DaSaw

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Is that Hanford, CA? lol, I remember the drinking water problem there.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (4 children)

I just hope they eventually cast some fully Britishized actor originally out of Hong Kong... one trained in certain things Hong Kong actors are known for. I want a kung fu Doctor. :p

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

From the driver's seat of a semi, Colorado feels like bits and pieces of its neighboring states smooshed together. You got Utahrado, New Mexirado, Wyomirado, and, yes, Nebraskarado, which is probably where the Midwestern Coloradans live. The only part where I really feel like I'm in a distinct state is the high mountain forests that shoot down the middle of the state.

Denver is probably where it is because it's right at the intersection of quite a few of these biomes. I wouldn't be surprised to learn it's been a major trading center for about as long as humans have roamed the continent.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Coastal part is The South. Inland, you get Southwest. Then there's the panhandle, and while I don't know much about what the locals think of it, from the driver's seat of a semi it's indistinguishable from the flatter parts of Oklahoma. (Meanwhile, one of my favorite truck stops is in the hilly part of Oklahoma: the Chocktaw travel center in Stringtown.)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

"Midwest" was once called "West". Like, Ohio was "The West", with "The West" meaning anything west the coastal plain.

Then people went even further west, but they still wanted to call the west of the past "West" so they called it "Middle West".

You kind of see the same thing in Asia. To Europe, Jerusalem was in "The East". Heck, even Constantinople was in "The East?" Then people saw just how much East there was. So... Middle East?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Great Plains and Midwest are almost synonymous.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This seems like a no-brainer to me... though it probably isn't. Obviously you have a constitutional right to sleep, wherever you can make space for yourself. If these cities and downs don't want people sleeping outside, they need to provide indoor space for people who haven't actually committed crimes. We treat our criminals better than we treat our homeless.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Our democracy is a great democracy the way an antique car is a great car: great in its time, but it's time for an upgrade.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago

It's a shame smart people abandoned the Church. Romans makes it clear that Gentile Christians are not to be held to the Law of Moses, but that rather extensive part of Deuteronomy that deals with bodily fluids and rashes and stuff makes it equally clear that, even if we're not meant to follow those exact rules, basic sanitation and disease control is part of the unwritten Law of God. Coupled with the idea that all authority comes from God (not just their particular authority, as this was written at a time when Rome was still ruled by pagans with pretentions of personal godhood), a compelling argument could have been made that staying home, masking up, and getting the vaccine is what Jesus wants you to do.

But there is nobody left who is either able or willing to make that argument.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 8 months ago (3 children)

What's interesting is how this contradicts Deuteronomy. In that, if a man has "a semenal emission", he is unclean, and must depart the camp until nightfall, at which point he must wash himself, his clothes, and his bedding with water, at which point he can re-enter. Deuteronomy basically says you have to leave any time you contact any kind of bodily fluid., with the only exception being the blood of a "clean" (kosher) animal that you know how it died. Roadkill: gotta stay outside until nightfall, and then clean up.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

That's because their chief weapon is surprise... surprise and fear.

Although, and I haven't watched the video, usually when people are singing the praises of the Inquisition, they are usually explicitly not talking about the Spanish Inquisition. Instead, they are talking about the Papal Inquisition, which was a separate institution.

The idea is that, prior to the Papal Inquisition (the professionalization of inquisition), "Heresy" was a charge that was often levied by secular authorities against political enemies, with the "heresy" being a vague charge that could mean anything. The Papacy took that out of their hands, requiring that charges of heresy be investigated and tried by church officials supported by Rome.

Of course, there were definitely problems that the apologists don't talk about. The accused weren't told exactly what they were accused of, nor were they allowed to face their accuser. They are often imprisoned for months with no idea why, expected just to confess to whatever it is they did (which resulted in quite a few unrelated confessions). Torture was often used to extract confessions, and though confessions extracted through torture were not allowed to be used as evidence, they had no problem accepting formal confessions given the following day (based on information gained through torture).

That said, if, not knowing who was accusing, you managed to name your accuser as someone who had beef with you, that was often enough to exonerate you. And if you did confess to heresy, all you had to do was say "I won't do it again", and you were off the hook... the first time. If they had to come back, you were turned over to secular authorities for punishment... and the secular punishment for heresy was burning (on the Continent; in England it was often hanging).

