using a No True Scotsman. You’re saying True Christians interpret the Bible like you do. |
*Part II*
**1930s - Immigration, Partition Plans, and Revolt**
Even still, the immigration increased, and nothing was resolved. The British began to feel apprehensive, and saw the building unrest, and the immigration increases between 1933-1936 prompted even more tension and British response. 1935 in particular stood out, because many Jews left Germany amid rising Nazi persecution. Despite some restrictions on immigration, illegal immigration persisted at the same (or faster) rates, leading to the British approving only 1/3 of the requested quota for Jewish immigration in 1936.
In April 1936, the Palestinians launched a countrywide revolt against British rule in Mandatory Palestine and the official policy of support for Jewish immigration to Palestine. There would be a ceasefire from October 1936 to September 1937, but the violence would reach its peak in 1938 before petering out ahead of the approaching war in Europe. Cities were constantly changing hands, and the British had to frantically resupply/reinforce troops in the area to deal with how severe the rebellion was. Because of how severe it was at the start, and how few troops were in the area, the British hoped to placate the Arabs during the ceasefire.
In late 1936, the Peel Commission (known also as the British Palestine Royal Commission) was created to try to solve the issues that were escalating. It was tasked with investigating why the revolt began, and determine the territory's future. The Peel Commission eventually released its report on July 8th, 1937. The report recommended the partition of Palestine into two separate states, one Arab and one Jewish. They proposed to do this by moving approximately 250,000 Arabs, and around 1,500 Jews, to their respective areas. There would be an Arab Kingdom of roughly 900,000, and a Jewish state of roughly 400,000. It proposed full independence for both states, that the Jews pay some compensation to the Arabs for the advantages they enjoyed by moving fewer people, that the British maintain control of the Holy Sites and the oil pipelines/railroads of greatest importance, and that [the red area](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/PeelMap.png) be roughly the borders of the Jewish state. Another map can be found [here](http://i.imgur.com/k1CWobW.gif). The Arabs and Israelis both rejected the plan, and it was viewed as a betrayal of promises made to the Arabs (again), which contributed heavily to the violence breaking out again.
Though the British were forced to ramp up their repression to handle the outbreak of hostilities again, they were restricted in what they could do by the impending war in Europe and fears that it would approach when they were trying to put down the revolt.
In response to the violence petering out, and to try and placate the Arabs before the war, the British put out the White Paper of 1939. It imposed harsher restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine, to the tune of a quota of 75,000 for the next 5 years, after which more immigration would be subject to Arab consent.
**Early 1940s - Lead-Up to Full-Scale War**
When the 5 years were up, roughly 11,000 immigration certificates were left. This was around 1944. The Jews rejected the offer of giving out those certificates at 1,500 per month, and insisted that 100,000 displaced Jews (from WWII, obviously) be allowed to enter. President <PERSON> (US President) was in favor of this, but it didn't happen. By the end of 1945, only 400 certificates were left, and the question of Jewish immigration was pressing. Even more pressing was the fact that the Zionist organizations in the area had been sending illegal immigrants to Palestine as much as possible, challenging British authority in the area. Also, reports on how much illegal immigration occurred in the first month of 1946 were inflated; the Arabs believed it was 6,000, when the number was actually closer to 2,000. The British deferred to the Arabs, who deferred to the Arab League, on what arrangement was best for future immigration.
The Arabs were unhappy with the idea of more immigration, and returned what the British felt were "vague" answers. On April 20th, 1946, an Anglo-American committee (British-American) established to look into the question made the recommendation of allowing in the 100,000 displaced Jews. British diplomats in the Arab world saw this as a disastrous report; they feared Arab opposition and violence by both sides. British diplomat <PERSON> said that from the point of view of the British government's relations with Middle East states and the Muslim world, "this is a disastrous report". Prime Minister <PERSON>, hearing that <PERSON> planned to give a speech endorsing *only* the Jewish-friendly portions of the report, said that "until the illegal armies in Palestine were disbanded, the Mandatory Government could not absorb such a large number of immigrants". Effectively, the Prime Minister postponed indefinitely the idea of 100,000 Jewish immigrants.
Still, the Arabs were disturbed, and had emergency meetings on the subject. Relations were beginning to fray, and tensions were rising to a fever pitch.
Prior to the outbreak of the real civil war in 1947, a few things are to be noted:
* Both sides had established underground organizations that were carrying out terror attacks.
* The violence was not restricted to each other; both also targetted the British.
* The violence was very guerrilla-like, and used terrorist methods.
In light of this violence, and the failure of all negotiations and commissions, the British decided in February of 1947 to evacuate, and in April of 1947 they decided to return Palestine to the UN with "no recommendations". They were essentially turning tail and leaving, unable to solve the issue amid the rising violence. Who could blame them? There was a bunch of violence, a bunch of conflict, and they had tried and failed for 20+ years to reach some kind of agreement. After WWII, there was simply no more stomach to deal with it. | #Part 2 of 2
The Native mode of warfare was something that departed severely with European practices, and was typically thought of - even by their allies - as shocking, brutal, and *savage*. This of course also extended to many of their typical - and often paradoxical - practices which involved prisoner taking, adoption, and ritual execution.
It is quite likely that anyone who's heard of the War of 1812 has heard of the slogan *Remember the Raisin!* or at least has heard of The River Raisin Massacre. Getting into some of the specifics of that battle, its result, and its aftermath is illuminating.
Americans were eager to recapture Detroit after <PERSON>'s disastrous defeat, and to that end, two columns, led by Major Generals <PERSON> and <PERSON>, set off toward Detroit from Ohio. <PERSON>'s column arrived in southern Michigan by the end of January, with <PERSON> keeping a slower pace to ensure that their supply lines were secure enough to justify an advance.
<PERSON> arrived at Frenchtown on January 18th, and found the town held by a force of Indians and Canadian militiamen. <PERSON>, a member of the American force, recalls the advance: “we proceeded on with no other view than to conquer or die.” This first battle was short, with few casualties on either side. The Indians and Canadians retreated into the woods, inflicting the majority of the casualties on the Americans in pursuit. <PERSON> reports eleven killed and fifty wounded in the fight. The Canadians and Indians took few casualties, and spent the next several days regrouping and drawing reinforcements from Fort Malden, where Brigadier General <PERSON>, <PERSON>'s replacement, had made his headquarters. He was able to draw together nearly six hundred regular soldiers and eight hundred Native warriors, consisting of nearly every major tribe in the alliance, including the Odawa. The Indian component was led by the Wyandotte chief <PERSON>, as <PERSON> was not present.
The combined force attacked on January 22nd, supported by six ski-mounted three-pounder cannons. American officers, who were “regaling themselves with whiskey and loaf sugar,” were unprepared for the attack, even though a Frenchman had made a report that three thousand British and Indians were preparing to retake the town.
Despite the laxity of some of the American officers, the American line was able to form up before the British advance, laying behind picket fences which mitigated casualties from British artillery fire. From this position, the American line caused numerous casualties on the advancing British, and forced them to withdraw. The same was not true of the American left, which was unprotected from artillery fire and was overwhelmed by the combined Anglo-Indian forces, who succeeded in capturing both General <PERSON> and Colonel <PERSON>. British regulars took many casualties, but the American line crumbled, and nearly six hundred American regulars and militiamen surrendered. The most stubborn troops were the Kentucky riflemen, who had inflicted dozens of casualties on the British regulars and artillerymen.
The casualties were lopsided in the extreme. 292 Americans had been killed, and 592 were captured, compared to only 24 British killed and 111 wounded. There were about 80 American prisoners left behind. The next morning, parties of apparently drunken Indians went from house to house, dragging the wounded into the streets, beating or killing them, and set fire to many of the houses. By all accounts, it was a horrific act, but one which many of the British did not attempt to prevent. <PERSON>, a wounded American soldier, spoke of promise that <PERSON> had made that the American wounded would be protected: “But that sacred promise was not regarded. It was sacrificed on the altar of savage barbarity! To the god of murder and cruelty!”
Liquor has often been blamed for the Indian behavior, but an understanding of their culture allows for a more complex understanding of events. Violence in warfare was an axiom of Indian life. Early European accounts describe in horror the tortures inflicted on captured enemies, which often included burning, mutilating, and scalping while the victim was alive. The victims themselves often played a role in these tortures, as it was an understood aspect of their warfare, and dying a "good death" was an important cultural behavior. The condemned would sing death songs, goad their tormentors into further acts, and appeal to their enemies to witness their bravery in the face of death. Odawa warriors certainly expected similar treatment if they were captured, but such behavior was shocking and repugnant to European sensibilities, who failed to understand the social mechanisms behind such behavior.
Captured enemies were sometimes adopted into the tribe to replace fallen warriors of their own. Mothers who had lost sons would replace their sons with the very men who were responsible for his death. Warfare, to the Odawa and the Great Lakes tribes in general, was a spiritual activity just as it was a social, economic and political one. The spirits of dead warriors were known to haunt, for lack of a better term, surviving family members unless their death was avenged. Vengeance, however, was a flexible, dynamic term. A family could put a vengeful ghost to rest by adopting an enemy into their family just as effectively as torturing that same warrior to death. Race was not a factor in these decisions, as white men were often adopted into tribes. After being wounded by a splinter of wood at the second Battle of Frenchtown, <PERSON> described a typical experience with regards to adoption:
“Shortly after our arrival at these encampments, I was adopted into a Pottowatomie family that had lost a son in the battle at the River Raisin.
>I was presented to this family by an Indian whose name was <PERSON>-kim. He introduced me to my father and mother, brothers and sisters, and instructed me to call them by these respective appellations. My father’s name was <PERSON>, after whom they call me; they asked if I had a squaw; I answered in the negative, at which they appeared well pleased, and brought me a squaw, urging me to marry her. I refused, and told them when I got well I would accede to the proposals; this they took as a great offence. After having made themselves acquainted with the situation of my wound, they made a tea of sassafras and cherry-tree barks, which was the only drink I was permitted to take for fifteen days.”
Though <PERSON> was quickly made a member of the family and had his wound looked after, he describes the next weeks and months with some apprehension. When warriors would get drunk, Native women hid <PERSON> in bushes to prevent him from being murdered, and warriors frequently “aggravated” <PERSON> with imitations of the writhing and crying of Americans who had been scalped alive. How much of this was sensationalized for the rather popular “Indian narrative” genre is hard to quantify, but <PERSON>’s experiences speak to the complex relationship between captives and captors, and to newly adopted tribe members. Adoption was meant to restore spiritual balance within the family, the village, and the tribe, and violent deaths were more often than not accompanied by spiritual rituals. The River Raisin Massacre shares some commonalities with such rituals, but the unceremonious aspect does suggest that alcohol did, in fact, play a large role.
To sum up, your experience as a prisoner of war wsa highly dependent on your social standing, your perceived nationality, whether you were in the militia or the regulars, your rank, and whether you were captured by regular forces or by native allies. Generally, the experience was far from a harsh one, although there are times when prisoners were forced to share the privations of the force that captured them.
__________________________________________________
Sources include [The Memoirs of Lieut.-General Scott, LLD](https://archive.org/details/memlieutgen01scotrich)
The Journals of Elias Darnell, <PERSON>, and <PERSON>.
Of general use is <PERSON>, *1812: The War with America* and <PERSON>, *The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict* |
Sure, women harm men, but not systematically.
If you want to organize around issues that affect men, go for it! But my activism is centered around women, and that's why it is feminism. That doesn't mean I hate men. I don't expect BLM activists to fight for the liberation of white people. | We can't change history, and although it is important to remember it, it should not keep popping up in modern discourse, especially when it interferes with the wellbeing of real people.
Right now women have more rights than men, but they deserve more because of "historical oppression"? Give me a fucking break. |
actually, the laws regarding speed are pretty vague (at least in California), and mostly boil down to an officer can ticket you if he feels you are driving at a dangerous speed. That can even be the speed limit, if road conditions make diving the speed limit dangerous. I've never seen anything on the books as specific as +/- anything. |
you can be sued for civil trespass. I don't know the specific California case law/statutory law on it, but from what I know it works roughly the same way everywhere.
If you didn't cause any damage to their property, they likely couldn't get much money out of you, if any (so even if they win it might be something like "nominal damages" of $1). But it could be a hassle, and gives someone who wants to cause trouble for you a way to do so. It also can affect your own ability to sue if you get hurt, or how easy it would be for them to get money from you if you actually do cause damage. |
But who's to say that 990k is useless to him in the other example? If anything if someone has worked harder than others to obtain money, he probably VALUES that money more than someone who hasn't made money a priority.
For example I could have been an artist or a financial analyst. Artist would be fun, but id make a terrible salary. Financial analyst not much fun, but reliable and good salary. If I choose to be a finance guy should I be punished for giving up an easier more fun job because I value being paid more? I sacrificed for that, but now I have to pay for the artist not being able to pay for himself? | Allowing someone to share in your home with you is a very intimate relationship. The home is an extension of the self, and living in someone's home is partaking in a very personal and intimate aspect of their life. You should be able to discriminate against who gets to share in this relationship with you for ANY reason, even an unreasonable one.
It's the same logic as the intimate partner relationship. If I say I would never date a hispanic guy because I think all hispanic guys are dumb, that's a racist stance and it's not very reasonable. But that doesn't mean I should be forced to date a hispanic guy. I still get to have absolute control over that.
I agree with you that housing should be a human right, but there are other ways to acheive this than forcing someone to cohabitate with someone they do not want in their home. If we believe something to be a human right, it's on the government to ensure that right. |
Just a quick question that I'm not sure warrants its own thread. When and in whose honor was the last Roman triumph held? Wikipedia isn't entirely clear on this. It seems to suggest that it was held in 534 in honor of <PERSON>. However that seems implausible to me - the ERE lasted for another 900 years after that point. There were plenty of victories to celebrate. Did triumphs simply go out of style for whatever reason? | An invitation requires believing that it is a legitimate invitation. You haven't convinced me. As mentioned elsewhere, don't worry because God knows I have not been convinced. If He wants me to receive an invitation He will make it clear to me that I have been invited. In this very specific regard, perhaps I am no smarter than a poodle. |
These tests are a proxy for your ability to dedicate time and effort towards preparing for an examination. College will include examinations. Indeed, life will include requirements that you must dedicate time and effort towards preparing for.
