AnneBonny @ AnneBonny @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

0

Comments

549

Joined

2 yr. ago

It was a statement. Why do you find it so upsetting that something antisemitic might also be called anti-Zionist?

Things not being mutually exclusive is a pretty fucking moot argument.

It's not an argument.

it's like poetry

so far so good

"Threads is blocking servers on the Fediverse"

tragedies abound

Here recently it seems like everything just gets under my skin so quickly and easily. It’s not that I get mad and take it out on others, it’s just the fact that I’m constantly annoyed and stressed.

Are you annoyed and stressed because everything gets under your skin, or does everything get under your skin because you are constantly annoyed and stressed?

Anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not the same thing, but neither are they mutually exclusive.

Jacking Up a Car Is Dangerous. Here's Why Mechanics Are Doing So Anyway

Did we used to conduct war in a way that was safe for civilians?

No.

I’m not aware of that history. The war in Gaza looks like war to me.

The Israelis say they are prosecuting a war against Hamas.

How many members of Hamas have been killed? How many remain?

I will preface this by saying that there are risks to being openly involved.

There are people work to avoid taking actions that may benefit Israel:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions

https://bdsmovement.net/get-involved/what-to-boycott

We've been flying things without pilots onboard as far back as WW2.

This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel. For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2023/12/18/0901/01963.html#en

Last week, Pope Francis approved a ruling at the Vatican that permitted priests to administer blessings to same-sex couples.

I don't think so.

Edit:

This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel. For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2023/12/18/0901/01963.html#en

Dueling pistols were known for being ornate.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dueling_pistols.JPG

The only purpose for the BULLETHOSE BABYKILLER 2000 is mass murder, and is an extreme threat to public safety, and please ignore the contract to put one in every police car in the country

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purposes of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country… to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise, and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29

Guns were strictly utilitarian, people had one literally for putting food on the table and an immediate need of defense in an expanding country where there was literally no help for miles if you were lucky in some places.

Guns were not strictly utilitarian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duelling_pistol

If you read my edit, it’s already in there. Just like the judge said, modern firearms fall well outside the scope of weapons available to, and used by, the public at large.

Nowhere in the article does the judge use the phrases or words "modern firearms" "public" "scope" "available." That is your interpretation of what the judge said. I asked for you to elaborate so I would be on the same page as you. I think I have a different viewpoint than you. I don't expect that my interpretation of what the article says will align 100% with how you interpret it.

I also find it interesting that “accuracy” became the substance of your criticism rather than the argument as a whole.

Would you care to elaborate on this?

I'd be happy to read about it if you can point me in the right direction.