For me, yes. I like the duplicator transporter thought problem, but I’ve always come to the conclusion that it doesn’t matter. If what comes out doesn’t know the difference, and the version left behind just stops existing, what’s the difference? Maybe if the old version suffered from it I wouldn’t, but if they just cease to exist then what’s the functional difference between the two? If you believe there’s a soul then maybe there’s an issue, but I don’t.
Signing it makes it look more like a satire account though, so it’s not a solution.
Again, I’m reasonably certain they don’t actually believe a 90 year old woman is suddenly going to get pregnant, or a woman who doesn’t have a uterus anymore, or whatever else. These might be the words they’re told to repeat to justify things, but they don’t believe them. Not even the most devout would believe that.
They may believe God could technically do this, but then he could also technically do the same for same sex couples. He’s omnipotent, according to them, after all. His powers are not limited to only making miracles pregnancies to hetero couples. It’s no more outrageous than expecting people physically incapable of becoming pregnant becoming pregnant. If they justify this belief based on miricles, then same sex marriage is equally justified. (This is not their belief. They don’t believe the former premise, but this is the conclusion that it’d lead to.)
If that actually were the belief, sterile people would not be allowed to be married, and people’s marriages would be annualled when they become sterile, through age or otherwise. Unless they’re asking for these, they do not believe it. They may believe that they believe it, but they don’t.
They don’t believe that. They just say that. It’d be crazy if they actually believed it. Any reasonable person knows it’s just bad faith rhetoric, not a true belief.
Fun fact: the air conditioner was invented because the southern US is frequently so humid that evaporative cooling doesn’t work, and it’s hot. AC pulls water out of the air in the process of cooling, so it has a double effect of making the air cooler and allowing your sweat to evoporate to cool you.
It sounds horrible, but I think we lost something when we made it impossible to get away with fighting someone for doing stupid shit. There’s too many cameras now and, even if they started it by doing something antagonistic, you’ll be arrested and held accountable because they technically didn’t assault you. If this happened in like the 50s (discounting race and everything else, only his actions), he’d get his ass kicked. Everyone around would likely support it.
Now, the only social system to punish them is shaming, and shaming them is exactly what they want. Shaming them gives them publicity. Publicity gets them money. Literally the best option is to ignore them, which absolutely does nothing to stop it, but at least it doesn’t encourage it.
I’m not saying we should go back to the 50s. I’m only saying that sometimes people need consequences, like you said. If the legal system can’t provide it, we need an extra-legal solution, and we don’t have that anymore. We did in the past, though it was often used for evil (lynching and lots of racist/homophobic/other-phobic stuff), it also served a purpose.
bonus tip: if you live in a dry zone, get an air cooler. It’s an enclosed fan behind a self contained waterfall. Humid air is particularly cooling.
A swamp cooler is another term for a similar thing (a damp surface with airflow). Humid air is not cooling though. It’s actually the opposite, because it makes water harder to evaporate, which is how our body tries to stay cool. That’s why a humidity feels so hot. Evaporation cools, which means we can use this to cool air, which is how these evaporative coolers work. They don’t feel cool because they’re humid. That’s a side effect. Water evaporating pulls heat out of the air, so it’s cooler. The higher the humidity the worse these function.
Yeah… no. That was VE day only. Also, Hitler dying did not end the war. An agreement still had to be made. WWII ended with the surrender of Japan. Some soldiers were actually fighting for many years after, but still, the average one didn’t get the news until after it was done.
Meanwhile, WWI fighting ended with an armistice which, while not a full peace agreement, is a declaration to end hostilities. This did happen in a day also. That wasn’t a temporary ceasefire leading into it.
Again, I’d wager this is how the majority of wars end, especially when communication was slow. The ceasefire seems like mostly a modern thing from my understanding. It’s only really possible with instant communication.
Actually, often, yes. For example, there were people fighting and dying “in WWII” after a peace agreement had been signed. They didn’t stop for a ceasefire and then negotiate a peace agreement. I would wager this is the norm, rather than a ceasefire while peace is agreed to.
Does that say “the most dangerous ever” or just “most dangerous”? I’m not sure what history has to do with the present.
Also, don’t anyone else feel statements like these are hugely hypocritical?
No. It’s hypocritical if Popes actually speak on behalf of God, but not in general. Yes, previous Popes have said the opposite, but not this one. He isn’t being a hypocrite. He maybe should call out the bad history that his faith has though. This honesty could really go a long way to change people’s opinion on Catholicism too I think. Most people I know recognize how fucked up it’s been (and still is).
Not exactly unbiased sources. Also, the first one doesn’t quite say the same thing. It says the US should support Israel. The second source is exicitlt from a group who’s goal is to say that jews are all aligned on the idea of supporting Zionism. I don’t trust that one at all. You don’t get an unbiased poll from a group that is explicitly trying to show everyone agrees. They don’t align with the responses from the poll I cited either.
You’re the second person to say some crazy number like that, without any supporting evidence. I don’t think you’re right. In the US, it’s only 1/3 of jews. Whatever the number is, it’s way too high, but it isn’t that high.
Ah, yes. Giving historical context is rambling.
is your point that everyone is one people?