If you want to take the position that colleges put too much emphasis on these exams, I think there's a discussion to be had. But an applicant who scores strikingly below the average score of the applicants they are accepting is likely not a candidate that is worth the institutions time. Plenty of students will put in the time and effort.
Now, obviously it's not the only thing they look at. But if you're considering, say, 10,000 applicants, and you need minimum cut offs, this is a moderately reasonable one to start with. There are of course issues with this approach, but it's a reasonable proxy. | Theft of property, I imagine. You knew it wasn't yours. You took it. That's pretty much the dictionary definition of theft.
The ultimate decision to prosecute falls to the prosecutor. But first, the police have to forward the case to the prosecutors office. The original owner has a bit of influence, as their decision to cooperate with the investigation or to testify in court can often influence the prosecutors decision to press charges or not. But the ultimate decision is made by the police and the prosecutor.
Further, even if they don't decide to press charges, the original owner might choose to pursue you in civil court via a lawsuit. Granted, a $150 vaporizer is a fairly minor thing to sue over, but people sue over ridiculous shit all the time. |
> I'm all about criticism but I don't think expulsion/firing is a form of criticism or expressing free speech.
Thecnicaly it's expressive association, which is a hybrid of both free speech and the right to assemble (both protected in the 1st Amendment). But, it's damn close to speech.
But at any rate the firing is almost always in response to the counter speech. People get fired/expelled because they say something stupid and then peiople complain. If i run a company I may (or may not) fire an employee who goes on a public rant about the Jewish conspiracy controling the world, but I damn well will when I get the 10th or 100th or 1000th phone call demanding I do so and telling ym they will boycott my store untill I do. That's pure speech, and that's what "ruins" people's lives.
>As for limiting free speech, I do think anything that causes direct obvious harm should be limited and I guess we disagree there.
Define "direct obvious harm".
>Spreading misinformation, and then getting people killed because of it should not be considered free speech.
Depends. I have a right to say that I believe that homeopathic medicine is the best way to cure AIDS. If people listen to me, they may well die. It's still protected speech. (And it should be, otherwise we could simply silence dissent by saying it will hurt people - see the government response to every leak about military strategy since Vietnam for examples of this sort of attempt to shut down speech.)
>For example if someone directing flights says that they're clear to go and they're not then that would be negligence.
Probably. And if done on purpose quite possibly murder. But, there you have a person who has voluntarily taken on a task where their speech is part of their work.
>encouraging suicide
Possibly protected speech, possibly not. In a state where suicide is criminal such speech could be incitement. But in a state where suicide is legal, it's fine to encourage it.
To outlaw speech it's got to be way over the line. And shouting "fire" in a crowded theater isn't there. We draw the line far back because the government has and will use any gap in the rules to silence dissent.
| > That the trust must abide by the agreement is a result of the act of breaking a contract being considered immoral. This is unrelated to property rights
okay, six one half dozen the other. The point is that while alive I can enter into the contract that affect the use of my property after I die. people are obligated to upload the contract they made we me even after i am dead.
So basically Wills are okay. You can write a will and the will is and should be enforceable. Right? Your will can't make anyone do anything, but it can deny them inheritance (access to your property) if they don't agree to conditions in your will.
Then i think if you die without a will, there is a sort of default will that gets applied. Right? I think we agree on these main points.
>Of course you can write that in your will. However, I believe that writing a will is like asking for a favor;
But if wills are enforceable its not a favor. Your body is your property just like your money and house are your property. If i can control what happens to my house, then why can't i control what happens to my body. Although, i think there is a condition there, that the deceased has to cover the cost of handling their body in the right way. So if they want to be buried their estate needs to pay for that cost. If they are asking someone else to cover a cost, then asking for that money is a favor.
>If someone dies without having convinced their heir to abide by the conditions of their will, the heir is not (morally) bound to carry out the deceased's wishes.
I agree with that the heir has no obligation to honor any condition in a will. But then they don't get access to the possessions associated with that will. The heir is free to agree or not agree to the will. But if they don't agree they they don't inherit anything (depending on how the will is written).
So we don't have to actually write this in a will because it is assumed, but i could write in my will that my heir only inherits my body if they agree to not perform necrophilia. If they heir doesn't agree, that is their choice, but then they don't get ownership of body and thus are still not allowed to perform necrophilia. I think these are implied conventions, and don't need to be specifically spelled out in a will. They are assumed. If you write nothing about necrophilia, it is assumed to be disallowed. Although since nobody has any obligation to carry out the wishes of the deceased, if nobody agreed to handle the body unless nechrophila was allowed, then i guess the body must be left to rot in the open air. Thankfully the state doesn't allow that to happen.
>Your use of the word "default" (among other things) makes me think that you might misunderstand my view.
The trouble i'm trying to avoid is that most people don't have a will. But we could simply but only thinking about people who wrote a will that explicitly addresses necrophilia. If you can write in you will that necrophilia is or isn't allowed then its an issue of consent.
you can write this sort of stuff in your will about all of your other property, so why not your body. You seems to be challenging
|
The issue with this is that environmental issues or mistreatment of animals aren't issues that are going to only impact you as an individual when you choose whether or not to pay for them.
Let me use the example of public roads as an easy way of illustrating this principle. Let's say you think it is worth $1,000/year to you to maintain public roadways that everyone can travel along. If everyone else pays their share we can afford to maintain this infrastructure. However, when you are deciding whether or not to pay for this product you are choosing whether the $1,000 is worth more to you spent on roads or saved for some other purpose. The incremental difference in that $1,000 spread over all our public roads makes very little difference to you, and you would rather save that money.
Environmental issues or animal welfare issues suffer from the same issue. It is worth a great deal of money to me to have an environment where I can live a healthy life, but it is only worth a tiny amount of money for the difference my personal contribution will make to the environment. | This argument is pretty easy to counter. If everything in science is thrown out it still doesn't prove a god. Request evidence for their god. Point out that anything you believe is backed by testable evidence and that you are asking nothing more than a demonstration of proof for their god's existence
|
Serious question, if the claim is less than the deductible then why would the insurance company bother trying to sue anybody? If they do nothing they aren't out anything but if they sue then they're out lawyers fees. Do homeowner's policies generally require them to do this? If so then it makes more sense. | Sorry, I'm still confused. If you want to talk to her, you can do so. If you don't, you don't have to. Why do you need to prove to her or anyone else that you appeared? Unless there's a warrant out for your failure to appear I can't think of a reason why you'd need to prove it to anyone. |
> Assuming the entire state and city and police force were all racist (which they aren't),
<PERSON>. I never said every single person in Missouri is racist. Or even that every single cop is. However we do know that the police force was running what was essentially a racket that was/is sucking millions out of the black community in Ferguson.
> what good would a trial have done then?
That's a very defeatist attitude. If people in the past held that view we'd still be a colony of England, we'd still have slavery and women would still be a man's property.
> according to your conspiracy theory, right?
That there is a history of racism and racial oppression and Jim Crow in the South? That's a fact. That it continues today? Another fact. That their history of white supremacy affected the outcome of a grand jury? That's a reasonable hypothesis given the above facts.
> If <PERSON> had been a white guy nobody would've given a fuck at all.
I would. Just like I care that a white kid was murdered by the police at a fast food drive up lane and now the evidence shows he was shot from the side window.
> You assault a cop you risk getting shot.
Again. WE DO NOT KNOW if that is what happened. That is the purpose of a trial, to determine the events in question and there was no trial.
> I don't want to live in any country where that isn't true.
Neither do I. I also don't want to live in a police state. I don't want to live under the new <PERSON>. I want to be free and I want everyone else to be free. | > I'm sorry, but I don't see how this justifies trans women not using urinals.
I guess I just don't see why you're so hellbent on everyone using a urinal, when they either can't or don't want to. Women and trans women largely don't want to use urinals. Men and trans men largely do.
> realistically correct
Realistically correct would be realizing sending trans men into the women's room would cause outrage. From both trans and cis people. Trans because we shouldn't have to make a public statement about which genitals we have or that we are trans. Cis because they won't want men in the women's room.
Solution? You use the bathroom according to your current gender expression. It's what the transgender community have been doing for years. Pick whichever one will cause the least outrage and draw the least attention. Worked for me and everyone else. |
I can't really think of anything that is *exclusively* available now, but things which are in season and therefore better/cheaper/more plentiful now include end of summer corn on the cob, and LOTS of squash (butternut, acorn, etc.). For me it's soup season :)
As soon as I get a cool evening I'm going to make two soups, for which I bought the ingredients at the market the other day:
- caramelized onion, butternut squash, apple & jalapeno puree
- leek & potato with rainbow chard and fresh thyme (I'm thinking half-puree to leave some nice chunks in, which I don't normally do)
Apples are also majorly in season right now; I'm going apple-picking in the next month before Canadian Thanksgiving.
The most uniquely seasonal thing in Quebec is maple which is a springtime delight - and there's nothing quite like it! | Most of their beers are pilsner (lager), so if you're more into ale it might not be your thing. They do produce the oldest pilsner in the world though!
I remember I went rock climbing a little outside of Prague, but depending on how long you're gonna be there (and whether it's your thing) it might not be for you :) |
Legitimate reasons for owning guns:
1. Hunting (subdivided between sustenance, management, and sport; but usually all three are done at the same time)
2. Target Shooting
3. [Defense of Self against wild animals](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/grizzly-bear-shot-dead-inside-kimberley-home-1.3185310)
4. Defense of property against wild animals
5. Defense of self against criminals
6. Defense of property against criminals
7. Collection of historically relevant artifacts
You to provide arguments as to why some of these would not count as legitimate reasons to own guns, however, unless you can argue against *all* of them, then you would have to agree there are some legitimate reasons to own guns. Personally, I own guns for reasons 1, 2, and 7. There is a good chance that 3 and 4 will also be added to that list depending on where I end up working. | That Gun Control is completely ineffective in the United States and has no impact on violent crime. [Evidence: the general decline in violent crime in the United States, despite an increasingly liberalized approach to firearms regulation.](http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/justice/us-violent-crime)
Since the high-water mark of gun control laws (the Brady Bill/Federal Assault Weapons Ban) in 1994, gun laws across the States and the Federal Government have become increasingly relaxed. Concealed Carry of a firearm is easily legal in about 42 out of 50 States. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was successfully expired. Firearms ownership is on the rise [based on local statistics regarding gun sales (and background checks)](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/12/gun-background-checks-surge-across-usa/1765513/) and [applications for permits](http://www.stltoday.com/news/state-and-regional/illlinois/gun-permits-soar-in-illinois/article_e38842cf-2942-580e-97f3-f078e36f3276.html). **NOTE: While firearms ownership is on the rise, as a *percentage* of the entire US Population it is either unchanged or in decline.**
Gun control, as a political platform is incredibly untenable and lacks support. Following the 1994 passage of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Democratic Party was ousted from *both* the House and Senate (seriously, check out the change from the [103rd Congress in 1993-1994](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_States_Congress) and the [104th Congress in 1994-1995](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/104th_United_States_Congress)). Today, this is even worse, as the demographic shift in firearms ownership has moved from hunting to home defense and modern sporting rifles. Up until the mid-1990s, the most popular rifles in America were bolt action hunting rifles. After the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban, the most popular rifle in the US was the [AR-15](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15).
In fact, this is not completely forgotten by the Democratic party, which is slowly [backpeddling from the issue](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/19/reid-cuts-assault-weapons-ban-from-senate-gun-control-bill-amid-waning-support/) as [it loses popular support](http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/27/politics/gun-control-polls). Honestly, the big difference is in the voters. Many who support calls for increased gun control are emotional voters for whom gun control is hardly a central issue. Gun owners who vote tend to have longer memories and better organization to cause actual political harm if they are wronged.
TL;DR: Don't fuck with our gun rights here in the US, it's a losing idea. |
Plain vaseline because chapstick and other specialized lip balms actually sometimes contain stuff that ultimately dries your lips out more. E.g. Carmex contains camphor which gives it that fun tingly sensation... and dries out your lips. The stuff in carmex that keeps your lips moist is actually just petroleum jelly (vaseline) anyway.
I try to do it as soon as possible after getting out of the shower, if it's dry in your place your lips will start to dry out again pretty quickly. 30 seconds is not too soon. | No your words that only apply in gender studies don't count because everyone else defines them differently.
The people who study this stuff make garbage up all the time lol. You should look into it. It's hilarious the only reason most of those jobs exist... is to propagate their own existence.
|
You want your university to continue to do well because it will always reflect on you.
For example, let's say you get a degree from a decently well known university at the time. Then for whatever reason 5-10 years later it starts to get a shitty reputation. Now you are going for a job and all someone thinks of when they see your university is the reputation it has now as opposed to when you went there. | I wouldn't. If something is stolen after she moves out and you have insurance on the place, they will pay for it.
The key thing is when she moves out though, is to have someone present. That's normally when that person is the most pissed off and if something happens, it will be at that point. |
Consider, though, what people consider to be a person's moral culpability for trying to kill someone and failing and for trying to kill someone and succeeding. If it was readily apparent that there was some kind of divine being preventing you from harming people, your moral responsibility for not harming people would be lessened. But all things considered, a world where you have greater moral responsibility is a greater world. Hence, the free will argument already takes care of this objection. | It depends on the nature of any particular definition of God. A deistic God could exist without ever giving any sign of its existence. A God who demands to be believed in and worshiped by its creation, on the other hand, should make itself as obvious as any other fact about the universe. And a God whose modus operandi is proving itself through big, flashy miracles, like the God of Biblical literalism, has already set its own standard for proof. In the last case, one should demand some big and obvious display of God's power. |
> Rather than the gap of money between the middle and upper classes?
Well as I pointed out the gap is actually what really matters since that shows the disproportionate value within the economy.
Think about it this way the middle class and lower class make up that much more of the economy so the are spending that much more money. The upper class can only spend SO much while being in the upper class. and there can only be so many in the middle class without dropping into the lower class so either there would be less people in the middle class or less in the upper class.
So if the income gap is that large the money is coming from someone and if the upper and lower class are jumping that much than that means technically the money is coming out of the pockets of the lower and middle class (the upper class having a disproportionate rise means that the other classes are still paying them more and they already have that much of the money).
> Like if the middle class income jumped by 10% tomorrow, but upper class income jumped by 15%, that'd be a good thing right?
