Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)IE
Posts
0
Comments
426
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • The quote says “if war actually be levied, that is…”

    So you see the phrase “that is”? In the English language, we understand that to mean defining the preceding term. The words following “that is” are therefore defining what it means to levy war in this context.

    And it’s easier to find interpretations of the term by modern judges than to dig through English case law, so here’s one: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914a8e8add7b04934706331

  • You’re deliberately interpreting “war” in the narrow sense of conflict between countries, but that’s not the extent of the definition in English common law where the phrase came from.

    A group attempting to effect by force a treasonous purpose is sufficient, as clearly stated in the quote.

  • I said you were silly because it was more polite than calling you stupid, and in neither case is it referring to the issue of traffic deaths.

    And now you’ve changed your tune talking about pedestrians which has nothing to do with the topic.

  • It is in no way clear that it doesn’t meet the definition. An armed group attacked our capital for the purpose of overthrowing the government.

    “ Chief Justice Marshall was careful, however, to state that the Court did not mean that no person could be guilty of this crime who had not appeared in arms against the country. He stated: On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.”

  • Meh, I think it’s a stretch to blame IBM for the Centos thing. Red Hat did that on their own and themselves deserve whatever criticism is warranted. It’s a wholly owned but independent subsidiary, so not like IBM is in the middle management chain at all.

  • I think it’s because there is nuance in the wording. It doesn’t say “dollar amount”, it says “worth”, and the worth of a thing can be more than its dollar amount.

    Infinite hundreds is “worth more” in a sense because it’s easier to use, and that is added value!

  • What’s the strategic goal of giving up? It’s not like Israel wasn’t murdering Palestinians before hostages were taken, so why do you think they’d stop?

    Maybe the strategic goal is to force the world to see what’s happening.

  • Complacency and entitlement. Like letting a guy merge into you instead of evading because “well he was supposed to yield!” People will fully crash their car if they think they’re “right”.