No? You said Jews have some kind of claim over the land. If they do, the native people have an even stronger one. Everyone isn’t one people. The people in the region are from one group (which we often call the Canaanites), which the Jews of the period are also a part of. None of them have any special claim to the land. Just because someone’s super special book tells them that they are chosen by the super cool guy in the sky doesn’t actually give them any legitimate claim. If you want to discuss it with people who don’t believe in fairy tales, you need something stronger. Since they’re the same group of people they all have equal historic claim.
how you can claim that two religions whose inceptions are thousands of years apart…
OK, you apparently don’t know anything about Islam or Christianity. That’s fine. They aren’t incepted thousands of years apart. They’re the same continuity. The prophets in the Jewish faith are also in the Christian faith, plus some extras. The prophets in the Christian faith are also in the Muslim faith, plus some extras. They’re from the same inception. Jews just don’t believe all the stuff of the other faiths past a certain point.
For example, if you stop following Marvel movies after Iron Man 2 or something, but someone else follows ones that came after, it doesn’t mean their understanding was incepted later. They just kept adding stuff. They’re all Marvel movies. They don’t become not Marvel movies because you stopped watching.
… or ignore the differing cultures…
That’s exactly my point. The Jewish culture has diverged from the one they had when living in that region, as has the people who still live their. How do the Jewish people have a stronger claim despite their culture diverging when they didn’t even live there anymore? If it’s a claim by culture, the people who still live there have a stronger claim.
… but whatever, you do you.
You don’t get to just spread lies and propoganda, then say “whatever” when it’s pointed out you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Try to educate yourself. Maybe you can not make the same mistake again, instead of just saying “whatever” as if you weren’t wrong. Growth is a virtue, not a vice. You need to be able to admit mistake in order to grow.
OK, so I’m both supposed to know what you mean without asking, and I’m supposed to not tell you what I’m interpreting it as. Interesting. You get mad when I ask you and you get mad when I say what I got from it. It doesn’t sound at all like you’re trying to be racist without being explicit. Lol.
the they wasn’t vague… I never said it was all…if you need specifics…
Ok, it wasn’t vague, but you meant all, but you never said it was all, and you can give specifics. Oh, but I should have known the specifics from context, even though you meant Muslims in general, but you also give just some specifics which doesn’t include all of them. Sure, I know how to have a conversation. I also know what you’re doing, which isn’t a conversation. You want to just call other people evil.
btw I’m ex Muslim so I’m well aware of the hatred I was raised in and surrounded by and don’t need you minimising my lived experience just because it doesn’t fit in with your world view. antisemitism is deeply rooted in islam, it’s a fact.
Cool story. I also lived with an atheist former Muslim. It isn’t minimizing your experience to say that your experience has colored your outlook on life. I think religion in general is a tool for forming in-groups and out-groups, and that’s the issue. It isn’t Islam, nor Judaism, nor Christianity, nor any other. They all want to kill anyone else, because they know the truth. Islam isn’t special.
Religion is a tool of the elite to control people. Hate the right thing. It isn’t the religious who are the problem, rather it’s the elites wherever they can grab power. If you know your history, Christians went around murdering everyone in the middle east for a good chunk of time (and we still are), because their Truth is more truthy than Muslim’s Truth, or whatever. Really, it was just a way for the elite to steal land. The Muslim leaders in power do the same thing. They use their religion to tell people to fight for them (yet they never do any of the fighting). The Jews do as well. The Torah, which they all stem from, has several stories promoting “righteous” genocide against other groups, which Israel is using to this day to say that the land belongs to them. You just need a leader in power willing to push those messages.
My bad, I thought your comment was the one responding to me. Not the one above. Sorry.
They are historic fact, as in they’re older than what you said. Here’s a Wikipedia page that has more information. Check out “Background”. Notice the date of the letter talking about “the zionist project” is 1902. Even in 1896 he talking about them colonizing Palestine. That’s well before the war. This plan was being set up, and enacted, far before what you said.
Jews have been in that area for 5000 years since the Canaanites
Dude, the people that ended up calling themselves jews and the other people from the region come from the same people. Judaism comes from religions in the area. No one was there before anyone else, because they’re the same people. Canaanites is just a made up term that the jews used to refer to everyone else, so they could tell stories about how they were better, but they’re all literally the same people. Jews didn’t magically appear as a distinct group. Israelites of the time literally are Canaanites.
Anyway, those are not the people moving there. They’re European Jews mostly. Sure, they share some genes with those early people, but far less than the people who literally still lived there. If you want to argue they have some cultural claim somehow, then what they hell do you even measure? They’re all coming from literally the same group of people and the same culture. If your claim is that the term “Jew” is older than the term “Muslim” then I guess you can make that argument, but it’d be a really dumb one.
Muslims are literally from the same group. They follow the same god and have the same holy book (with some new ones). El (hence Elohim, which interestingly is plural) is also the god they both come from, which is where the name Israel comes from, being the land of the people who follow El. They all follow (what was formerly known as) El, although it’s been mixed with other local gods too. Notably neither Jews nor Muslims follow what could be reasonably identified as El, so neither of them have any nominal claim to Israel. Maybe there are still some small local groups who do, in which case Israel, by name, is theirs.
Not only this, but they also love to find reasons to test new weapons designs in real situations. Testing in a lab is great, but you’ll never know the real effectiveness until it’s used for real.