So middle class mean numbers are around $46,250.00/y while upper class mean would be around $173,207.00 (1% upper class would be $717,000.00)
So that means your new numbers are going to be $50,875.00; $199,188.05; and $824,550.00. That can honestly only mean there are less in the upper and middle classes in order to maintain that rise, and the lower class's wage would be stagnant at best. | > The biggest thing scientists need to remember is that science is the study of the physical world, which everybody should be able to relate to and understand, even if they suck at math or whatever.
Well yes and no. Yes science is about finding stuff out about the physical world but not everyone will be able to understand or relate to everything. Talk to a creationist about evolution and then see how much he understands and how well he relates to the information you are trying to teach him. Some people will not understand no matter how you put it.
As for the math part there are just stuff out there that you cannot fathom without math because our brains understanding of the physical world has evolved to understand it on the level where we are living it takes a very imaginative mind to truly comprehend the inner workings of a cell and a mathematical mind to understand what the fuck is up with atoms.
I realised this in my highschool physics class. My teacher was trying to explain something that was always just beyond my grasp to understand. I felt like I understood it but I couldn't really comprehend what he was trying to explain and then one day while studying for a test I looked through the equations and it just hit me. |
You can accept it for what it is. I like apples. I don't expect every apple I eat to be the best apple ever, perfectly sweet and delightfully crunchy. I have *expectations* that it's going to taste like an apple because it is, after all, an apple. I accept that that's all it is, though. | You wanna know what else? *My time ain't worthless.* I got shit to do, and that fifteen minutes could be important. 15 seconds late is *on time,* motherfucker, and I'd rather be on time and on-schedule that have to bail out of something I was doing just to make sure I'm extra-early. |
I went to a psychologist for depression a few years back. He gave me a worksheet to complete between sessions, and I did not complete it.
He asked, "Is that because you see me as an authority figure."
I looked at him, "What, no, I hired you, you work for me."
His eye started twitching even more. I never went back.
Moral of the story, don't go to a psychologist with a twitchy eye.
Edit: No disrespect to talk therapists, I imagine it to be a challenging if not difficult job. | I'm turning 27 this year, it's been a huge shift. I used to have those phones that had round dials, floppy disks, VHS and tapes, I played a lot on the street like you said, going door to door, while someone's family watched us to make sure we were safe. We just played ball, ran around, told stories.
We got a lousy white PC with a yellowed cover to protect it. We had to turn off the internet so my parents could make and receive calls. I played a lot of Disney games and such in it, then I used Kazaa and Limewire to download songs, and sometimes I got a file that was a warning that downloading music was illegal haha, and some songs had a radio announcer's voice at the beginning. I used to read magazines and manga (japanese comics), watch anime on TV, along with many shitty audience shows and bad journalism.
A great gift was something like a Polly or Barbie doll, or a board game like Monopoly. I hated getting clothes from my family as well. I only got a phone later, and I mostly used it to play Snake. Ohh also my GameBoy was my prized possession. Some richer friends had PlayStations and Nintendo 64s so I played at their homes.
The internet was terrible, took 1 minute to load an image. It was already a place full of pornography and violent images, only our parents didn't really know about it. We used to google naked celebrities, read creepy pastas, and some friends liked to visit websites that showed violent images like people in car crashes, etc.
Today every kid has a smartphone, even 2 year old babies play on iPads. Only time will tell how much impact this has, but I already resent how much I'm addicted to my little screen. I used to read **a lot** as a kid, and now it's hard for me to focus on something longer than a paragraph. We have a lot of information, but a lot of fake information as well. |
Mine got slightly better too this week. Just as I thought I was unemployable I got word that I was wanted for an interview last Thursday, it only lasted 10 minutes so I thought maybe it didn't go well. But at 3pm that day I was called by the interviewer informing me that I was required for a medical check on Thursday for the job. So now I'm feeling a bit more like I have hope in the job world.
I do although still feel as if I'm never going to have a successful relationship but at least I can be an employed lifelong bachelor! | I visited Cyprus and really enjoyed it (even though I did get hit on by quite a few creepy old men, I think maybe they thought I was a rentboy) Beautiful scenery, interesting history, amazing food. But then I found reddit and found out that all of the Cypriot redditors despise Brits so that put a dampener on things.
Never been to Greece but I would like to see the islands. I've only met a few Greeks in the UK and they sure like their coffee and cigarettes! |
Oh of course, there have good political reasons for doing it, however those are usually really complex and difficult to explain to the public. I mean, can you imagine how hard it would be to convince the general population of how devastating it would be to the global economy, and how important it is to publicly display our strength to the region? Most American's just don't have time, nor care, to understand these complex issues. I mean, many American's still think 9.11 was an inside job, and that we were walking with dinosaurs 5000 years ago.
I suspect we had similar reasons to take out <PERSON> (sp?) because like you said, the USA isn't in the business of "just being nice" and liberating every little dictator. Our first and foremost priorities are securing American influence, resources, and political control. So what exactly would be a good reason for getting involved with Libya to overthrow a dictator we've historically supported? Typically, we let countries do their own thing with their people so long as they keep it within their borders, don't bug any one, play by our rules, and keep everything under control.
So why did we all of a sudden get a change of heart with <PERSON>? Sure he was going through some internal political conflicts, but so were a ton of even worse leaders at the time. What made him stick out? Why was he the one we decided to clamp down on?
Well, ~6 months or so prior to the peak of the conflict <PERSON> was publicly stating how he's going to completely get off the Western economic model as well as support because he no longer trusts the West, so he's switching over to the Eastern model with Russia and China. I honestly don't even think he thought it would escalate to any where near where it was going.
So while Libya isn't necessarily an economic power house which we really fear losing, but specifically because they undermined our authority in an already complicated region. Not only that, but he said he's now switching allegiance to fucking Russia! That not only sets extremely bad precedent in the region, but it also gives <PERSON> direct access into a region we are specifically trying to manage and get under control. I'm sure <PERSON> would have loved to be right next door to our operations, and have the ability to make our lives really difficult through all sorts of covert operations.
So a few weeks later, <PERSON> signed the CIA order to begin intelligence gathering missions and got the ball rolling. Our attack was less about getting rid a of dictator and more about sending a message to every one else around who was considering allying with <PERSON>, and showing them what the consequences would be. | Ha, interesting! I am from Danmark, and I once visited Arizona on vacation, and to me the desert was the most unbelievable part, no grass for kilometers and kilometers. We have an overseas territory called the Faroe Islands, it sits far out into the ocean, but there are no trees that grow there; so it is said that when they visit any other country, and see forests for the first time, the response is quite amusing. That was pretty much my feeling of the desert, because everywhere I have ever lived has much grass and trees :P
Also, the Grand Canyon is very high and steep, and we don't have any cliffs or mountains either, so two mindblows in one trip! |
This is a tough one and it's hard to give a good answer on, but I'll try. The man does have a choice. He gets to choose where he puts his dick. Part of being a Man is being responsible and dealing with the consequences of your actions. We can whine and bitch about these unfair situations all day, but life isn't fair and at the end of it all we do have control over these situations if we are willing to accept responsibilty for our actions.
If a man doesn't want to have a baby then he shouldn't put a baby into a woman who wants to have a baby. This is as good as it gets. | If that is acceptable then is should also be acceptable to base your preferences off of skin color without being labeled racist or prejudiced. It's like if someone wasn't attracted to Asians because their faces are shaped differently than what they are used to.
And he obviously has the internet so I'm sure he has been exposed to plenty of black women who society would deem attractive.
I think we should take race completely out of the discussion and concentrate simply on looks. I personally find some black women attractive, but I'm really picky about it. For the most part they turn me off. |
Mine happened last night, my mom went down to our basement slightly tipsy and after she went I heard a loud thunk from below. I called out "You okay?" mostly not being serious but heard nothing in reply and suddenly it became serious. I ran down and started looking all over yelling for her, getting nothing in reply and finding no one. Probably a 2 minute fear before she walked back in from the outside door. Turns out the thunk was her closing the door behind her as she went outside. Terrifying, and she had no idea why I was so upset. | Yeah shoulda figured. Half posted this incase he ends up asking for help (he knows he can and has before), or incase she starts on someone else. Normally I wouldn't feel the need to step in but I seem to be the ONLY person she won't attack. No clue why, but it seems to help defuse most situations, often my only comment is the last comment posted after a huge string of them. |
Every candidate has made and will continue to make blunders. Ignorance is common, while sincere admissions of ignorance are rare. We can take for granted that, like any candidate, <PERSON> could have talked around the question if he wanted to and spared himself any special attention because it's what we're used to. <PERSON>, for example, is the master of giving self-congratulatory non-answers in similar situations and comes off as almost pathologically incapable of admitting he's wrong. And the worst part is, we contribute to a culture where that's becoming the safe political strategy if we react so strongly to an honest blunder.
I find it refreshing for a presidential candidate to show that kind of humility and follow up with a sincere apology. The most dangerous qualities the person with their finger on the nuclear button can lack are humility and the ability to recognize and own up to a mistake. | Because it's a uniquely masculine tendency. Womansplaining wouldn't be a thing if we tried to use it. While both genders are capable of being condescending know-it-alls, the particular scenario this term describes is one in which the man derives his authority from being a man, not just from being smarter. A good example would be congressional hearings or decisions on abortion, made almost exclusively by old men. These men, in explaining their reasoning, are mansplaining because there's no rational cause to believe they better understand how it feels to have a woman's body and make decisions regarding it. When they do so, it's because they live in a society that implicitly allows them to tell women what's good for them. Women are rarely if ever allowed the same thing. We're still largely stuck in a model that encourages men to be assertive and women to be acquiescent (this is changing, but we're not done). Thus, the term only exists for men. If a woman is being condescending or arrogant, then we just use those broader words to describe it. Words get invented out of necessity, because we need to be able to specifically describe something. If womansplaining happened often enough to necessitate labeling it, we would have done so.
So back to my point: if you jump straight to "mansplaining is dumb and so are people who believe in it," skipping the step where you earnestly and sincerely engage with the possibility that it's a real thing, then I assume you're doing so because you believe you're just inherently better than the people who use the term. Which means that if you've been accused of mansplaining before, in all likelihood the accuser was correct. |
> Suppose we were to stipulate that consciousness plays no part in decision-making and human decision-making
But this is wrong. The fact that we are conscious (or believe to be) does play a role in our decisions making. Such as in choosing an answer to the question "Are you conscious?".
There is such a concept as a thingie that does not play a role in decisions making but is still an attribute believed by some to be given to humans: the soul. If you decide to make consciousness something that is independent from the cognitive process, you have to explain why you think it exists, what effects it causes on the observable world.
> After all, a thermostat examines its own state in the same sense that AI does, but as far as I know nobody thinks thermostats are conscious.
Because we place a difference between examining one's physical state and one's cognitive state and we have the untold assumption that to be conscious you need to be able to communicate your self-observations.
I think it would be arguable that a program able to reason on its perception and to reason on its own reasoning and to communicate his conclusions and observations to a human could be called self-conscious.
> I was using the word automaton in its technical meaning in academic computer science.
OK I assumed that the automaton/robot distinction was the same in English and French (the language I studied CS in). Let's use the correct English version then.
So are you using 'automaton' to mean a finite state-machine? If so, I must say that I fail to see how its status as an automaton makes it unable to do any task. Do you have an example of a task that a human can perform that a FSM can provably not? | Essence is the thing you need to have to make you what you are. The definitionally essential qualities without which a given term would not suit you.
So in order to say the two persons share an essence, you first need a definition of something and some traits that are essential to it that both share.
This is also trivial since all humans share their human essence in this sense.
Unless you refer to some other meaning of "essence" |
Its so true. I was always searching for good anime streaming sites till I just stopped and just yesterday I gave crunchyroll a try since I wanted to watch some naruto.
After the first 3 extremely fastloading and great quality episodes I just whitelisted it. If I would watch more anime I would probably even pay for premium.
The service is just so important and 3 ads for a 23min video for that no constant buffering and even antic episodes are found in a heartbeat. Damn they have me on the nutsack | Last year I did a whole month of July abroad. In the middle of this adventure I had 30 hour stop in the city I live in just to wash clothes/repack.
Just before this break I accidentally spilled coffee on my laptop so in those 30 hours home I had to take it to the laptop doctors. The very day there was a damn military parade and a heatwave. I managed to wander around an unfamiliar part of the city for about 4 hours at 38 celsius heat and being severely fatigued from the 20 hour stay/flight the previous day. I hope this never happens again |
When he returns home he notices his parents had gotten a dog.
"he's your replacement. it was your father's idea." his mother teased.
So he went back to school and finished up the year, came back home in the summer and took care of it along with his only brother.
When the summer was over, his brother went to college too. when they returned for winter break, they found that there was another dog.
"my replacement?" the younger brother joked.
so the boys went back to school, finished the semester and spent their summer taking care of both dogs before heading back.
When they returned they found out that their parents had gotten a divorce.
"What happened!?" the son asked
"they got another dog" | I had an idea for a children's story about tooth fairies. Instead of being kind and sweet they were dangerous and vicious. And they eat teeth.
The tooth fairy has stalked man kind since the cave and there are reports throughout history of the attacks.
In 1631, after a particularly bad attack, a peace treaty was agreed between the humans and the fairies, this threaty insured that the fairies stopped attacking and in exchange the humans would place the milk teeth of their children under the kid's pillows for the fairies to collect.
However, because of the increase in sugary foods and general reduction in the quality of children's teeth the fairies have broken the treaty and have started attacking humans again.
Two years, and 43,000 words later I wrote my book. It is on Amazon, didn't do very well as I have no idea what to do to market a book but, hey, at least I finally finished it. |
Did i ever say "white people are just as discriminated against"? No, and if you're not going to be honest in this discussion then I'm through.
But when somebody says, "white people have no history of being disadvantaged", that is objectively untrue; a great many white people have been. In fact, the majority of white americans are descended from people who immigrated to america after the civil war, and most probably faced some discrimination depending on their country of origin.
| Spartan army circa 480 bce vs Roman army circa 44 bce, with equal numbers and assuming best possible training and equipment, to equalize that variable; thats a better question.
Questions like that are however boringly obvious to answer, since more technologically advanced cultures are usually almost always more advanced in warfare technology, martial prowess and tactics. Also, there is usually a "pecking order" of martial prowess; for example, Spartans were defeated on many occasions by the members of the achean league, persians and lastly, gothic marauders, who in turn were usually defeated in battle by the romans, as long as both armies were more or less equal. If pelopenoi defeated spartans, and romans defeated the peloponoi, then it logically follows that romans shoudl be able to defeat the spartans.
