That's true, but they're threatening legal action against Tucker Carlson for giving the interview, and liberal minded people should at least be willing to hear what the other side has to say before answering for them. "Oh Putin is doing it because he's evil so we should keep sending weapons" ok maybe but if the only reason you think that is some government official then you're not being a very good liberal at any rate.
The state could tell you a certain ethnic group is evil and must be wiped from history, and if you don't think for yourself about it and just blindly follow that doesn't strike me as being a very good liberal.
The state could tell you a certain ethnic group is evil and must be wiped from history, and if you don't think for yourself about it and just blindly follow that doesn't strike me as being a very good liberal.
The European man killed God, the American man killed liberalism.
Imagine not even listening to what someone has to say.
Imagine not even listening to what someone has to say.
If you think about it, the idea that a human being who could survive outside the womb isn't a human for the purposes of killing it is an insane and purely religious stance. It reminds me of racist ideas saying blacks weren't completely human so it was ok to treat them like garbage which we now look back on with shame.
But if you see an embryo in the womb after just 12 weeks on an ultrasound you start seeing arms and legs and a beating heart and it's moving around on its own... It's hard to look at that and not see a developing human being. Not on a religious level but as simple empirical fact.
But if you see an embryo in the womb after just 12 weeks on an ultrasound you start seeing arms and legs and a beating heart and it's moving around on its own... It's hard to look at that and not see a developing human being. Not on a religious level but as simple empirical fact.
Loom was a good game. I think I didn't even play the vga version and it was still great.
I was thinking about this:
They drive up energy bills and go "it's an emergency we need to take any measures we can"
They damage food production and go "it's an emergency we need to take any measures we can"
They try to implement 15 minutes cities by force and go "it's an emergency we need to take any measures we can"
Per capita carbon emissions in most of Africa is nearly zero, and per capita carbon emissions in India and Pakistan is just over 1.5 tonnes, but per capita carbon emissions in England are closer to 5 tonnes. Therefore every migrant adds several tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere every year. Therefore it would make sense to tightly control the borders of high carbon use nations to prevent excess people from entering those countries. "Wait we need to consider the consequences of our policies before doing anything rash"
Huh. So it's more important to guard the border between Greenwich and Bexley (and it's an emergency so every measure is justified) than the UKs national borders that are all surrounded by saltwater.
They drive up energy bills and go "it's an emergency we need to take any measures we can"
They damage food production and go "it's an emergency we need to take any measures we can"
They try to implement 15 minutes cities by force and go "it's an emergency we need to take any measures we can"
Per capita carbon emissions in most of Africa is nearly zero, and per capita carbon emissions in India and Pakistan is just over 1.5 tonnes, but per capita carbon emissions in England are closer to 5 tonnes. Therefore every migrant adds several tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere every year. Therefore it would make sense to tightly control the borders of high carbon use nations to prevent excess people from entering those countries. "Wait we need to consider the consequences of our policies before doing anything rash"
Huh. So it's more important to guard the border between Greenwich and Bexley (and it's an emergency so every measure is justified) than the UKs national borders that are all surrounded by saltwater.
Not sure why exactly then, maybe it's a dns thing that would point to the port 443 version.
A great way to get someone to stop wanting to do rentals is to read the laws about rentals. "Holy shit we gotta do all that just to rent out a place?"
I feel like at some point I did hear that matrix was going to require port 8448 to federate, but obviously it didn't sink in.
A couple weeks of "jeez matrix is quiet lately" and now I know...
A couple weeks of "jeez matrix is quiet lately" and now I know...
One of the most ironic things imo is that Knights of the Old Republic and KOTOR2 did what the sequel trilogy tried to do and rolled a nat 20 while the sequel trilogy rolled a nat 1.
Kotor had characters like jolee bindo who subverted the light side dark side dichotomy, and the MC literally went on in canon to be the ur-example of a grey jedi.
Kotor 2 had Kreia who strongly deconstructed the simple light side/dark side dichotomy by asking whether going out and being a boyscout is actually helping people or if you're just acting that way to make yourself feel good.
Really though, I think video games have almost always been the best medium to explore star wars, from games like kotor to games like x wing and tie fighter, to dark forces and the jedi knight games. It just seems like the best way to do it is to be there.
Kotor had characters like jolee bindo who subverted the light side dark side dichotomy, and the MC literally went on in canon to be the ur-example of a grey jedi.
Kotor 2 had Kreia who strongly deconstructed the simple light side/dark side dichotomy by asking whether going out and being a boyscout is actually helping people or if you're just acting that way to make yourself feel good.
Really though, I think video games have almost always been the best medium to explore star wars, from games like kotor to games like x wing and tie fighter, to dark forces and the jedi knight games. It just seems like the best way to do it is to be there.
Oh God, imagine being a prepper and world war 3 comes and you're stuck with 10 years of meal ready to expels
I need Joe to die tragically in a Mr Magoo related accident because this would be the funniest timeline.
I want so much for the most humorous future to happen, where we get Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump. I don't care about the future of humanity at that point, all I care about is how funny it's going to be.
The "oh well rules are rules" people seem to forget that rules *are* rules and they don't always say what you'd like them to say or mean what you'd like them to mean.
That's not historically accurate, and that's important in this case.
Slavery in England (England being relevant as a main driver in the elimination of the global slave trade) had been largely abolished since the 9th century, so engaging in the slave trade was relatively speaking novel in the 17th century and it was something European morality already largely agreed was wrong and did not employ slavery until colonialism.
