That isn't the tone I got from it, but I hope you're right. I'd much rather it being me misunderstanding that he meant oppression tarnished the beuty, than the attempt at pointing out nonexistent hypocrisy I took it to mean.
Did you understand the person you respond to as saying its inefficient because the sun shines in other directions than the array proposed?
I'm pretty sure the person talked specifically about the beam from the array to earth being inefficient.
Why couldn't it? Could they not be confined to an area with historic buildings?
It seems quite preposterous to me that nothing beautiful could exist in any area solely due to oppression of the people there.
If the official paperwork makes it impossible to follow the law, how then can these people run for office? If the law is on the books, then the forms should be made to include this option. That it doesn't is akin to entrapment.
But the law isn’t listed in the 33-page candidate requirement guide and there is no space on the petition paperwork to list any former names.
So it seems to me that it's a law that in practice bans running within five years of (non marriage) name changes. Whether it's unevenly enforced or not it clearly hits trans people disproportionately.
I don't think that supports the claim at all. It might as well be due to women being seen as insignificant and incapable, not necessarily trustworthy or worth listening to. I don't doubt that societal views of women could make them better assassins or spies, but that it should be due to mans inherent want to listen and believe them seems dubious to me.
Do you have a source for that? Your claim is suspiciously close to incel talking points and seem to contradict a lot I've seen about the amount of trust people have in the word of a woman compared to that of a man. I'd like to know if you are correct, but as it stands I'm doubtful.
I don't expect them to argue against him inciting an insurrection. I think they will argue that the office of the president isn't a civil office of the United States as laid out in the constitution, as has been a common legal argument brought forth as of late.
So they will probably have to argue that the rattifiers of the ammendment were so worried about insurrectionists taking over government that they wanted to prevent it, but not enough they thought the presidency should be barred to insurrectionists.
Yes but so is Money, the significance of a social construct comes from how much society as a whole puts stock in the ideas. Unfortunately race is very relevant in today's world as ethnicity and perceived race is a big factor in how issues are discussed and acted on.
I may be overreacting a bit, but your comment sounds a lot like the colorblind/all lives matter rethoric to me in this context, so I want to emphasize it's significance to this discussion.
Honest question: are you in favor of all (spontaneous?) violent crime being treated as a psychological problem, rather than a judicial one?
It sounds like you might, which I'm not necessarily against. I'm mostly asking because it I and probably others initially read your first comment as this being an exceptional case that should be treated differently. That made you sound to me like you were explaining things away. But from reading more of your comments I'm not so sure that's the case, it seems to me like you may just have some underlying principles that do not align with the current system. This would be a very different interpretation of your comments, that if true, I'd like to understand.
Edit: I just read the only comment of yours I hadn't read when I wrote this, which seems to confirm that you want it in general. I'm all for rehabilitation being the main goal in the justice system. Apparently I just didn't get that that was what you were arguing for to begin with.
I don't believe we have a single book in the bible written in 0 CE. I'm docking points for incorrectly citing the publication date on the book you reference.
/s
Satanism stems from an enlightenment era conception of Satan, not the medieval.
In the satanic temple's case they also adopt some of the more classic imagery as a way to push against Christianity when it oversteps its bounds. The more grotesque image of satan eorks perfectly for this as it's much easier to show the hypocrisy with than any other I've encountered.
Side note: as far as i know, god is the only character in the bible that already has, and has promised to again destroy the world. Satan (which translates to the accuser or adversary) has mostly just questioned god and tested peoples faith.
So cutting away the popular notions from centuries later actually puts satan in a much more favorable light.
Dane here to add that we say it tolvte December 2023 with tolvte meaning twelveth. Saying it the other way around would basically only happen if you forgot to specify the date or add it as an afterthought.
Working off of memory so take this with a good amount of salt. If I recall correctly, studies have found that teenagers generally don't go to bed later to match if school starts later, but the same applies the other way too. It may be that they technically could get that sleep by going to bed earlier, but as a society that is not a viable proposal to fix the problems that arise from their lack of sleep.
Also just to make sure I'm not misunderstood, I don't dispute that individuals can get used to a new sleep schedule or will go to bed earlier if they have to get up earlier, just that it isn't as easy as waking two hours earlier, means go to sleep two hours earlier for teenagers especially.
I'd say a school that just throws facts at the students is doing it wrong. A large part of learning is to discover connections and be able to extrapolate from principles to aquire new knowledge on their own with the tools and methods taught.
That however also disregards the very different contexts between school and some rando throwing facts at you. People go to school specifically to learn, therefore will be more open to it. Some random person throwing facts is just annoying and if you question the validity of the facts they will not get through. A common thing with people in cults is tht throwing facts at them will usually just go deeper into the cult because of the emotional aspects of it rather than cet out due to the logic.
Did he advocate for Trump over Biden?