One way or another this is just a speculation and guesswork incompatible with serious historical discourse. |
I can imagine hooks coming down from the sky, dangling right in front of the faces of deer everywhere.. they just stand there looking side to side, confused. Finally, one takes a bite and is instantly torn upward into the clouds, screaming all the way, never to be seen again.
| Just out of curiosity, what legal grounding would you have to sue? If the company had you uproot your entire life to start anew somewhere else just to say, "whoops, my bad!" at the last minute. That's got to be fairly traumatizing, not to mention expensive. They can't just expect you to react kindly and go your separate ways after that.. |
The development of Russian computer science is a topic unto itself. Mostly, there was a strong institutional history of limiting typewriters and printing presses to control the flow of ideas and maintain a government monopoly on the flow of ideas. Computers are those things on steroids. Use of computers were always restricted to those who were deemed indispensable or politically reliable. This dramatically slowed the usefulness of computers as the techniques and applications developed in the west lagged significantly. There simply wasn't as compelling reason if the bang for the buck just wasn't there.
Add to that the fact that the efficiency gains from computerization are often unclear to those unfamiliar with the concepts, and it was just not made a priority. In the US and Japan there was strong selective pressure from the markets to push people along. That simply didn't occur in the Soviet Union. | Castles were primarily defensive, but they could offer offensive advantages. Fear of these offensive advantages was one of the reasons why the English besieged Mont St. Michel in Normandy so frequently (though unsuccessfully) in the 100 years war.
Mt. St. Michel was deep behind English lines. It was held by the French pretty much throughout the wars. It's small garrison was not too worrisome, but, if the French sent a strong force by sea, they would have a secure beach head at Mt. St. Michel where they could land and then launch devastating raids into English held country.
So, a castle offered a potential base for offensive operations if it was in the right place.
However, for castles to be built as part of an offensive strategy was more difficult. Really this required your army to be strong enough to hold the countryside while you were building castles in advanced locations which could be used as bases for further offensive operations. One place where this happened was in Iberia during the reconquista. Another place was in the Baltic, where the Teutonic knights built castles which could serve as bases for further advances against the pagans. |
>What if you remove the temporal element though? For instance I have read the Diary of Anne Frank. I know all the decisions she made her whole life (for simplicity's sake)
If you treat the past like the future, then are you implying the future can't be changed? Or both the past and future can be changed equally?
edit: option 1 my point still stands. Option 2 would imply some time machine and would give a delta.
>make me a god relative to her? Do I have dominion over her?
No, because humans have the special limitation that we can only record the past. If we could record the future and that record was always changing then I'd give you a delta. But if we could only record the certain future then my point would still hold since it was determined. | >This is the most common rationale. Pre-existence and post-death are hardly the same thing; pre-existence wasn't preceded by existing!
Yea, but the point is pre-existence doesn't bother you because you don't remember it. It was nothingness, and if it didn't bother you then, it won't bother you when you die, so why should it bother you in life? You won't know you are dead, so the fact that you existed before doesn't matter.
> Ok then, I'm going to painlessly kill you tomorrow in your sleep. Do you care about that?
I don't. I mean, I don't want to die, I want to live and see my son grow up and live a long life with my husband, but i'm not afraid of death, even if my life was cut short. Like you said, I won't care after i'm dead. I don't think people are cowards for being afraid to die, I just wish they weren't. There's really no reason to be. I'm not saying that if I fell off a cliff, or was being chased by someone with a gun, or was having a heart attack, etc. I would be perfectly calm and not affraid, i'm sure I would be screaming and freaking out just like anyone else. I'm just not affraid of death itself.
When I was religious, it was a different story. Death is scary if you believe in Heaven and Hell. I used to lay awake at night wondering if which place I would be going, and if what I did that day was bad enough for me to go to Hell. I didn't know what was worse, going to Heaven and living an eternity without my friends and family, who were certainly going to Hell, or spending an eternity in Hell myself. Ceasing to exist is much more peaceful and easy to accept than living for eternity, IMO. I already know I do not want to live forever, in any way shape or form. That does not sound appealing to me. |
You sound like you're preaching from atop [Mount Stupid.](http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20111228.gif)
In other words, you know just enough about this to make an ass out of yourself.
So, the truth here is that the "correcthorsebatterystaple" password scheme is *not* "broken" or more vulnerable to dictionary attacks, per se, than a shorter one of random characters.
<PERSON>'s math is absolutely correct in the comic.
The question comes down to what you are trying to protect against more than whether or not this is the "perfect password scheme". (newsflash: there isn't one).
If your attacker *knows* that you are using a 4-word combination, then sure...a dictionary attack against the common words performed on a GPU is going the scream through this and tear it apart in a couple of days on the long end. If your attacker is simply given a hash with no knowledge of what is in it, then your "batterystaple" scheme is going to fare better than 8 random specials and numbers...but neither are going to be super-duper-easy at that point. The fact that XKCD's scheme makes a more memorable password, however, is a definite advantage.
Still, a major flaw in an organization's security layout is in the people themselves...they are most likely to compromise the security of the system no matter how complex their password is.
Another thing about the XKCD scheme that some people have overlooked is that the words are supposed to be random. Putting common strings together is where one flaw lies, absolutely.
The guy who (inadvertently) lead the Holy War against the XKCD gets this part wrong ([<PERSON>/blog/archives/2014/03/choosing_secure_1.html)), he assumes that <PERSON> is suggesting people use strings like "OneNationUnderGod" or "GoneFishingBackLater" or "ihatehackers". That's a far cry from what the scheme actually is though.
The scheme is 4 *randomly chosen* words that are easy to remember, not a popular or even coherent phrase. Your dictionary attacks at going to try the top passwords first. Then top short-phrases ("iloveyou" will be the first...). Then it might start shooting at more random combinations. But even on an average vocabulary with 4 words in the password, that's 2000^4, not an easy number to hit on even the most powerful machines these days.
And in any event, it's probably the *least likely way* your password will be stolen. It's probably going to be intercepted by malware or phishing agents long before it gets encrypted in the first place. Or you'll use it on a site that keeps it in plaintext, then again for your email. Or it will be socially engineered out of someone. Or some other bit of your personal info will be stolen and your password is reset altogether. Or you'll come up with an awesome, uncrackable password and then give up a trivial-to-guess secret question/answer.
And even if someone does go after it with a dictionary, unless you are the director of the CIA they are going to likely have a massive set of hashes to work with and you don't have to worry about being perfect. You just need to avoid the common ones that are going to shake out on the first pass. They aren't going to take a run against a few million hashes to sort out a dozen batterystaple passwords when they have ten thousand "password1"'s and "iamgod"'s.
TL;DR: Nuh uh. | When you are dealing with social constructs, there is no "right" or "wrong."
What there is is a spectrum between "useful" and "useless."
If you roll up to someone and tell them that today is Friday, you'd be technically correct because using the Julian calendar, maybe it is Friday today.
But the thing you just said would be 100% useless and, really, of negative utility because not only did you fail to transmit the desired information, you transmitted inaccurate information that necessitates clarification or will cause problems if acted upon. There is no *right* answer unless you provide the context of which calendar you're using, and *the entire point and function of a society* is to provide context and an agreed-upon starting point that everyone can go on rather than having to start every single interaction with a thousand-line list of definitions.
You wouldn't be *wrong* to say today is Friday (by the Julian calendar), but you'd be as good as wrong to do that in a common situation, because what you mean when you just say "Friday" is totally different from what people hear when you say it. Are you factually incorrect? No. But your communication is worse than useless, because you've failed to transmit anything meaningful.
The same goes for gender. What is agreed-upon may be arbitrary, as many of our systems of measurement and classifications are. However, what matters for the cases of use and interaction is only that it is agreed-upon. |
Dude are you actually serious? There's a good chance they're already paying for condoms. A marriage license is like $50, cheaper than most wedding invitations. There's no legal obligation to change your name after a marriage, and especially not to use a joint bank account. I can't think of any married couples I know who immediately changed their living arrangements when they got married. | Most employers only do drug testing it if it means they get discounted insurance. I really don't care what other people do in their own time, but if you show up to work intoxicated and get someone hurt, or if you steal stuff to pay for an addiction, that's a significant problem. |
> If they want, they can hire him to do nothing but take drug tests all day long for years on end.
As someone who has never done drugs, I would love to get such a job! Let me know if you ever hear of anyone hiring for this. :) | > There are matriarchal societies in India where studies have shown that females are the risk takers and the competitive ones and males are the modest and cautious ones in the opposite proportion to patriarchal societies like the US
I have never heard of such studies. Care to link me to them? |
If you would ask actual women there are 2 main answers you would get:
1. **Women are mostly clueless of the effect they have on men.** Or to be more precise, they don't really realise what horndogs men really are and how little it takes to arouse us. Women say "all men are pigs" but rarely every actually UNDERSTAND that this is a fact of nature. Obviously, women who dress near-pornographically know what they are doing, but more often than not, women who wear very skimpy skirts and deep cut cleavage consider it completely innocent "fashion" and not a provocation.
2. In an overwhelming majority of cases, *women dress to impress other women*, not men. Female fashion is to a large degree a competition between females of who is more fashionable and looks better (from aesthetic not sexual perspective).At the same time, women "dress to belong" in their social group. So the actual female fashion is a resultant of female social competitiveness, social pressure to belong, and what fashion industry pushes on them to make monies.
TLDR: It has little to do with making men horny, its all fashion. | Cant st8 that as applying to all ofc, perhaps it is still a long time away, but it is heavily recommendable. Like, you lose literally nothing from just keeping a condom with you, and its way better than having to buy one at the moment (kills the vibe and you have to deal with the whole "afraid of buying this" deal WHILE they are w8ing for you).
It is one of those "dont know it until you have experienced it" things, but seriously, you DONT want to be buying a condom in the moment.
A condom in your wallet is just a good thing to have, m8. |
The problem with that is that based on our societal laws you will be held accountable as a free agent capable of making your own decisions.
There are plenty of tough decisions out there that are 50-50, but you are accountable for yourself regardless of which one you choose.
If you want to pretend you aren't accountable for your actions then that is reprehensible and honestly sad.
This goes for everything between deciding what flavor ice cream you want, changing habits, or choosing a direction for your life to go.
It is really depressing and pointless to look at life that way. Life is more like a choose your own adventure with infinite options (with maybe only limitation on your imagination). | I used to be of the same opinion, then I learned that dogs are diurnal.
If you look at a normal dog's routine you will notice that it will be active in the morning and evening, but asleep and resting for the majority of the day and night.
Meaning that allowing it the freedom to roam is a moot point because it probably won't roam as much as you think.
Combine this with a suitably large crate that contains food, water, a bed, and a toy and you have met the majority of the dog's needs within the crate.
The only problem left is waste. A well-trained, healthy dog should be able to go 9 hours without doing their business assuming you take them on regular walks and let them do their business at other times during the day. |
I'm curious, what you mean by evicted? Do you mean they got locked out off the house? That's illegal. Do you mean they were on a month-to-month and asked to leave? That could happen at any time.
If you're on a lease you don't have much to worry about from retaliation(in the form of an eviction) from the landlord. If you're not, well you could be told to move at any time anyway, try to always have a backup, now especially since the landlord or fire marshall may make you move. | We've been trying since he died, we got pregnant again right away but I had a miscarriage, likely because it was too early. It's pretty likely grief and unrelated stress this year has kept us from getting pregnant again. In June I head to the fertility doc for a consultation so I'm not worried. I thought I was infertile for 12+ years before getting pregnant with my son, so if it doesn't happen I know a full life(and a family) aren't out of the question. :) Thanks for asking!
Now I'm terribly curious about this friend group. Were you on vacation? Are they online? Why are they so special? Spill! |
>Both are assumptions that aren't necessarily true.
The first one *is* necessarily true. You get fat by over eating. If you are fat, you have been over eating. There might be more details to is (such as why you over eat) but that is the bottom line. The second point is probably true, but not necessarily. Maybe they hold some weird, unscientific views. Maybe they went through a rough patch where they weren't motivated to stay in good health, but they currently are. But ultimately, being fat puts you at higher risk of a ton of diseases. Unless they are actively losing weight, something is up with them mentally.
>someone who is 300lbs because they have a thyroid condition
A thyroid condition might make a person feel lazy and eat too much, but they still need to over eat to get fat. I also don't think that is a good excuse for being fat because you should be able to adjust your food intake in this case.
>someone who is 300lbs because they have lost weight over a grueling year of diet and exercise and come down from being 400lb
Good for them, but how did they get to be 400 pounds?
>someone who is 300lbs because they eat lots of fast food?
Then they are still over eating. The only instance where the person doesn't over eating is if they are actively losing weight, which means they got to a point of even higher weight. In this case, I might not be able to tell their current motives, but they were at some point aware they were fat and kept over eating despite being aware of the health concerns.
>Nor is the inverse (thin = healthy) true. Some people with high metabolisms can eat junk and not exercise, and stay thin without giving a shit about being healthy.
Not every thin person is healthy, there is more to health than just body fat. But body fat is one measure, and a relevant one since A, it will always put the person at a higher risk of diseases along with generally worsening their quality of life, B, it is easy to see from looking at a person, and C, obesity rates are super high and it is probably the most common health issue in America. Not the end all, be all of measuring health but a good one. | I think this is the most telling statement in your posts.
>t is absolutely absurd that people are more comfortable going into risky surgery to remove their bodily organs instead of getting to the root of their problem and changing their habits.
Not everyone is the same. Not everyone has the time and energy necessary to change on their own. Why does it matter if it is absurd? There are a lot of absurd things in the world. The point is it works.
Your reminding me of some overly religious individuals. It doesn't matter that they are a good person, what matter is that they don't believe in the right things. Your treating weight loss like a religion, it is only worthwhile if it within the constraints of what you think it should be. Rather then what is best for the person.
So ask yourself, which do you care about more, people being able to live healthy fulfilling lives, or them following your rules.
|
>nor will I be able to adapt to new genres as they spring up, making me more and more dated as a listener.
The absolute *best* way to pick up on new trends is to listen to everything and think about what you like and why.
