Honestly, the moment she hit the gas while she was obviously being detained, she had done something that would get her killed most places. Vehicles are considered deadly weapons by cops, so when you hit the gas, it's the same as pulling a gun -- and that's not really wrong either.
Forget about rights. If you're dead you can have a nice Weekend at Bernie's parade all up and down Tiananmen square for all your rights matter at that point. Rights are something you can invoke later if they're wrong and you get unjustly arrested, but not if you're dead.
Forget about rights. If you're dead you can have a nice Weekend at Bernie's parade all up and down Tiananmen square for all your rights matter at that point. Rights are something you can invoke later if they're wrong and you get unjustly arrested, but not if you're dead.
lol "All the foreign powers hoping to kiss Trump's ass to keep sending military aid for their wars are definitely going to try to extradite him, especially immediately after Trump just captured a foreign leader in 30 minutes or his pizza was free (it wasn't free that night)"
One of the biggest problems with so-called degrowth is that the sort of people who want to degrow the economy don't want to degrow the largest part of the economy, the government. In spite of being up to 60% of the economy of some Western nations, and in spite of in some countries all economic growth being concentrated in the government, the idea of drastically reducing the size of government to reduce growth in the broader economy is a sacred cow that they are not willing to touch.
Given orthodox economic theory, that's sort of absurd because every dollar cut from the government is going to be several dollars cut from the real economy.
Given orthodox economic theory, that's sort of absurd because every dollar cut from the government is going to be several dollars cut from the real economy.
That's kind of messed up when you think about it, because all this time the discussion has been about illegal immigration at the Southern border. Now, I did go to public school so perhaps my geography is lacking, but I do believe that Minneapolis is about as far from the southern border as you can get.
"you're not dealing with your average Saiyan warrior anymore"
But he kind of is now.... Considering that there's like 6 Saiyan's left and most of them are insanely powerful.... And I expect Goku and brolly to bring the average way up...
But he kind of is now.... Considering that there's like 6 Saiyan's left and most of them are insanely powerful.... And I expect Goku and brolly to bring the average way up...
When have huge ethically bankrupt experiments on innocent children been a problem in the modern era?
All the way back in aristophanes: "we will have a society where everyone is equal and nobody needs to toil!" "but who will do the work?" "The slaves!"
Once you make free food, Free water, free shelter, free healthcare human rights that must be provided or you're satan, why not free sex?
I'm not even necessarily saying that from for example the standpoint of saying that universal healthcare should never exist, but there's a difference between making something available through the state because it's a nice or useful idea and making something available through the state because there is a duty or obligation to provide that thing, and if they are failing to then they are committing some crime against humanity.
In the example of healthcare, it's a nice thing to have while society is Rich enough to provide it, but if society ceases to be rich enough to provide it then that service has to go away. In that case it ends up being a government provided service that is not a fundamental human right.
As fundamental human rights, both healthcare and sex require a specific person in the sense of an individual with certain attributes that are not common. Institutions do not provide health care, doctors do. The doctors are particularly intelligent and particularly hard-working people, energy universal sex care system, the state prostitutes would be particularly attractive men and women.
And then you get into the stickiness of making healthcare a human right and some healthcare procedures are effectively murder. For example, if doctors are forced to provide medical assistance in dying or forced to provide abortions, then they are being forced to engage in murder. Is it really so morally different forcing someone to have sex versus forcing them to commit murder against their will?
A lot of people will argue until they're blue in the face as to why not free sex, but perhaps the more important question is, why free murder? Demanding that we take resources from everyone regardless of their moral view to pay for this, not because it is a nice thing to do but because it is becoming human right that is a crime against humanity if you don't provide it, in both cases seems really suspect.
I'm not even necessarily saying that from for example the standpoint of saying that universal healthcare should never exist, but there's a difference between making something available through the state because it's a nice or useful idea and making something available through the state because there is a duty or obligation to provide that thing, and if they are failing to then they are committing some crime against humanity.
In the example of healthcare, it's a nice thing to have while society is Rich enough to provide it, but if society ceases to be rich enough to provide it then that service has to go away. In that case it ends up being a government provided service that is not a fundamental human right.
