Go to Wendy’s
You would prefer that animals are raised in horrendous conditions without ever seeing sunlight only to be slaughtered over shooting an animal that has grown up in it’s natural habitat?
Like, vegetarians I can get, because they argue that we shouldn’t be eating meat at all. Arguing that industrial farming is better for animal welfare than hunting is just absurd though.
It’s not the norm to publish alone, but it’s not really uncommon either. Peer review is conducted when you publish, regardless of how many authors are listed on the article. The reviewers are typically selected by the journal, and are anonymous to the person submitting the paper.
In general, I don’t think it’s right to lie down flat whenever someone accuses you of saying something wrong, just because they think it was wrong.
It should be pretty fair to respond with a simple “why is that sexist? I think wet clothes are uncomfortable, so I assumed others did as well.”
Define “good”. I would say that any professional with dozens of hours of training, that could comfortably overcome any average person is “good”. Those are the people I trained with, and my impression is that Keanu is better than most of them.
IIRC, Keanu did some extensive firearms training in connection with John Wick. I’ve seen some footage of him on a training set with mobile targets, and would estimate that he’s better at handling a wide variety of firearms than a fair portion of military personnel are before the first time they see combat. This estimate is based on my own military training on similar courses.
I know the movies are choreographed, but I definitely wouldn’t give someone without extensive training good odds against him, based on footage I’ve seen from his training.
If you make any edits that contradict the physical evidence, you’ve outed yourself.
We’re talking about people that contradict both themselves and physical reality on a daily basis without their supporters batting an eye.
Export to jpeg. Compress.
Can decent edits still be reliably detected?
I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here?
My point is that, while flimsy and flawed, there was in fact an education system and a humanitarian system in place that was propped up by coalition forces. This system did fall apart, leaving no system at all when the forces left. And yes, a bunch of Afghanis have every right to feel betrayed. I never said otherwise.
It’s not like Afghanistan is the only place where schools, hospitals and infrastructure has been financed by western countries. By and large, we spend a lot of money on these things because a significant portion of the population sees it as the right thing to do. Because we care, and want to help people.
What became very clear in Afghanistan was that you can’t force a population to be a liberal democracy. They have to be willing to fight for it themselves. The Afghan army (on paper) had several hundred thousand men, loads of heavy equipment, and several years to train and prepare for coalition forces leaving. There was a government structure in place. These things instantly folded when the coalition left because, clearly, enough people preferred Taliban to what the outsiders had forced upon them.
I guess I’m saying it’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. If you stay, you’re an oppressive occupier. If you leave, you’re a traitor that permits a humanitarian crisis to occur.
The OP here asked “why doesn’t anybody do anything about NK”, and my answer is that we (seem to) have learned that you can’t force democracy and human rights on a country. Chalking it up to “we don’t care” is reductionist.
It didn’t go to shit when we left, it was shit from the beginning.
It seems like you didn’t observe the thousands of people swarming the airport in Kabul trying to get out with the last planes. It also seems like you haven’t picked up on the people crying about how people are being brutally punished for getting an education or listening to music now.
I’m not denying that shit was really bad while coalition forces were there, but acting like it didn’t get worse for a lot of people when the left is just closing your eyes.
Regardless, it’s ludicrous to claim that western countries “aren’t doing anything because they don’t care”. It’s not like we’ve spent truckloads of money and thousands of lives over 20 years of trying to get a functioning system in place while preventing a humanitarian crisis because we “didn’t care”. People saw it as immoral to just turn our backs on Afghanistan and let them solve their own problems. The result was largely that we learned that you can’t force democracy and human rights onto someone else, as proven by the almost complete absence of people willing to fight for just that once the coalition left.
It’s not that people “don’t care”. We’ve tried intervening with force in e.g. Afghanistan, where the oppressive regime was forcibly removed, and military power was used to ensure that elections were held and the results were respected.
We have observed, several times, that everything goes to shit when we leave. Not only that, but people generally don’t seem like it when outsiders take over and tell them how to run their country, who should be allowed an education, and that <insert group> cannot be oppressed. So a side effect of the armed intervention is that a lot more people hate you now.
Western countries “aren’t doing anything” because we’ve both learned from experience that military intervention doesn’t really work, and been repeatedly told by the rest of the world to mind our own business.
I always assumed this was a parody account because of this post. Recent developments suggest otherwise. Is this guy, in fact, not a parody?
He had the important (and, admittedly unrealistic) important capability of recognising that someone was smarter than himself.
I honestly think this is the major plot hole in Idiocracy: The first thing to go would be peoples ability to recognise expertise. Thus, nobody would be willing or able to recognise that a stranger knew how to solve a problem they had no clue how to deal with. This is the real-world Idiocracy we’re seeing today.
There are no “accidents” with firearms, there can only be negligence.
Look, I’ve been in the army, I know firearm safety, and I strongly disagree. People can slip and fall, or inexplicably fumble and drop stuff. People with no history of it can suddenly have seizures or heart failure that causes them to seize up or collapse. None of these are common, but all can occur. If you happen to be carrying a loaded firearm when it happens, that firearm can go off. Even if you have the safety in place. Shit can malfunction.
Regardless, if I get shot, the question of whether it was intentional, an accident, or due to negligence is really a secondary matter. The primary issue is that I just got shot, and that can have irreversible consequences.
My point is that if I happen to get shot, I really don’t care how statistically unlikely it was to happen in the way it did. The most effective way to prevent firearm injuries/deaths is to keep firearms away from people that don’t strictly need them.
The issue I see with the logic that “Everyone should have the right to carry a gun everywhere, until their negligence causes harm” is the massive consequence of someone messing up with a gun.
Guns are so extremely lethal that when accidents happen (they will eventually happen), it is likely to result in death or disability. It seems pretty clear to me that society overall is safer for everyone the fewer guns there are around. It doesn’t really matter if the person that shot me due to negligence loses their license, I’ve already been shot, and they shouldn’t have had a gun in the first place.
Knives and guns aren’t at all comparable weapons. One allows the user to quickly kill multiple people at ranges up to several hundred meters, the other gives the user a significant advantage (edge) in melee combat against an unarmed/unarmoured opponent.
I have three stores within 200 m, one of which is open 24/7, another of which has a massive selection in fresh cheese, meats, fish, and baking goods.
Sorry, but I was in the US last summer, and I really feel bad for you guys regarding the whole food and walk-/bikeability situation.
You can pay someone to vote a specific way, but with the current system, there doesn’t exist a way for you to verify that they actually voted how you told them to.
The problem with any kind of system like this is that if you can verify your own vote, then someone else could always force you to show them that verification.
In my personal experience, this is pretty much the norm. Women can have just as much sex drive as men, and can express it just as “aggressively”. In every relationship I’ve had, there are times where I’ll initiate, times where she’ll initiate, and times where we’ll both look at each other with a “Yes. Right now.” look. Note that I’ve never been into any BDSM or other “exciting” kink stuff, I’m just talking about initiative and passionately expressing that “I want you” feeling.
Of course, this is a side of women you won’t see until you get with someone that both wants you and feels comfortable enough you to express it.
So long story short: What you’re looking for is pretty much the norm as far as I can tell.