Your view that this will hamper you confuses me. Why in the world would you think that listening to a variety of genres would make you less able to adapt to new genres? | > To me, yep. To the general population, yes it is bad music. **But to them it is good. That's fine, that's their opinion.**
>**Have you never thought someone else's music sucked? But if you're alone in your opinion then you have to think, who is right and who is wrong? Chances are if you're standing alone with your opinion, it's you.**
These two statements are not consistent.
>It only has merit to people who enjoy classical. To everyone else? No merit.
That's the case with almost all music. If you like Power Metal and want to get into it, it would likely be best to specifically refer to the albums most well received by other Power Metal fans. Non-Power Metal fan opinions mean little on this.
>So what if people enjoy it?
Nothing. I'm simply saying that most sales are by people who only know mainstream music. No-one will buy all music marketed at them but if you only know marketed music then you will ultimately only buy marketed music.
>They are only of good quality to people who have heard it.
This is correct. They are also only of bad quality to people who have heard it and did not like it.
>But only for that niche. If people outside that niche hate it, then it's a bad song for everyone except that niche and is therefore of low quality to people outside the niche.
There is no other credible way to determine quality music within a genre. People who don't like a particular style really have no input in telling those that do that all songs in that style suck. They don't get it, they don't want to get it etc.
Cross-genre appeal is a good indicator of accessibility and albums that excel at it tend to do well at introducing people to styles and achieving mainstream success but also tend towards being formulaic and risk-averse. Mainstream music in general suffers from this. They are designed to appeal to people who only have a fleeting taste and understanding in music. People who just like catchy tunes and/or a musical backdrop for party music.
Music by the way, as well as many other things is multifaceted. Different songs are appropriate and better quality in different contexts. |
An expert on the economics of fascism would be able to offer you more in the way of substantive examples, but the severe aggression of <PERSON>'s regime was in good part derived from the absolute need of the German state to continue war spending and acquire new land and resources. The economic growth was unsustainable.
Of course, you also seem to be judging a leader by simple economic effects, which is dangerous, given the ethical concerns over the economic actions that led to that. Significant economic output from labor camps, the complete suppression of the working class, and the total exploitation of conquered territory were key to the temporary economic gains of Nazism, particularly in World War II.
I also question whether Nazi Germany could have withstood the full force of the Soviet invasion, even if US involvement did not strengthen the Western Front. However, that's a question for r/historicalwhatif. | The British government's embargo of Iran after the Iranian Prime Minister's <PERSON>'s nationalization of the oil industry from primarily British control in 1951 had a seriously damaging effect on its economy. This, coupled with a powerful new sense of nationalism among the Iranian population in the wake of their defiant stand against their former colonial British overlords, produced an atmosphere of extremely high tensions.
At the same time, Iran's main communist political party, the Tudeh, capitalized on the volatile situation by reversing their previous opposition to <PERSON> and joining in support of him instead, taking to beating up and threatening political opponents of the prime minister during the nationalization crisis. Acting in the hopes that <PERSON> would appreciate their support and pivot the country's development toward communism (and presumably closer relations with the Soviet Union), they contributed significantly to British and American foreign policy makers' calculations about <PERSON>'s likelihood to oppose the West's goals and interests.
President <PERSON> and a number of senior figures in his administration and the intelligence community were eventually persuaded by British intelligence and convinced by the argument that the situation was unsustainable, and that if left to continue any longer without decisive intervention, the risk of a communist takeover of the government (via the Tudeh party) would become unacceptable.
In what would become a consistent theme for both major powers throughout the Cold War, the U.S. undertook the coup to install a sympathetic government rather than allow self-determination to produce one that chose to align itself in opposition to Washington. The <PERSON> was reinstituted as essentially an absolute monarch, and his rule was supported and financed by the United States for the next two and a half decades.
Now, whether or not this seizure of the Iranian government by pro-communist forces was actually a likely possibility is honestly a matter of debate. But its role as a major motivator for the U.S.' actions seems clear.
Source: <PERSON> and the 1953 Coup in Iran*, <PERSON> |
A friend (UK) went to visit another friend (US) for his birthday party.
The second friend was amazed and said, "Why would you come all the way just for that?"
And the first friend said, "I figured you were a good enough friend that I'd come for your funeral, so I thought I would spend the money just coming to see you, instead."
And his friend gave him a big hug and was very grateful.
Living friends > dead friends. Now go see your grandparent. | One mentioned to the other, "It's been a trying time for me. I sent my son to Jerusalem to study for two years in the hopes he would return as a better Jew, but instead he converted to Christianity."
The other father replied, "That's odd. I also sent my son to Jerusalem to study, and he also returned as a Christian."
Seeing this as a remarkable coincidence, they sought the advice of their <PERSON> and told them their stories. The Rabbi said, "That's odd. I, too, sent my son to Jerusalem to study, and he is now a Christian. Clearly something is up over there. We should go there on the next available flight."
The three men journeyed to Jerusalem and found their way to the Western Wall so they could pray. The Rabbi looked up and said, "Lord, we seek your guidance, for we are all at a complete loss. We sent each of our sons here in the hopes they would become better Jews, but they have all become Christians. What do we do?"
A moment passed in eery silence when suddenly a booming voice from the sky said, "That's odd..." |
So we can be cruel to an orphan mentally impaired child?
Yes, in practice we do extend care only to humans, but there isn't a sound reason for that. And we don't extend care to all humans - a brain dead human is fair game for organ donation or death through starvation. So even there, we accord care based on sentience. A mentally impaired person who can feel but not think logically is accorded care because they can feel. Not because they live in a human body. If they became unable to feel, we'd no longer be compelled to care for them.
So I think a simpler logical system would compell us to care for humans and animals according to the same rules. | Again - a male brain is a brain wired to recognize and control a male body. A female brain is a brain wired to recognize and control a female body. This isn't that complicated.
And we can't read minds, but we do have overwhelming evidence that gender identity is neurologically based, forms during gestation, doesn't change, and doesn't always correspond with the rest of one's anatomy.
And we know that there have been people who identified and did everything in their power to live as a gender atypical to their appearance at birth in every culture and every era of human history. If this were some socially conditioned trait, it wouldn't be a constant across all of human history.
No, this isn't about gender roles. This is about one's neurologically based ability to recognize one's own body. |
> This Counsel main goal was not to produce the final copy of the bible, but to merely consider what should go into it.
I don't know how I can be more clear. There was no discussion of the Bible, of canon, of scripture, **at all** at the council of Nicaea. Yes, the goal was to codify Christianity - it was in many ways a response to Arianism. But canonicity, scripture, or the contents of what would become the Bible **were not discussed.** | > In the Hebrew sin – het - means "to miss the mark." It is not evil, but simply falling short of a desired goal...Because one sinned in the past, does not make one inherently sinful.
Romans 3:23: "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". I think this shows that Christians still *should* view sin with the Hebrew definition of "missing the mark". It also shows that humanity *is* inherently sinful, possibly as a result of Original Sin.
> Before eating the forbidden fruit, <PERSON> and her mate had no knowledge of good and evil. For them, all actions would be equal in their morality. Like a toddler, a child with Down Syndrome, or someone suffering from Alzheimer’s, they could not willfully disobey God, because they had no way of making an ethical judgment about the preference of obeying or disobeying as a moral choice until AFTER they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
You are correct in that they had no knowledge of good and evil. However, I think your point about them not being able to willfully disobey God is incorrect. They had *clear instructions* laid out before them and failed to keep those instructions. No, they did not choose to eat based on ethics or morals, but they still *chose*. With free will. <PERSON> and <PERSON> (or whatever they metaphorically represent) willfully disobeyed God.
> Mere temptation is not sin (<PERSON> was tempted repeatedly), but rather an opportunity to choose between virtue or wickedness, providing one knows the difference between the two.
Again, your point on temptation is correct, but <PERSON> and <PERSON> knew what God had commanded. If God is to be believed as good and just, then they would know, at least on some level, that one choice was virtuous and the other was wicked.
> sin is a willful decision to choose wrong over right. The sinner must have knowledge of the sin and free will to make the choice.
Sure. And <PERSON> and <PERSON>, as you have mentioned, told <PERSON> exactly what God had commanded them, therefore signifying their knowledge of what was expected of them. They then used their free will to choose to sin.
> <PERSON> says, “everyone shall be put to death for his own sin,”
Again, see my point on Romans. If sin is "missing the mark", then everyone has done it. If everyone has sinned, God's commandment for death is still just.
I think the biggest concern that I have with whether or not <PERSON> and <PERSON> committed Original Sin is whether or not they existed or were a metaphor for early humanity in general. If <PERSON> and <PERSON> did *not* commit Original Sin, who did? What happened? Who were the first people to "miss the mark" and fall short of God's glory? |
To bolster your position, take a datestamped picture of the keys where you leave them, and send an email confirming that you have left them.
Those two things won't be conclusive proof, but in civil cases like this, "more likely than not" is the standard. Solid proof is rarely necessary. The LL would likely need evidence that you did not leave the keys beyond his own testimony that he didn't receive them.
A photo datestamp can be spoofed. An email date is more reliable. | For anyone else who doesn't want to sit through the video, the relevant data starts at about 1:10.
It doesn't really matter what we think here. Geico is making you a settlement offer, and you are free to accept or reject it. You can also counter with a different offer.
If you can't agree, you'll need to sue the other driver. You should factor in whether that potential 10% gain is worth the cost of court and an attorney. |
Medical staff constantly make notes in the medical record. They also universally hate any type of malpractice lawsuit, especially if they think they might have to testify. (Unlikely here, but still possible.) Sometimes medical records disappear or get changed or just are extremely difficult to obtain. My personal favorite was the hospital that refused to release the medical records because the operative report was not yet completed -- 14 months after the operation. It's better to just keep silent and hopefully save yourself and your lawyer some aggravation. | This. You should also mail him a letter politely requesting 24-hour notice before he enters your place. (Cite your lease or Ohio's Landlord-Tenant Act.) You need to start making a written record of his violations. These things always escalate and it is important to have a written record of previous misconduct if things continue to go downhill. |
Little backstory: I've realized over the last couple of years that I exhibit a number of sociopathic tendencies. A couple of these qualities include an over inflated sense of self and the rationalization of one's actions. These also tend to combine into a self serving, placing myself first worldview, which is rationalized by the fact that outside of my friends and family, I don't care about other people.
I can't really think of a *good* reason for not living solely for my own interest. I live for the short time I'm here and then I die. I might as well enjoy myself as much as I can while I'm here, and if that requires the expense of others, so be it. We're all going to die anyway, so what's it matter. Hopefully, you can see the viewpoint I'm coming from, I'd love to hear your arguments for why I should live any other way.
Edit: Just woke up, working on responding to everyone! | I would be far more depressed if there was a single overarching meaning decreed by a higher power or force of nature that is revealed to me and everyone else. I would always have the one thing that I must be doing and a standard that I must be measured against. The lack of a predefined, given meaning allows me to create my own goals, expectation, and meaning. I get to set my own rules and establish my own goals. I'm not objectively doing it wrong.
There are many people who are smarter than I who are far more depressed than I. There are also those who are more optimistic than I am. I don't think that a smart, sane, and honest individual must necessarily be depressed. I think that intelligence has little to do with the subject as even uninformed and insane people are depressed. I think it has everything to do with expectations and brain chemistry.
There have been studies that seem to indicate that optimism, and the related willingness to take risks and working on tasks that are ultimately impossible but have useful byproducts, correspond pretty significantly with financial success and better health. Pessimism and depression can be a valid response, and when bad things happens those who are anticipating loss lose a great deal less. The problem is that optimistic viewpoints have better average returns even after you factor in the crashes. So, the people who are trying to encourage you to be more optimistic are simply trying, in their own little way, to help you be more successful because they want you to be. But if you are more closely wired to protect what you have than to risk it in hopes of getting more, they may well be barking up the wrong tree. |
No it doesn't- OP willingly excepts people from this privileged group just to make that about race. It doesn't matter if the member of the ruling class is white, black, asian or a women, it also doesn't matter if the majority is white and male. It doesn't add anything besides making this about race and gender, which it is not, it's about classism. | But here's the thing- it is affordable. The reason people think it isn't is because they consume obscene amounts of meat. We are not carnivores, we are omnivores. We require meat 2 or 3 times a week, not 20 to 30 times a week as most people consume. If you buy good meat for 2 or 3 meals a week, it's much cheaper than buying meat for every meal, no matter how cheap it is. For example, a free range chicken will cost about 2 to 3 times as much as a battery chicken. In the end, by having a proper omnivore diet and eating decent meat, you can still save money over a normal meat heavy diet.
I try and follow this, though I do eat meat around 5 to 10 times a week, but I have many meals without any meat. Most of my friends don't consider a meal a meal unless it has meat in it. That's crazy. The high meat content in our diets is the cause of a huge number of health issues. If we return to our natural diet, it can be cheaper and much healthier and even more important, it will probably save us from global warming- as I understand it, the farming and transportation of animals for meat accounts for a huge portion of greenhouse gas emmisions and contribution to global warming. Good, local meat helps reduce this even more. |
Disgusting? Thats not exactly fair. By that logic you are disgusting as you leave quarters lying around. Some poor people think of you the same way you think of this guy. You are clearly 'spoiled' to them. To be honest, while I agree with you, your kinda up on a high horse with no valid reason to be there. | Ehm, no, its not true. If they are making their argument from the position that all life is sacred, there are no conditions under which it makes any sense to step onto gods territory and kill what he has made alive. That is why it is **mortal sin** to take your own life in Christianity (which I am assuming here). |
The consequence of this would eventually result in being uninformed. There is a difference between attempting to directly influence policy and attempting to make informed decisions on who can make policy. Arguably, we rarely get to that point when choosing our elected leaders (how much did our presidential candidates actually talk in real, specific, policy terms?) - and most of these specialized policy makers are appointed and not elected in the first place (the fed et al)- but if there is one thing we can learn is that anyone and everyone is fallible. History shows us the people likely to make the most mistakes are those who are given the most free reign with the least feedback against their own professional opinion. And, similarly, are the least likely to admit accountability. At the very least we can give them an uncomfortable evening on CNN. | Or they are being presented haphazardly specifically because it isn't important and no one had put much thought into it. They're clearly just trying to save face - can you imagine how folks - no offense - like you guys would react if any of them did anything other than support each other no matter how ridiculous their mistakes? I could understand the negative reaction if the subject were actually consequential rather than arguably indicative. Imagine the headlines? "trumps Whitehouse devouring itself from the inside out!" cmon man |
I agree in theory.