That said, back to the Spanish inquisition, which was a real piece of work, itself. It was under the control of the King, not the Church, and so was just as political as the ad-hoc institutions of the past. And though Jews were officially not under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition (since the Inquisitions mandate was to investigate heresy, and heresy is deviation within a particular religion, not being a totally different religion), Spain had required all their jews to convert or leave, and so Conversos were often targeted for investigation.

 

The Experiment. I'm guessing this has something to do with demonstrating the link between Uryom projections, base forms, hair that continues to grow despite being enchanted, and so on.

 

Holy crap, positive acknowledgement of the continued existence of Lord Tedd in a recent comic! I think it's been, what, a decade?, since the last time anyone brought up Lord Tedd.

 

Makes me think of John Titor.

 

That's a very seventeen year old thing to do: Scour an unsettled area of knowledge utterly convinced you're going to solve it in just a few minutes.

 

lmao, I LOVE those last three panels. And yeah, illusion stretching well beyond the audiovisual realm is one of those things that can drive someone bonkers.

 

This is interesting. I'm guessing it was Tedd's success with the project that ended up with him allowed to keep his access. I really doubt that "technically I brought the tech back, the second unit is his" would fly. Either that or the reason we've never seen Conan Sr. (let's see if I can make that stick) before is that Edward's connections proved more potent than this guy expected... and he was never heard from again.

 

Anybody know who that is spying on Edward and clearly not happy about what he's doing? Is this a new plot point, or am I forgetting something?

 

Edward is discovering the limits of secret keeping. Lavender is right: Tedd will find out eventually, and if there are concerns about his learning certain things, better he learn it in a controlled environment from people he trusts, rather than at random out in the wild. Tedd's reputation in the Uryom community, his mother, all that stuff is out there to jump at him from behind a bush (as his mother's situation did when he was playing with the magic mirror, and as it nearly did when Nanase came face-to-face with one of Noriko's old adversaries).

 

I feel like Crunchyroll used to have it, but I searched for it and couldn't find it. Myanimelist suggested HiDive might have it, but so far as I can tell it doesn't. Does nobody have it any more?

Also, how is Crunchyroll deciding what can be watched with free account and what requires premium? I got an urge to watch some Laid Back Camp, which came out many years ago at this point, and they're requiring premium for that? I went over a year not watching any anime, so I'm kind of out of the loop on the streaming scene.

 

I generally use "anarchist" to describe my political philosophy. I'm pretty sure I'm using it correctly, but I'm not certain. I haven't had much contact with other "anarchists", just a bit of exposure through history and such.

First off, to me, "anarchism" doesn't mean "no government". Rather it means "no intrinsic authority". What I see among historical anarchists is an opposition to practices that, frankly, aren't all that often practiced any more, in the political realm. I'm referring to rule by bloodline and such, nobility and royalty. I get the impression the early anarchists wanted to do away with royal governance, in favor of a federation of voluntary governments instituted at the local level. Which is to say, they believed in government; they just wanted to do away with imposed external authority.

But I do see our current economic relations as having a great deal of externally imposed authority in it... though going into my beliefs about why, and what could be done about it, would be beyond the scope of this essay.

To me, anarchism means the following:

  1. Favoring no unnecessary relationships of authority.

  2. Where authority is necessary, it should be granted by those over whom the authority is exercised, directly and individually, to the greatest extent practicable. So, for example, if we have an economic system that leaves both employers and employees with the same level of market power (we do not, but if we did), the employer-employee relationship would qualify, since it commences by choice of both parties, and can end by the choice of either party.

  3. Where this is impracticable, the authority in question should always be temporary, with a clearly delineated end. For example, the parent-child relationship is necessarily one of authority, since children lack the faculties to make all the decisions one needs to make. But this relationship should be premised on preparing the child to survive outside this relationship, and have a clear end point (the point of their majority). And I mainly include this but just for the parent-child relationship; I can't think of any others.

All this being said, I know there are those for whom Anarchism means "no government", usually detractors who don't actually understand the philosophy... or so I assume. Do I assume incorrectly? Is my use of the term wildly incorrect? I really don't know.

view more: next ›