Not only had Europe largely left behind slavery, it was well on to developing the second or third alternative by the 17th century.
The most powerful slaver state in Europe was the Western Roman empire which had ceased to exist 900 years before anything like the era of colonization. In that sense, not only did slavery prove to be morally repugnant, but the most powerful slaving civilization eventually destroyed itself. In a hypothetical alternate reality where the Roman empire continued to exist through the 17th century, continued to be a powerful empire, and continued to practice widespread chattel slavery, I suspect that the discussion never would have even happened (though admittedly there's a lot of what ifs to get to that moment in time)
By one view of history, the fall of the Roman empire and the failure of any successful slaver States to rise up afterwards represents the fact that slavery as an institution in fact failed. By the 17th century, the question largely wasn't about whether slavery was good or bad because most of Europe had already agreed that it was bad and banned it within its own borders. The question was about the Atlantic slave trade and the use of slavery in colonial holdings, which was itself a novel question and not subject to the antiquity fallacy.
Slavery in England (England being relevant as a main driver in the elimination of the global slave trade) had been largely abolished since the 9th century, so engaging in the slave trade was relatively speaking novel in the 17th century and it was something European morality already largely agreed was wrong and did not employ slavery until colonialism.
Not only had Europe largely left behind slavery, it was well on to developing the second or third alternative by the 17th century.
The most powerful slaver state in Europe was the Western Roman empire which had ceased to exist 900 years before anything like the era of colonization. In that sense, not only did slavery prove to be morally repugnant, but the most powerful slaving civilization eventually destroyed itself. In a hypothetical alternate reality where the Roman empire continued to exist through the 17th century, continued to be a powerful empire, and continued to practice widespread chattel slavery, I suspect that the discussion never would have even happened (though admittedly there's a lot of what ifs to get to that moment in time)
By one view of history, the fall of the Roman empire and the failure of any successful slaver States to rise up afterwards represents the fact that slavery as an institution in fact failed. By the 17th century, the question largely wasn't about whether slavery was good or bad because most of Europe had already agreed that it was bad and banned it within its own borders. The question was about the Atlantic slave trade and the use of slavery in colonial holdings, which was itself a novel question and not subject to the antiquity fallacy.
This is a bad argument. Reread my post and you will see that I am not saying what ought to be, I'm saying what will be, and I even twice in my post differentiate the difference between the two.
You were the one that said that something that uses violence has no right to exist. That only leaves pacifism.
You made this absolute statement, and all that you're proving is that you don't believe it because you're giving all these different examples of where violence used in pursuit of an institution is acceptable.
You made this absolute statement, and all that you're proving is that you don't believe it because you're giving all these different examples of where violence used in pursuit of an institution is acceptable.
The word "right" is complicated because it means a number of things. You can have a "right" to something by virtue of practicality just as much as you can have a "right" to something by virtue of morality. Sometimes they coexist but not always.
An institution that is based on violence creates its right to exist by fighting for it. An institution that fails to create its right to exist will not exist. Unless you can employ violence to challenge that right, then it exists and remains regardless of what you say.
When an empire falls, the world does not return to utopia. Instead, it returns to its brutal base reality that the strong can exercise power over the weak over the natural right of violence without any of the compromises between the strong and the weak that more established structures entail. For this reason, utopian anarchism cannot work because it does not work. We've had a million years of humanity to try to find evidence otherwise, but violence does not disappear just because some of the violent people disappear.
Consider a pacifist anarchist society and then a bunch of brutes come in and use force where nobody was using force before. The anarchist society will fail because it could not support its right to exist without use of violence, where the brutes came in and supported their right to exist using violence.
That doesn't make the institution moral or the method by which is carves out its right to exist moral, but that's a different question.
The global slave trade itself was ended largely through institutional violence, including the creation of one of the most powerful navies in the world at that time to prevent it. Later on, one of the most brutal wars in history was fought among other things to end slavery in one country, and if that war was lost then slavery likely would have continued at least for a time. The Arab slave trade certainly would exist today but for the west ending it. There's still semi-open slavery in some Muslim nations today. Would you make the argument that because it used violence and coercion that the abolition of slavery has no right to exist?
An institution that is based on violence creates its right to exist by fighting for it. An institution that fails to create its right to exist will not exist. Unless you can employ violence to challenge that right, then it exists and remains regardless of what you say.
When an empire falls, the world does not return to utopia. Instead, it returns to its brutal base reality that the strong can exercise power over the weak over the natural right of violence without any of the compromises between the strong and the weak that more established structures entail. For this reason, utopian anarchism cannot work because it does not work. We've had a million years of humanity to try to find evidence otherwise, but violence does not disappear just because some of the violent people disappear.
Consider a pacifist anarchist society and then a bunch of brutes come in and use force where nobody was using force before. The anarchist society will fail because it could not support its right to exist without use of violence, where the brutes came in and supported their right to exist using violence.
That doesn't make the institution moral or the method by which is carves out its right to exist moral, but that's a different question.
The global slave trade itself was ended largely through institutional violence, including the creation of one of the most powerful navies in the world at that time to prevent it. Later on, one of the most brutal wars in history was fought among other things to end slavery in one country, and if that war was lost then slavery likely would have continued at least for a time. The Arab slave trade certainly would exist today but for the west ending it. There's still semi-open slavery in some Muslim nations today. Would you make the argument that because it used violence and coercion that the abolition of slavery has no right to exist?