All drugs shouldn’t be made legal until there are proper facilities to help people get out of addiction. Those do not exist in any state (like, seriously you don’t need many (if any) qualifications to open up a rehab). While there are a lack of rehabilitation options for people and you legalise substances some of which are made to be highly addictive and you cannot get over without medical help in my eyes the government is profiting widely off the fact people cannot get clean. That isn’t a good thing. The government is there to protect citizens not to cause or facilitate addictions. | Taxation is not the same as getting mugged because you significantly benefit from the government’s use of those funds, while you don’t benefit at all from the mugger’s use of those funds. Additionally, you’re on notice that you will be taxed (and can leave if you choose) while if you get mugged you have no choice.
The government needs tax dollars to operate. I wonder what the world would look like with no government—roads? Police? Schools? No welfare would arguably lead to increased crime, and there would be no police to protect you from that. And most likely, a group of thugs would rise up to rule by violence and they would be the ones taking from you without notice. No thank you—I’ll just pay my taxes. |
1) If you're going to spend money on anti-depressants why not spend money on hormones? They're often cheaper anyway.
2) Pure anti-depressents do not work to cure gender dysphoria. A combination of anti-depressants and hormones is more effective than just hormones, but if you can only do one or the other you want hormones.
E: wrong word | They're being paid more, but not as much more as they'll need to spend. Compare the distribution between who the taxes for social welfare come from (the rich) versus who they go to (the poor), against who the salaries are earned from (consumers both rich and poor) versus who the salaries pay (the poor).
As for the argument that if everyone makes more money there's more money to be spent, this is an economic fallacy. There is a certain amount of money in the economy and increasing the money supply doesn't increase wealth, it just causes inflation. If what you're saying is true why not set the minimum wage at $50? Why not $1,000?
I don't agree with your premise that my argument hinges on A and B. I don't at all understand why A would be true, the entire idea idea I'm proposing is that we need to make those menial jobs easier to get so that people can gain the experience necessary to get out and on to better things. As for B, at the beginning of people's career things will be difficult to afford, but the idea I'm proposing is to give them a better opportunity to start their career so that they can move up and better be able to afford more things.
As for your last point, I completely agree, but the problem is that raising the minimum wage makes it even harder for people to earn that living wage, because jobs that pay less than it have been destroyed and now it's harder for people to get the experience necessary to qualify for jobs that pay more than it. What you are saying would be true if raising the minimum wage raised actual wages, but for the most part it does not. Competition already keeps wages close close to their value to the employer, so there's not much room for a minimum wage to push employers into giving they employees more, only to fire people who aren't valuable enough to them and stop hiring new people. |
It would be a problem if I believed A). that was, in practice, what happens [and as a gay man in a Christian church, I have some experience with how mainline and evangelicals react 'on the ground'] and B). if I had no empathy (as opposed to *sympathy*) for those who don't always do what their savior did for them. | ***Analyzing alex_the_gab***
* comments per month: 5.8
* posts per month: 0.5 *^lurker*
* favorite sub [actuallesbians](http://NP.reddit.com/r/actuallesbians)
* favorite words: through, though, pretty
* age 2 years 0 months
* profanity score 0.8% *^Gosh ^darnet ^gee ^wiz*
* trust score 110.9% *^tell ^them ^your ^secrets!*
* Fun facts about alex_the_gab
* *"I'm a bisexual sophomore too, and I started asking myself all of these questions freshmen year."*
* *"I'm a tomboy too, and I would love this."*
* *"I've never had the lesbian sex talk and honestly I don't know much about it."*
* *"I've only gained 5 pounds so far."*
* *"I've ever bought anything at Goodwill, but that's going to change since everyone is saying positive things about it."*
* *"I'm a sucker for dogs haha Oh and I also visit the Bay Area quite often!"*
* *"I am loving this initiation!!"*
|
Oh yeah. If I remember right that was a full time job so eight hours of walking through an enormous hot desert parking lot collecting carts. It wasn't even the whole thing. The cart pushers at the entrances were assigned half of the lot to go through. To put it into context [if you look at this on areal mode](https://<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>,-<PHONE_NUMBER>,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d36.061115!4d-115.033493) You'll see how big the parking lot is (hopefully it shows up). Near the end of it a blister covered my entire pinky toe on both of my feet. Heck I suspected that a second blister formed under the bigger one and I know there had to have been bleeding. It was terrible. | In college we had a(n) (un)naturally selected ball pit. Someone had bought a bunch of [fun balls](http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/colourful-fun-balls-4917510.jpg). There were four colors so we put one person in each corner of the pit and assigned each a color. If they saw any balls of a different color they would throw them away. It didn't matter which direction. After a few minutes we had completely sorted the fun ball pit to have each color represented only in one corner (the edges were not well defined though, obviously).
Of course, then someone else would come by and quickly up the entropy in a matter of seconds. |
Yea. I'm honestly really split I have no idea. I really like the laid back feeling that I feel a homestead would bring. Sure there would be hard times. But I feel once I learn how to run things right it's just a few hours of work a day and the rest of the day can be whatever I want | Awesome. It'll be real exciting! Yea! The idea of people making their own brews and sharing it with others is really interesting. I don't even like beer but I could go on for days about the idea of something like that! Cheers to an early early happy birthday to ya |
When I was in high school, my girlfriend's father was a naturalist. He was a good guy. There was this one remote beach at a lake that attracted a lot of like minded naked people. He spent all day there through the summer months. Just hanging out naked, smoking pot.
My girlfriend and her family went to this beach. I went too. Lots of naked men. Mostly in their 50's or older. Very occasionally there was a naked woman there. But it was much more National Geographic than Playboy.
My GF's father always had the deepest tan. Really good guy. But he smoked so much pot that his brain was really fried by it.
I also went to a Hedonism resort once. I was staying a a neighboring resort -- snuck through a hole in the fence to see what was going on. Wasn't much different from my first experience except more women and everyone was hairless below the neck.
Naked is fine. For me, I prefer clothes. | 28 female here. Divorced. Live alone with my dog.
I'm single because I'm old fashioned. I don't want to Netflix and chill. I don't want to hang out at your house all the time. All I want is some nice dates and getting to know someone. I am sick of the guys who only want sex or hook ups, or talk dirty.
I have a couple of expectations, but they seem impossible. A man with a job. A car. Someone who lives alone or with roommates. (Not family.) And I'm open to kids as long as there is no crazy drama.
So for now, I'm staying single. Everything happens for a reason, right? |
If you can prove. PROVE that they only ticket out-of-staters as a retaliation against other states, yep you have a case. You will never be able to prove this with the evidence you have nor get an attorney to take such a case. If you are willing to dedicate a month of your life to testing this though, you may have something. | It wouldn't be up to the individuals to decide what is proof. There would be strict guidelines. This this and this are acceptable as proof. If you don't have these, you have no case and thus cannot dish out the punishment. The problem with a trial in these type of cases is it happens after the fact. This would hopefully be preventative of crime. If you kill my dog, thats it, my dogs dead and you may get in a bit of trouble. But you wont kill my dog in the first place if you know I can do something to you. |
<PERSON>: People automatically assuming <PERSON>'s girlfriend is a fridged high maintenance bitch.
To be fair she very well could be, but she asked you to woo her and make it special, not to buy her expensive shit. Is it possible that <PERSON> is just throwing money at her instead of intimacy? I can take my wife out and spend $200 on diner, act like and asshole and still not deserve sex. Sex is about intimacy and it's a two way street. It's possible that <PERSON> could have spent $20 on a picnic, spent the day with her, and it could have ended with sex because she felt close to you.
Again it is possible <PERSON>'s girlfriend is a money grubbing gold digger and he needs to get out. At the same time, throwing money at a dinner as if sex was some sort of transaction is pretty shallow. If you want money for sex, hire a prostitute. Women never OWE sex, same as men never OWE expensive dinners. Sex happens when your SO cares about you and feels close to you as part of a healthy relationship. | Forget homeless and alcohol and drugs. [Panhandlers make $300/day](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2255/how-much-money-do-beggars-make). Think about it. Standing at an intersection, everytime a traffic light hits red you have people to beg. You look homeless. Most people give you nothing, but you only need a few people to give you a couple bucks -thinking their helping a poor person- to make a lot of money.
Ever see the movie slumdog millionaire, where the gangster used a hot coal to pull out a child's eyeball, so that he would make more money begging because he looks sadder? Not saying people in America are pulling out kids eyes, but they are definitely using kids to beg.
I cannot tell you how many times I was in NYC and I would give a homeless man $1 and I see him put it in HUGE STACK OF CASH. Like the dude clearly had at least $100 on him at the time.
When I livedi n Chicago, people go around selling candy -like fundraiser candy- and then I ask them what it's supporting, they say me and my family. and yes they always have a baby stroller with them.
Panhandling is a job and it's lucrative. |
Maybe some people on the left want an actual sensible right that works together to come to the best solutions possible?
I know if I was enrolled in college, I wouldn't want the money I spent at school going to pay a woman who shouldn't be allowed to speak to kindergartners nevermind young adults. Theirs plenty of reason to now want <PERSON> to speak, she offers nothing of value, she's hateful, she acts like a child. Why would any college student want their money being wasted to give her a soapbox to ignore science from? On the other hand, people protesting <PERSON>, can you link me to that? Cause he's intelligent and deserves a chance to speak. | are you an actual friend? if not she might only be responding to people she actually knows. Rude? maybe, then again you might be coming off as a creep if you're randomly on her FB talking to her. The sane thing to do is ask her out, you'll probably get turned down but that happens most of the time when you ask people out, you learn to move to the next one.
Also, I should note it get's easier the more you do it, it's like little kids who cry when they bump their head, first time they're bawling their eyes out because it's the worst pain they've ever felt, after awhile though it's just ouch and no tears because they've learned on a subconscious level that they're not actually that hurt. It's the same way with asking girls out, the first rejection is like a sucker punch, the second is like a body blow, the third won't even phase you, and once you get relaxed to it you'll do better. |
Thanks for finding that!
I mean, not only is there no warning containing the very specific language required in [3.2-6401](http://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2010/title-3-2/chapter-64/3-2-6402/), but a trespasser also almost certainly wouldn't be an participant in agrotourism activity (nor would you or his other friends, I imagine.)
It also doesn't seem like he would be an agrotourism professional,
AND it seems like he's running afoul of both B.2 and B.1, if not B.3, meaning it wouldn't matter anyway. | Right, he rejected the applicant because of an open display of support for a hateful ideology.
Presumably, if another applicant came in with a tattoo that said "I support <PERSON>" or an MS-13 tattoo, and OP was aware of it, then they would also reject that person.
Since the disqualifier is the hatred or violence-espousing nature of the ideology, and not the particular ideology to the exclusion of others, this policy wouldn't disproportionately affect white people.
I certainly know that as a tattooed white person, this policy doesn't affect me one bit, since I don't make it a habit of getting tattoos that support hateful ideologies, and if I learned that I got a tattoo that turned out to look like the symbol of a hateful ideology, I'd go to lengths to remove it. |
If your insurance has covered all the costs to date, and you're being offered that amount over again as a settlement, on what basis do you believe you're owed more? Do you expect to incur additional medical costs in excess of the $3500 offered, and if so do you have evidence for that? With or without a lawyer, they're unlikely to negotiate much if your only argument is "maybe I'll have unspecified future costs". | You can't form a legally binding contract without a second party. Perhaps you could find a second person and make a contract along the lines of "A agrees to forgo the right to buy an automobile for 24 hours in consideration of B's payment of $1 to A". This could be technically enforceable, but would only give B the right to enjoin you from purchase. The car dealer wouldn't take it seriously, and would think you were nuts, or if he really took it seriously, would point out that B has the right to waive your restriction, so you're not really restricted anyway.
In short, it's okay to go into a dealership and say "I'm just looking around, I can't buy a car today even if you offer it for a great price." |
I actually think we are dangerously close to agreeing on this. I think we're just talking about different levels of morality.
When I hear someone say they are *pro-life*, I think that they want to make abortion illegal. Meaning people who do it should be punished by the government in some way.
Saying "X should be illegal" is stronger than just saying "you should/shouldn't do X." There's lots of things that I probably *shouldn't do*, but should still be legal.
I shouldn't cheat on my spouse. I shouldn't curse at people in public, etc. But none of those things should carry legal penalties. It's just makes me a better person if I adhere to those rules.
I think abortion is like that. I *would like* to think that I would be the kind of person to carry a baby to term *even if I didn't want it.* I would also like to think I would donate a kidney to my family member in need.
But it shouldn't be *legally required* of me to give up a kidney to someone. Rights of bodily autonomy are important.
| I think you should ask in /r/legaladvice. Not to push the issue, but just to understand the law on it a little better.
Because I think the law figures that if you haven't been billed for rent for 10 months, then the expectation is that you don't owe it, and you can't then be billed for all 10 months at once.
Basically a squatter's rights kind of thing.
That being said, it would be *NICE* to pay your brother something.
But it's *NOT* nice of him to ask for a large sum all at once.
You'll have to gauge this very carefully.
My sense is that you might want to just pay him if you can afford to, but to get a receipt for that payment that indicates that it's for the ten months.
And I wrote that very carefully. Because such a receipt, worded that way, SEEMS inoffensive and un-threatening. But it also serves to absolve you of any further obligations for those ten months, if he decides that "oh, it was actually $1,400, sorry".
But you don't want to push him to sign something saying "this is all I owe you", because then he might say "hmm, let me check the math first".
So just call it a receipt for the ten months. Bam. Clear as day but shouldn't prompt him to hunt down a bigger number.
If the money's hard for you, then suggest paying it over a few months, or ask for time to earn the money first.
If you want, or need, to push a little harder, be honest and say that was more than you were expecting, and could he take half instead? Or 2/3?
But understand that money has broken a LOT of families. So if you haggle, have a very good reason for doing so. (This is the other reason to get a clear receipt or something: it prevents any further money issues between you and him.) |
The largest problem of proving that God is an uncreated creator, is that we, the humans, can't comprehend it. Try imagining something without a beginning. I mean literally without. Then try no end. No end is easier? That is the problem.
Secondly, there are billions of people who know if God exists or not. Unfortunately, they are all dead. We cant prove if he exists yet. I hate to say this but we can't get any proof. I have had situations in my life that can be directly attributed to God, there are millions. But there is no proof.
