Jiro
16hr ago
That's out of context in pretty much the same way (except you quoted enough to show the context). It says they're not liable for violating the prohibition against homosexual intercourse. It doesn't say that it removes the liability for violating the prohibition against rape.
I already get why all those medieval lords used to confiscate all the Jews' property and kick them out. They really wanted the property.
I had contractual agreements and financial dealings with a group of people, and I learned that their religious/legal system was based around using cheap wording tricks to bamboozle their own fucking God, I certainly wouldn't trust them to keep faith with me.
I'm pretty sure that the last thing that medieval legal systems were based around is good faith following the spirit of the laws, unless "what the lord says, goes" counts as the spirit of the law.
Jiro
1d ago
if He didn’t rise from the dead, then wasn’t it actually the worst advice ever? The example Jesus provides is an example of how to get killed
If you assume that modern Christianity is otherwise correct about him, his ideas thrived and are believed by billions of people today. That's a pretty big success, even if he personally lost his life.
Jiro
1d ago
Out of context. It means that a boy has to be 9 for an act of intercourse to legally count as one for other purposes. The prohibition on rape is separate and has no minimum age.
Jiro
1d ago
The answer is the same as it is for hairpieces: You can notice that there are some really bad hairpieces, and some somewhat good ones that you eventually notice after a while. This lets you extrapolate to how many hairpieces are so good that you can't notice them.
Jiro
1d ago
The same issue applies to "it's about these specific things ruled illegal by a court" as to "it's about hypothetical illegal things": that's not how people talk. The way you'd have it, it's as if these congresspeople suddenly gave a speech where they said that there are infinitely many prime numbers. Why did they say that? Who knows, we just wanted to inform you about that. Isn't that a weird thing to suddenly speak about? Naah, they just decided to say it. And it's true, after all. Maybe tomorrow they'll explain to you how it's against the law to rob banks.
Making a statement about not having to obey illegal orders from Trump implies that Trump is giving illegal orders, that they should not be obeyed, and that you have some reason to warn people about them. Nobody thinks there's a need to warn anyone about orders that have already been ruled illegal by a court.
Jiro
2d ago
The constitution does not give the President, or any official, the power to give orders contrary to itself or to law. To the extent the President's orders are unlawful, he has no authority to give them.
You are being overly literal to hide what's being said.
Suddenly announcing that illegal orders from the President shouldn't be followed may literally be a hypothetical claiming that to the extent the orders are unlawful they don't need to be followed. But what it actually means is "the President is giving out illegal orders now and they should be disobeyed now," even if the speech doesn't literally include the word "now".
Jiro
3d ago
Ad campaigns cause outrage--and should cause outrage--as if the things in them were said sincerely instead of being calculated. You could even make that a general principle: if someone makes a calculated move about something whose truth they don't really care about, but screws up and does or says something terrible, you get to judge them on it anyway. "I was only pretending to be a jerk" is never an excuse.
Jiro
4d ago
Things that are true can sound an awful lot like things that are false; you need to look at the object level to determine how true and how false the accusations are, not just pattern-match it to what Hitler did. I'm reminded of CS Lewis' remarks about witches: if there really were people in league with the devil, then we ought to persecute them. Witch hunts are bad only because witches aren't real.
Jiro
4d ago
If they're second or third generation, the immigration/naturalization process can't have weeded them out (at least not directly).
Jiro
4d ago
It's much easier for your GDP per capita to go up by a larger factor if you start at a small number, so the comparison to American GDP proves nothing.
Jiro
5d ago
Time savings is linear in distance. I personally don't think it matters much until we're getting to pretty significant distance trips
Time savings per hour spent speeding is constant. The shorter distance also has a shorter speeding time.
Jiro
5d ago
He can definitely afford $15k + installation.
They're not trying to test "can he afford 15K", they're trying to test "is he willing to pay 15K", which is a subset of that. He may have enough assets that 15K wouldn't make a dent in his budget, but that doesn't mean he's actually willing to pay.
Jiro
10d ago
Probably a lot of the people posting here who criticize it aren't against vaccines (although even then I'm not so sure). This place is, compared to the general population, weird.
Except it is patently clear that the audience for this public shaming doesn't exist anymore.
It never needed an audience. It's always been a relatively small number of people doing it--these people just have a lot of power. It doesn't matter that, for instance, Disney refuses to make white men a big part of its audience most of the time. So they lose some money, they don't care. They aren't going to go out of business or get fired because of it.
Also, bear in mind that woke media can get popular. The audience is probably race blind and sex blind in the way that used to be considered good and now marks you as a fascist. They don't actually object to the media being woke at all unless it's very over the top (lectures about how straight men are evil, 100% female cast, etc.)--it's just that if the writers put a high priority on woke, they probably put a low priority on everything else such as good writing, so the odds are against woke things getting an audience. But it can still happen (Baldur's Gate 3 for instance).
Jiro
10d ago
I don't think mothers should be disadvantaged-- I think people who are relatively less capable, experienced, knowledgeable, etcetera in a job area should be disadvantaged. And unfortunately, raising children makes it harder to become those things.
Exactly how does that reasoning not apply to veterans too?
Jiro
10d ago
In theory, you could believe that one vaccine works independently of the others. In practice, not so much.
Jiro
10d ago
99% of the time, critics of the vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Weird rationalists are weird.
I can sort of see what tea leaves you're gesturing to. I just don't know what you mean exactly.
This is a tactic that allows mottes and baileys and is why we talk about speaking plainly. If he were to post that the vaccine is dangerous, it could be rebutted.
The main thing that distinguishes that from a troll post is that there is a lot of Covid skepticism here that he could be trying to appeal to, but the skepticism here is about lockdowns and the political handling of Covid, which is only his point 1. Everyone here (minus the lizardman constant) thinks vaccines work.
Jiro
12d ago
You may be aware of tariff shenanigans like coating sneakers in a layer of felt so that they count as slippers, adding flimsy temporary seats to cargo vans so that they count as passenger vans
Couldn't that be stopped with some language such as "products are classified based on their primary use"? If most people remove the felt or the seats, they then wouldn't count.
Jiro
12d ago
the foundation’s often bewilderingly destructive actions result from its complete faith in the superiority of liberal technocratic expertise to engineer a more perfect society from the top down.
Isn't wanting to engineer a perfect society from the top down, basically a Marxoid cabal by definition?
C'mon. Where's your source for this? (Notice that the word "only" does not appear above. Also note that "doesn't count as intercourse" doesn't mean "doesn't count as rape".)
More options
Context Copy link