Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
No bio...
User ID: 290
Does it also include bullets fired by police officers?
it's restoring man to the state of nature
Would that be the same state of nature in which there was a 40-50% infant mortality rate?
The problem with homelessness is the problem it causes for others, not the problems the homeless are themselves suffering.
The former is bad karma from ignoring the latter. If you solve the former without solving the latter, and continue ignoring the latter, it will somehow end badly for you; I don't know how, exactly, nor how long it will take, but it won't be an outcome you consider satisfactory.
The mills of G-d grind slow, but they grind exceeding small.
And if you had to follow one into combat, to lay down your life in the company of other men, fighting for your home and hearth, would you rather follow
Mark who calls himself MaryMary née Mark, or would you rather follow the one who callshimher a man?
Which one can hit a target at 300 metres?
chestfeeders
Which is also superfluous! 'Breast' was already gender-neutral once; a suit of armour had a breast-plate, not a 'chest-plate'. The sternum didn't stop being a 'breast-bone' when it was in a male skeleton.
The gendered term was 'teat'; as in, "If you want your baby to grow up strong and healthy, you have to give it plenty t'eat."
A truly captivating story needs a protagonist who suffers, especially unjustly.
I think a 40% infant mortality rate would fill that criterion....
That is very near to the issue. The LGBTQAYCFRIO7CGAEIROFHTAGN+ community is defined by their common enemy.
There exists, existed, or is believed to exist, an ideology devoted to the proposition that the only correct way to live is one person-born-with-penis-presenting-as-male, one person-born-with-vulva-presenting-as-female, in an exclusive relationship, having standard coitus.
Hence gays, lesbians, bisexuals/pansexuals, asexuals, the transgender, the gender non-conforming, the polyamorous, and those who engage in unorthodox carnal practises, form a natural alliance (The enemy of my enemy....).
Who doesn't want European nuclearization? The US and Russia. Nuclearization increases European strategic autonomy, it lessens US influence in Europe. It means that Europeans won't buy overpriced US hardware to suck up to America, that they won't feel the need to show up to wars that don't help them. It means that other countries around the world will nuclearize and lessen US strategic flexibility.
Which means that there are more potential sources of loose nukes for remnant Da'eshbags or other deranged cultists to get their hands on.
believe the PRC's human rights situation is significantly worse than it actually is
Can you elaborate on this?
I just follow the directions my gps tells me to do
Which is all well and good until your GPS steers you into an angry mob.
Or aliens hack your GPS to lure you into a forest.
Or the sun throws its toys out of the pram and now the GPS satellites don't work.
In the interest of completeness, don't forget "legal immigrants > fewer/no immigrants > illegal immigrants."
Eat right
Easier said than done, given how everyone and his brother has an opinion on The One True Right Way To Eat, and all these opinions contradict each other.
I can’t get myself anywhere without using google maps.
Well, there's your problem!
Knowing how to read a map and find your own way can save your life!
Openly launching multiple criminal trials against a political opponent leading up to an election
What should a 'normal democratic leader' do if a political opponent appears to to have committed multiple crimes leading up to an election?
On the other hand, if the tax bill were itemised in proportion to the Federal budget, it might be harder for certain demagogues to get people angry about a government program that costs them ⅒¢....
Suggestion: Pass a ban that only takes effect if some other state (e. g. California) bans conventional meat.
"Self Care". This is a synonym for self-indulgence, but with a good connotation instead of a bad one. Spending 8 hours watching netflix for example, in my grandfather's English, would be understood to be a moderately shameful act of vice. Now it can be referred to as "Self Care", in which case it is understood as a noble recognition of ones own weakness.
On the other hand, never taking any time for oneself can be somewhat corrosive to one's sanity....
I think this might be an instance of All Debates Are Bravery Debates.
After I kept yelling “Go away, bear!” it ran back off, and I was surprised by just how fast that thing was; it felt like a marvel of biomechanics.
Also effective: "I need you to go now. I hope you enjoyed my yard." and "PERKELE!!!1!"
Palestinians have a hostile nation occupying their territory
And what, in your opinion, constitutes 'their territory'?
before God decides to go full Sodom and Gomorrah on us.
If that is your concern, perhaps you ought to focus more on the prohibitions on feeding the homeless.
But do the genitals at birth necessarily correspond to God's will more than experienced gender identity does?
(also, given the Church's recent history, concerning themselves with the genitals of infants is, as they say, Not A Good Look.)
Imagine we had the technology to perfectly change someone's sex, and also had the technology to cure their GID (as in, they won't feel like they're in the wrong body anymore). From a Natural Law perspective, curing the GID seems to be the superior treatment.
From a 'considering second-order effects' perspective, 'curing' someone's mind to make them accept their existing body opens a slippery slope to those who do not accept 'Natural Law' to 'cure' their workers of the desire for humane working conditions.
Therefore changing someone's body, into a form which exists naturally (men and women both naturally exist), may forestall the un-natural transformation of human beings into something that does not naturally exist.
In any case, what is certainly not licit under Natural Law is to take a natural human and lop off bits of it
Again, that is begging the question of whether a trans person, prior to medical interventions, is a 'natural human'.
This is taking a physically healthy and "natural" male and turning it into a defective and unnatural male: a male with no penis, no testicles, and a hole where a hole shouldn't be.
This begs the question of whether the patient was supposed to be a man or a woman. They could be thought of as having been born as a defective and unnatural woman, lacking the parts and capabilities she is naturally supposed to have; the operation would then be turning her into something closer to her natural form.
Admittedly she would not be entirely there with the current state of medical practise (e. g. unable to bear children); however, this is less an ironclad proof of the One True Ontology Of Gender and more of a Skill Issue on the part of surgeons.
As a 'reasonableist' leftist, I believe there are plenty of examples of the left, if not 'going too far' per se, at least noticing a real problem but pursuing the wrong methods of solving it.
They can be largely sorted into two major clusters: the hard-green de-growthist Gaians, and the
wokistsSJWsPJFTMWTIAATUftSSaPCYDs.More options
Context Copy link