So I am only trying to fit the puzzle pieces together. That is all. | My worldview? Oh buddy, this is everyone's world view. Look at your life right now. It's built on and is running on the suffering of others is less fortunate countries. Everything we have is so cheap because of that, if everything was made in America, prices would be absurdly high. Just look at the companies who manufacture in America, many have to put a premium price to make a profit.
Nothing having meaning is another story. My goal as with everyone's is self interest.
If what you are saying is that only the irrational people will continue to reproduce, that doesn't stop them from thinking for themselves and realizing their lot. More and more people now see how life is and see the absurdity in the generation of the past's values.
And you think values die out if people who had them do? That's funny. |
Who gave you this authority? Are you willing to take away the freedoms of people who haven't harmed anyone but have broken your rules? Are you personally willing to handcuff, kidnap, and imprison someone who broke your rules? If not, then you shouldn't suggest other people do your dirty work for you.
Why can't you live and let live. Mind your own business. You probably wouldn't give two shits if some dude in Ohio lost his father to old age or broke his arm yet you are perfectly willing to care about what he does **with his own damned body**. I hate to sound harsh, but you should probably see a therapist for the psychotic issues you have for controlling other peoples lives.
I'm glad I don't surround myself with people like you because authoritarians scare the living shit out of me. | >Unless they talk about making political moves based on those things, it really doesn't matter.
Unfortunately, politicians do not always explicitly tell us how their quirks and traits are going to factor into their decision making. Do you consciously choose what aspects of your personality you will and will not factor into everything you do?
The only thing we can reliably trust politicians to do is build up the persona they want people to see. I have yet to hear a politician in my lifetime say "Alright guys. I'm going to level with you. I really don't like Black people. But I promise not to act on that as president."
In fact, we have no way of knowing if they are honest about their policy proposals. I'd say it's a safe bet they are lying about some of it.
I am not going to vote on personality. But that is because I am a single issue voter. I will vote for the strongest candidate that supports complete election overhaul to end the two party system. |
I gave you two already. Those two cases are particularly relevant because of the legal differences between immigrants and refugees as what was held up in them is essentially the federal government cannot force States to modify their policies to favor the integration immigrants. Immigrants with refugee status have a number of legal entitlements that Even if someone is granted U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services by State Department's own policy they must then be matched up with one of one of eleven regional organizations that provide reception and placement services for refugees coming to the United State, and before being moved further there must be assurances made to state that there is a community ready to provide initial housing, medical care, employment placement,integration services, security and a number of other factors before the refugee can be moved there. Refugee integration has always been at the local level. Since we have cases upholding that States can set their own limits as to immigrant entitlements provided by individual States the State governments can reject the notion that their communities can provide the initial services refugees are entitled to and under current federal policiy State Dept cannot refer them there. See State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual 9 - Visas. | I'll call you female if that makes you happy. Anyone who doesn't has a stick up their ass. There is one case and one case only when it does matter and that is when we're talking about how your body responds to certain medicine. If your body responds as a female to treatment I don't care what you look like or what you identify with or what surgery you've had, I'm putting down FEMALE on your chart and leaving it at that, and I would damn well hope that you will make me aware of any delicacies to your makeup that may impact my ability to do my job instead of holding on stubbornly to semantics only to endanger or extinguish your life, potentially involve me in a malpractice lawsuit, and simultaneously create the biggest example against your own argument you possibly could. |
Lets say one day you find yourself hooked up to a machine. On the other end of this machine, there is a person who is also hooked up to the machine. They are sick and need to use your body to survive for the next few months. If you unplug yourself at any point, the other person dies.
Do you have a right to get up and leave? Is this other person's life your responsibility? Why or why not?
---
Or let me ask another question. Why is killing a human being wrong? Is it because they are human, and humans have some intrinsic value? Is it because they are conscious and thinking beings? Would it be wrong to unplug someone who is in a vegetative state with no brain activity?
| I see in one of your other posts you want us to disprove this for you. As you are aware this is not possible. Seeing as you weren't fond of my other post, maybe you will find this more interesting.
Instead of trying to prove something thats impossible, lets treat it as decision making in uncertainty. In many situations in life (or in the simulation) we are going to have imperfect information. Lets take this decision and say its 50/50. Either you are living in the sim or you aren't with equal chances. In some cases, in order to move forward, you are going to have to guess the answer. One way that we can analyze this is with a decision matrix. What are the two options for the action, and then what are the outcomes in both cases.
For an absurd scenario, lets say you want to light all the houses on your street on fire.
Burn the houess: If sim - no one else is impacted | not sim - many peoples lives are ruined
Dont burn them: If sim - no one else is impacted | not sim - everyone lives on in peace
While this doesnt give you any certainty about the first assumption, it does elucidate your options. If sim/not sim is a 50/50 chance, I would guess not-sim in this case just to be safe.
&#x200B;
If you are interested here are some more specific details about decision making in uncertainty [link](https://www.decision-making-solutions.com/decision-making-in-uncertainty.html). |
> Honestly, your ancestry can be traced back to Africa so you can legally put African American.
>> That term is meant to refer to black people.
Is meant, but has no measurements behind it, its a popular culture reference not a real thing. For example, when you check a persons blackness what do you need to see to consider them black?
>Or, if you were born in the US you could also legally put Native American.
>>That term is meant to refer to the indigenous people of what is now the United States.
Once again, a pop culture reference with no science behind it. Even the term indigenous is a misnomer because the indigenous before them were killed/absorbed to make room for whom the settlers call indigenous. The use of native is just a lazy replacement for calling each American aborigine nation by their real name.
Perhaps you can explain why the government continues to use outdated, unscientific and ultimately hate fueling categories to put people in? It sure seems like we should stop. | > Once it's born, there's nothing they can do wether the parents wanted it or not.<
Not true, the baby can be left at safe havens (emergency rooms, firestations) and can be adopted out. Both of which can be done
without the fathers consent as long as he was not on the birth certificate.
>If birth control wasn't an option and it all relied on condoms, it's his responsibility to make sure to always use them. <
It is both partners responsibility to use assure birth control like condoms, it's pretty easy to make sure you can check visably. Picking and chosing what gender has to be responsible is kinda sexist especially when it seems to assume the woman couldn't object about sex without a condom.
> So, the baby is born and someone has to take care of it, the women might not have wanted the child but now has to take care of it and spend money, time, possibly forfeit her career, hell maybe she didn't even want to be pregnant and had to suffer through months of nausea, severe mood swings, pain everywhere, buy new clothes, eat more food, and then go indanger her life by giving birth.<
Again safe haven laws make that a non-arguement. If you don't want your child you can remove responsiblity from yourself.......IF you are a woman. Not a man.
> Why should the man be any different? In fact, I think fathers got of stupidly easy and still do. Many times like the case here, the only thing they have to do is send money and they don't even do that.<
Because equal protection under the law should mean you look at a person without bias towards their genders and allow that each person gets the same rights |
Which is why they should probably allow a buffer time before they start scheduling appointments. There's absolutely no excuse for doctor making patients wait on a **regular** basis. Either their estimation is off, or they don't give a shit... either way it's rude. I'm not a doctor but I can assure you my time is just as valuable.
[Edit: Added emphasis since so many people seem to be missing it..] | I didn't say that at all. You should really read the whole comment train if you're genuinely interested, but I never said it was okay to go have sex in public. The issue at hand is trying to control two people based on the way they dressed, and their worst crime was 'making out' with one another. Just because you don't accept someone's sexuality doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to display it, as long as they aren't being overly violent or obscene. |
In that regard, nothing was leaked, so she lived up to this expectation. Could information have been stolen, yes, was it, no. So as dumb as what she did may have been, no harm came to the intelligence she held. The whole candidacy thing this guy is talking about is bullshit, if the FBI had reason to indict, they would indict and she would have to go to trial, no one is above the law, but many people are better at not obviously committing criminal acts, which is what the poor tend to do. | We hear about cops unjustly not being charged in the media because it is exceptional. There are corrupt precincts, and there are just ones, but making the blanket statement that there is no oversight in the American police force is just ignorant. There is recourse for actions like this is if he was actually wronged, and they are not completely unattainable.
|
> Don't you think that that would cement that not only did I not do anything to deserve my opportunities, but I am continuing to show that I lack the compassion and decency to continue to deserve those opportunities?
lack of compassion yes. Not deserving? No. You deserve what you got. Your ancestors and my ancestors may have been enemies but modern civilized humans don't need to worry about that. They're dead and long gone. Shit, I'm white but my ancestors didn't profit off slavery, they came from europe in the early 1900s from the holocaust but i'm not yelling at germans to give me free shit. | > europe and the US generally lead the way in the humanitaian turn, the switch to legal codification of measures to limit or criminalize violence, infanticide, rape etc. and the statistics simply arent there for the asian and african countries much of the time.
Well if the statistics aren't there (or at least are very imprecise) then how is he claiming that he has a case? I think the book is just politics masquerading as scholarship, and contributes to a broader intellectual pollution amongst the public. |
> The trend in recent history is for more counties that represent their people to emerge, not less.
Going to ask for some numbers and your timeline. Are you aware that the last 100 years saw the greatest death of our species by governments in our history? Hundreds of millions murdered by their own governments. Tens of millions more murdered by other governments. As a percentage of our species population, only the bubonic plague and the crusades resulted in a higher percentage of death. Both were over mutliple centuries.
> I feel that any attempt to implement anarchy would simply result in a step backwards.
I don't demand you participate. Could you offer me the same courtesy?
&<PERSON>; You listed the ways that a government has the potential to be as bad as a company, but not any way that a company can be better than a government.
A government does not receive its money from voluntary persons. No company can be as bad as a government by default without the collaboration of a government.
> but they will be unchecked by the systems we have in place now to avoid people abusing their power.
How are those working out? | Evolution is a cognitive and memorization process that is based on literal genocide. If an entity purposefully came up with it in order to create intelligent creatures, it would be the embodiment of pure evil.
> So the theory of evolution is perhaps the only "science" that works on miracles, not observations and repeatability.
You seem to confuse the scientific method and the thing it observes. Biology and the study of evolution is based on repeatable observations. Note that not all science do but you need a good reason to do without. Archeology and economics are good examples.
> Yet, atheists have faith that these evolutionary miracles actually happened millions of years ago.
It is not based on faith, but on repeatable observations. And it did not just happened millions of years ago. It still happens today, we trigger mutations routinely in various research efforts: agriculture, medicine, etc...
If you call beneficial mutations a miracle, then you need to acknowledge that science acquired the power to trigger these miracles. |
No matter how I try, I cannot find a Parliamentary vote, discussion, debate or anything about the quota system.
Who thought it up, and how was it adopted? The EP's plenary page does not have any information I can find. (And neither does any other source I could think of.)
Thank you.
| Do you know what percentage of Buddhists have a naturalistic worldview? (Which would for example exclude all Buddhists who believe in the cycle of rebirth in the literal sense, if I understand it correctly.)
I was under the impression that while it is quite a few, it isn't that much when you look at Buddhism worldwide. |
Look, I know you want me to leave you alone, and I still will if you want me to... But I'd like to still give you these cookies I got for you. One, I don't really want to fight, we can probably get past this. And two, I've known you long enough to know that you wouldn't hurt an innocent cookie unless it had it coming first. | Oh well. I have an intense fear of them now because certain mental problems I have make me look more unstable than I am, so they're always going to kidnap me. I am never gonna be able to trust them... Luckily I have people now to help, but I still don't feel safe, because if anyone ever decides to screw with me with a wellness check, they'll probably take me in again... |
>The choice is simple, Do you want additional lag on a move or not? Everyone would choose to remove lag on a move, that is obvious. So as a designer, why would I want a technique like this in my game?
Except this exact same line of thinking exists in most fighting games in the form of combos. You confirm a hit on your opponent, do you want to cancel/link/chain it into another move for more damage? Everyone should want to "choose" to combo because it does more damage, but in most fighting games the timing is very, very strict, similarly to L-Canceling. Combos are, in your own works, "a technical barrier that doesn't open up choices and options".
Now I'm aware that combos are more flexible than L-Cancelling, and that certain games give you more choices than others, but in MOST fighting games, any given move that you can confirm as a hit will have an optimal combo path that you will ALWAYS want to do at minimum, with possible extensions depending on your resources, or in some cases different finisher depending on if you want to corner carry or set up an oki or whatever the case may be.
So yes, combos are not as one dimensional as L-Canceling, but they are built on exactly the same concept: an artificial execution barrier. As a very basic example, if my punch move combos into my kick move, and there are no other options and no reason I would ever want to not follow up with that kick move, then why does the game demand that I know the exact timing to input that follow up kick move? Why doesn't it just do it automatically?
If you're against L-Cancelling, then you should also be against games having "bread and butter" style combos. | >You are projecting your subjective definition of an ethically-run business on to others. Individuals "vote" on businesses and business models with their money. If a substantial portion of a population does not want to buy a product from a business that they view as unethical, then they have voted against that model. Why should one person's vote count any more than millions of others? While you have a right to your opinion of what constitutes an ethically-run business, so does every other citizen.
Unless the entire business model is corrupt. If it's the entire one and it's almost vital to have it in society today, you're kind of SOL.
See: banks. |
Most citizens could do it if they wanted to. Sure I respect their decision to go out there, but they're not doing anything truly heroic, just what their job tells them to do. They fuck shit up that doesn't need to be fucked up. The individuals themselves..sure, some are heroes. The majority? No. | Honestly, with that I do not know. You might have to do a little research on it. Does he have insurance? Insurance will usually cover therapy. Not always, and maybe not every session, but a few if nothing else. Definitely look into it..I wish I could help more on that front, but I don't know. Best of luck to you both! |
You could have pissed someone off on the road and they falsely claimed the accident. Ask for proof. If they have scratches on their car, yours most likely would as well. See if theres paint transfer between vehicles. Chances are if you didn't feel anything, didn't get honked at or yelled at, they're lying. | Depends why you're being pulled over. Rule number one is always be polite and do what the officer tells you to. If you're being pulled over for going 5mph over the speed limit, it might be worth it to fess up and hope the cop goes easy on you. If you're being pulled over for a crime, you probably want to take the fifth. |
> But no, it can't be that the American government's approach to health care is bad.