As fundamental human rights, both healthcare and sex require a specific person in the sense of an individual with certain attributes that are not common. Institutions do not provide health care, doctors do. The doctors are particularly intelligent and particularly hard-working people, energy universal sex care system, the state prostitutes would be particularly attractive men and women.
And then you get into the stickiness of making healthcare a human right and some healthcare procedures are effectively murder. For example, if doctors are forced to provide medical assistance in dying or forced to provide abortions, then they are being forced to engage in murder. Is it really so morally different forcing someone to have sex versus forcing them to commit murder against their will?
A lot of people will argue until they're blue in the face as to why not free sex, but perhaps the more important question is, why free murder? Demanding that we take resources from everyone regardless of their moral view to pay for this, not because it is a nice thing to do but because it is becoming human right that is a crime against humanity if you don't provide it, in both cases seems really suspect.
If the EU ends up having any say about it, it'll become a federalized nation unto itself I'd think.
But that nation might find it troublesome declaring war against the only one in NATO with a standing army. They might find that a lot of the conflicts they rely on the US to fund are suddenly not going quite like they'd like to see.
But that nation might find it troublesome declaring war against the only one in NATO with a standing army. They might find that a lot of the conflicts they rely on the US to fund are suddenly not going quite like they'd like to see.
There's a big problem with the term conspiracy theory, and that is that, stripped of the value judgments, it is just a theory about a conspiracy. Though of course it's more like a hypothesis about a conspiracy.
The problem with universalizing claims about conspiracy theories is that those claims break when some proportion of those conspiracy hypotheses end up turning out to be conspiracy facts. MKUltra or Project Northwoods or the Tuskegee Syphilis Study are now officially backed conspiracy facts,for example. Arguably, the Manhattan project was a conspiracy fact. Disbelieving these things doesn't make you a clever scientist, it makes you a denier of the official narrative.
There's a similar problem with the term science denier. The nature of science is such that if you're doing the process correctly, most of science will be denied by the process of science. Some of the most famous and respected scientists of the 20th century were science deniers. Einstein and Heisenberg for example denied Newtonian physics that were "the science" and helped create relativity and quantum physics.
In a sense, both terms end up smuggling in epistemological certainty that isn't necessarily warranted. Some of the scientists who put a man on the moon believed in science that today the sort of people who use terms like "science denier" would deny, given how many of them were German national socialists. Nobel prize winning scientists have ended up wrapped up in pseudoscience and using their status to push easily falsifiable claims that are certainly wrong. To deny what they say isn't science denialism in spite of their high status as scientists. The truth is the truth, and that which is not the truth is not.
The problem with universalizing claims about conspiracy theories is that those claims break when some proportion of those conspiracy hypotheses end up turning out to be conspiracy facts. MKUltra or Project Northwoods or the Tuskegee Syphilis Study are now officially backed conspiracy facts,for example. Arguably, the Manhattan project was a conspiracy fact. Disbelieving these things doesn't make you a clever scientist, it makes you a denier of the official narrative.
There's a similar problem with the term science denier. The nature of science is such that if you're doing the process correctly, most of science will be denied by the process of science. Some of the most famous and respected scientists of the 20th century were science deniers. Einstein and Heisenberg for example denied Newtonian physics that were "the science" and helped create relativity and quantum physics.
In a sense, both terms end up smuggling in epistemological certainty that isn't necessarily warranted. Some of the scientists who put a man on the moon believed in science that today the sort of people who use terms like "science denier" would deny, given how many of them were German national socialists. Nobel prize winning scientists have ended up wrapped up in pseudoscience and using their status to push easily falsifiable claims that are certainly wrong. To deny what they say isn't science denialism in spite of their high status as scientists. The truth is the truth, and that which is not the truth is not.
I loved Electronic Boutique back in the day. Buybacks were cheap enough and game prices were low enough that I was able to spend the summer playing different PC games on a broke-ass high school student's money.
I went back years later, and it's like "Holy crap, these games are so expensive, and they want to buy my old ones for HOW MUCH? Forget that!" -- actually did pawn shops for a while in the ps2 era.
I went back years later, and it's like "Holy crap, these games are so expensive, and they want to buy my old ones for HOW MUCH? Forget that!" -- actually did pawn shops for a while in the ps2 era.
Imagine getting caught with CP and that's the second worst thing you did to young children with your life.