Who said it isn't? But then again, America is a crony-capitalist state, not a free-market state. If it was a free market, we wouldn't have the DEA, FDA, USDA, ATF, Medicare, Medicaid, SSDI, SS, AMA, DoL, DoC, etc, etc.
Besides, many of our health care problems, [like high infant mortality rate, are due to other factors than access to healthcare.](http://reason.com/archives/2009/08/24/the-truth-about-health-care-an) (Most of which, are caused by Government involvement in those areas too).
Sorry, but unless you're going to use facts and logic, I won't be continuing this conversation any longer. Please link to sources if you want me to learn anything, and i'll do the same.
Cheers! | According to the book *The Denzel Principle* by <PERSON>, he gives a warning to unmarried men with kids. If you're not married, the mother DOES NOT have to let you see your kid. If you baby's mother won't let you see your kid, you MUST lawyer up in order to get custody.
Of course, if your baby's mother is cool and lets you see/raise your kid, just disregard what I posted. |
Because this is legal advice, and if a guy asks a legal question he should be given a legal answer. Giving a practical answer is also routine here, but it should at least be specified that it's just a practical answer.
EDIT: And, specifically in this instance, he needs the legal answer in order to explain to the rest of the HOA. If he goes back to the HOA and says "I don't know the legal answer, but here's the practical answer" or, worse, he follows the shitty answers in this thread and confuses the two, he's not going to be able to do his job well as HOA president. | Some amount of bluffing in settlement negotiations is typical. You're not representing to a legal body that this is what your actual provable damages are, you're telling an adversary "this is what will satisfy me and make me go away." A settlement is about the cost of trial vs benefit of cutting losses, so it's the dollar amount of the settlement that matters, not how you arrived at that number.
Secondly, courts typically ignore it when one party claims "He sued us for $3000 but he offered to settle for $1500. We should only have to pay $1500." That's not how it works, otherwise no one would ever negotiate settlements. In most states, offers in settlement are inadmissible in court, barring some unusual circumstances.
So you can still argue for the amount you initially sued for. The court will want documentation / supporting evidence that those are your actual damages and not just numbers you made up because you were angry.
|
I awarded deltas to people who engaged with my argument, that is, made a fair attempt to understand where I was coming from and then pointed out places I could be wrong. You, on the other hand, either did not understand what I said or intentionally misrepresented it to strawman me.
To be more specific:
> You have said that the science of climatology is not to be trusted because it is politically controversial.
No. I said it is politically charged, and elsewhere more precisely, "politically captivated." What I mean by this is that political agents have influence over the agenda of climate scientists and can differentially reward certain scientists for finding conclusions which support a political agenda. I'm not sure if you've ever tried to mathematically model something, but the assumptions and inputs you put in make a big difference for what comes out... And the outcome of climate models makes a big difference for what their implications are, politically.
This is distinct from "controversial." For example, stem cell research and evolution may be "controversial" but their research agendas have not been captivated.
> You claim that climate science is not falsifiable.
No, I claim that in addition to falsifiability, there also needs to be an incentive or reward for scientists who pursue falsification. This is the clearest example of you straw-manning me, as you cut my sentence in half and ignore the second part which is the more crucial part of the argument.
> You claim that scientists predict a runaway greenhouse effect.
I suppose I say that...? Tangential to the main point of the argument.
> In mathematics if you write down an equation and I demonstrate an error then that should be all that is needed for you to change your mind.
Framing an argument as a math equation is annoying to read, and unnecessary as most people can infer some statements that are so simple they don't need to be stated. When you say "aha! You didn't connect those statements! It's not mathematical!" you're not engaging the argument, because it was never intended to be so in the first place.
I made an argument about human motivations and incentives as they relate to scientific findings. I mostly invited refutation factually (I said A-->B, so if no B then not A), and many people also challenged my assumptions to question the validity of my claim (does A-->B?). Your claim was just "no, you didn't actually make an argument" in which case I don't know why you'd bother replying. | > What does is matter if, over time, a tattoo loses its charm? Why is that such a big deal?
See OP's q about whether they are a fad and my extensive answers about why I believe they are a fad. I am not offering the value judgements you seem to infer. I am agreeing that the popularity of massarket tats is a fad that won't last at it's present popularity for more than a couple more generations.
Consider this. Good tats are expensive and no matter how you peronally feel about them, do you really think a generation or two of less and less employed will find money for them? |
<PERSON> *The Spanish Holocaust* is an excellent book on the subject. In it, he argues that the Nationalists engaged in a deliberate campaign of violence against noncombatants. I find his arguments to be persuasive, despite a few flaws in the book. His pro-Republican bias shines through too often for my tastes, but readers can account for that. I think his argument that the White Terror constitutes a "holocaust" to be overstated. However, his research is immaculate. It is the best English-language coverage of the subject of violence against noncombatants during the Spanish Civil War.
The book is replete with documented incidents. When Nationalists took over an area there were immediate and ongoing purges and arrests. You could be killed or imprisoned for any number of offenses, both real and imagined. Among the targeted groups were politicians of the previously elected regime (regardless of how they acted prior to the uprising or after it), union members of any kind, members of leftist political parties, journalists, doctors, women (rape was also common), anyone suspected of joining or supporting the Republican faction, and others. Prisoners of war were mistreated and sometimes killed, such as when POW's were machine-gunned in the massacre of <PERSON>. One could be executed immediately after falling into Nationalists hands, or later--days, weeks, or months. Sometimes this happened after a short "trial," procedures that were mockeries of the term. The defendants were not given anything close to an adequate defense, the evidence produced for their "crimes" was most often flimsy or manufactured, and groups were sentenced to death--sometimes without even comprehending what they were being charged with. To call these executions a travesty or a tragedy would be a massive understatement.
The Nationalist campaign of violence against noncombatants was deliberate and ongoing, resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people (Preston estimates 200,000), and were often criminal in nature.
Here is another incident of violence against noncombatants that I find disturbing, a section of <PERSON>'s book regarding the "Caravan of Death"--a retreat of citizens from Malaga to Almería. (*The Spanish Holocaust*, pg 177-8)
**Warning** The below passage is graphic in nature.
>Even before the occupiers began the executions [in Malaga], tens of thousands of terrified refugees fled via the only possible escape route, the 109 miles along the coast road to Almería. Their flight was spontaneous and they had no military protection. They were shelled from the sea by the guns of the warships *Cervera* and *Baleares*, bombed from the air and then machine-gunned by the persuing Italian units. The scale of the repression inside the fallen city explained why they were ready to run the gauntlet. Along the roughly surfaced road, littered with corpses and the wounded, terrified people trudged, without food or water. Dead mothers were seen, their babies still suckling at their breasts. There were children dead and others lost in the confusion as their many families frantically tried to find them.
>The reports of numerous eyewitnesses, including <PERSON>, the correspondent for *The Times*, made it impossible for rebel supporters to deny one of the most horrendous atrocities perpetrated against Republican civilians. It has been calculated that there were more than 100,000 on the road, some with nothing, others carrying kitchen utensils and bedding. It is impossible to know accurately but the death toll seems to have been over three thousand. The Canadian doctor <PERSON>, his assistant <PERSON> and his English driver, the future novelist <PERSON>, shuttled back and forth day and night for three days, carrying as many as they could. <PERSON> described old people giving up and lying down by the roadside to die and ‘children without shoes, their feet swollen to twice their size crying helplessly from pain, hunger, and fatigue.’ <PERSON> wrote harrowingly of what he saw:
>>The refugees still filled the road and the further we got the worse was their condition. A few of them were wearing rubber shoes, but most feet were bound with rags, many were bare, nearly all were bleeding. There were seventy miles of people desperate with hunger and exhaustion and still the streams showed no signs of diminishing … We decided to fill the lorry with kids. Instantly we were the centre of a mob of raving shouting people, entreating and begging, at this sudden miraculous apparition. The scene was fantastic, of the shouting faces of the women holding up naked babies above their heads, pleading, crying and sobbing with gratitude or disappointment.
>Their arrival brought horror and confusion to Almería. It was also greeted by a major bombing raid which deliberately targeted the centre of the town where the exhausted refugees thronged the streets. The bombing of the refugees on the road and in the streets of Almería was a symbol of what ‘liberation’ by the rebels really meant.
Taken as a whole, Nationalist violence against noncombatants was widespread and deliberate. It included targeting individuals for their political beliefs, but it also included attacks on suspected "leftists" without any real evidence as well as killings of suspected Jews (despite the fact that the actual Jewish population of Spain was tiny). There were also general bombardments of civilians such as the above attack near Almería and the infamous bombing of Guernica. Tens of thousands were killed, many were buried in unmarked graves, and many families never found out the actual fate of their loved ones. The White Terror in Spain during the Spanish Civil War was brutal, barbarous, and sickening.
I hope that answers most of your question. As always, followup questions from OP and others are encouraged. <PERSON>'s book is *the* book on the subject if anyone is interested in reading more. | The Immigration Act of 1924 and the Great Depression dramatically reduced immigration to the United States, but according to [this site](http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents), the number of legalized permanent residents increased substantially in 1939 and 1940. Was this facilitated by congressional acts/presidential orders? Can you tell me more about the "program to import agricultural laborers" administered by the [USCIS](https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/world-war-ii)? |
You are already familiar with some of the intricacies of legal relationships (visitation rights, taxation policies), but I think us non-lawyers don't know how deep and complicated and unique spousal rights are. Anything that affects the law, marriage affects it. Testifying/incriminating, financial transfers, guardianship of kids if one of the guardians say becomes incapacitated or runs away and shirks financial duties, inheritance when no will was written beforehand, immigration and citizenship (international marriages)... the list goes on and on and IANAL. And you have agreed (as do I) that we don't want Walmart forming a corporate marriage. What if all 300 million Americans decide to create some bullshit class action "country marriage" for the massive tax benefits? Well, that's bullshit, and there should be a legal restriction somehow that wouldn't allow that.
So we agree that we have to put limits on marriages. One way to do this is really just the current system that people above in this thread mentioned. If you want a traditional two-person marriage, that's something society is really used to and the laws already address it, so that's the cheapest one to do and the easiest for the government and courts to legally handle in the future. If you want to add a friend as someone you can visit in the hospital but nothing else, that shouldn't be too hard. If you want to add him in case of inheritances and financial transfers and things like that, well that's a bit more complicated, so that takes a bit more lawyer work. If you want him added as a full "third spouse," I don't know if current law allows it, but ok. If you want a 10 spouse marriage, well, we better make it much harder for them to do it because both our eyebrows are raised at what this family is up to. In a 100-person marriage application, we'd probably be quite suspicious that this is some company marriage or town marriage bullshit, so the process gets super hard or impossible for them.
The current laws that apply to traditional two-person married couples ARE complex and subject to changes - we're just not conscious of it because when we sign up for it, it come as a package called "marriage." But citizenship laws, tax laws, and inheritance laws in regards to married couples - they all change all the time just like any other laws. That gets complicated. If you want to design your own family, that's cool, but then you have to face that legal web in order to figure out what kind of family you want. Why not just make it super simple to have multiple-person marriages? Well, I personally think 3 or 4-person marriages might be fine, but we both agree that 10 or 100-person marriages just aren't cool, so we can't make the process that simple. As the designed family becomes customized and complicated, the legal process in order to realize it also, of course, becomes more customized and complicated.
Another way to look at it is like this:
The laws would be written "marriage neutral" but would specify different relationship categories.
For taxes, if you have a class A relationship with someone, the benefits are like "A". If you have a class B relationship with someone, the benefits are like "B". For visitation, if you have a class C relationship with someone, the benefits are like "C". If you have a class D relationship with someone, the benefits are like "D".
In my family, I want a class A tax relationship with spouse X but a class D visitation relationship with spouse Y. But in some other guy's family, he just wants the "highest" relationship, class A tax and class C visitation with his spouse. That happens to be the same as what we today call marriage. So you might as well create a package called traditional two-person marriage that people can sign up for for those people. For people like me, I still want to design my own family, so I'm going to have to figure out the legal intricacies with my lawyer in order to come up with what I want. | If he is sufficiently motivated to not want to pay child support, which control freaks like him generally are, then she should take the risk and move where she wants to. If she has family support in Washington, then go there. As long as she can hold him off for six months from filing any action for custody or visitation in Utah, then venue will automatically switch to Washington for all family court proceedings. Which is strongly in her interest, if that is where she wants to live. Let him visit, hold out (false) hope for a reunion. He won't be worse in Washington than he is in Utah. Just wait out that six months. Then she has established residence and venue. Otherwise, she might always be legally tied to Utah on custody and child support. Which is definitely not in her favor if she wants to live in Washington. Plus a man is just not as emotionally tied to a tiny baby as he will be to a child. It's a risk, but my advice would be to get out now, and shine him on long enough to get residence in Washington. |
I agree and don't agree.
I agree with the miscommunication part; I fully believe that a large number of the inconsistencies in the Bible are a product of the changes that have been made since it's origins.
But I do believe there are some things we can't know. For example, we can't know if there a deity exists or not. Sure we can by default assume that it doesn't, but the very fact that we can't prove it *doesn't* means there is already 1 thing that we don't know, I'm sure i could come up with more if I had a good hard think about it. But at that point, it becomes less of a "Are there things we can't know?" and more of a "So what can we know, and which can't we know?" situation. | I think you are missing my point. If you assume that god is not the ultimate arbiter of Good and evil, then yes, that means that arbiter is separate from God and God can be judged by it. However if God *is* the ultimate arbiter of Good and evil, then no, God can not be judged as evil because he sets the definition.
Let's say we are playing soccer and I pick up the ball and run it to the other goal. If we were playing traditional soccer rules you might say that I cheated. However if we played the game and whoever was running it said we could use our hands, it wouldnt be cheating. It is the same action, same result, but the one who ultimately decides says it is ok.
That is about as simple as I can make it.
I am an atheist, and I understand that we live in a world of things that seem good, and things that seem bad. I also understand that religiously some things are definitely good and definitely bad. Philosophically though, determining something to be definitely good or bad is impossible and just as ridiculous as trying to determine whether or not god exists.
Edit: You are right that <PERSON> didn't ask us about god's omnipotence, but in order to examine the question he DID ask, you must consider whether he is omnipotent or not. Because each way draws different conclusions.
So in your mind, in relation to <PERSON>'s question, how do you define good and evil? Is there an absolute good or evil, and how do you differentiate between something that appears good or evil, from something that absolutely is good or evil? |
Subsets and Splits