Old enough to prefer Driver 2 to Driver 1 because it had better graphics.
Old enough to prefer Driver 2 to Driver 1 because it had better graphics.
Just because it was the dominant religion in Germany at the time doesn’t mean that Nazism equated with religiosity. In fact, Hitler did not like religion being a potential rival to his power. The Nazi doctrine was very humanist, and drew,a lot of influence from science at the time. For example, the survival of the fittest mantra that had been popularized from Darwin’s studies was misappropriated by Nazi as part of their eugenics philosophy…
There were assholes before religion. Putting an emphasis on it being the problem is naive, imo. History is full of secular assholes. I.e. nazis.
There is a really funny South Park episode about this… Bottom line is assholes will be assholes with or without religion, which is just a convenient excuse for assholery.
But someone can make a board complaint if they can demonstrate false statements made by a member of the bar in connection with their representation. Chances are, nothing will happen… But it’s something.
My state’a standardized test says kids are “at risk” if they aren’t in the top 40% of the test. The top 50% could all be traditional “a-b” students. But because they weren’t in the top 80% of a-b students they are at risk for failing academically… It’s so asinine and disheartening. The last half of the year is devoted to this idiotic test. Kids could be learning stuff that will enrich themselves… Instead they are learnig how to take a test better.
Jewish communities are often insular, which leads to an impression of otherness. Orthodox Jews may not frequent non-jewish run restaurants or other businesses due to religious restrictions/ pressure (i.e dietary restrictions). Often, those communities congregate in the same neighborhoods, within walking distance of synagogues and schools (prohibitions against driving on the Sabbath). There is pressure to frequent businesses and professional services of those neighbors. Also, the closer you live to someone, the more likely you are to have a relationship with those people (propinquity), which strengthens community integration. They are a minority religion, with obstacles to new participants joining. They may dress in identifiable ways. Wrap all of that together and you have a group of people that are often easily identified and perhaps perceived as “too good for” my restaurant, or my store or my school…etc… they become easy targets for hate.
Ironically, almost everyone else does the same thing, it’s just less noticable especially in larger cities or towns. But go to any small town, and it’ll be easier to see the similarities. Again people’s relationships are strongly informed by religion and propinquity… But because they are a blue eyed 'merican, who never misses the baptist sermon on sunday, and wouldn’t be caught dead in Pam’s hair salon because word on the street is she might be gay, they are seen as “normal.”
Without a base… Without a trace… Thank you jjgo!
I was raised in the city…shitty…ever since i was an iddy biddy kiddy drinking liquor out my mama’s tiddy.
It’s hard to describe personal politics prior to 2000. It was easy to be a sane conservative in the 80s. There was obviously shady shit going on behind the scenes. But outwardly the conservative movement mostly espoused mainstream thought at the time.
Children of Dune is the only one i have to grin and bear. I love Good Emperor through Chapterhouse better than Messiah and only slightly less than the original.
All Tool albums Lateralus and later.
Your response doesn’t logically respond to my comment. It attempts to reframe the argument by setting up a “strawman,” and shows that you fail to understand (or choosing to ignore because it doesn’t support your new reframed argument) the difference between civil and criminal law in the United States.
It can’t be a crime unless there is a criminal statute that applies. See if you can find one thst applies.
If so, then they are horrible scientists.
You just keep shifting your argument to create some sort of sympathy. I guess. No one says a rich person isn’t a victim. The point is is being a victim as a wealthy and influential woman like Taylor is a lot different than being a victim in a working class context. If you disagree with that, then you’re either being intellectually dishonest or living in a dream world.
Even the law agrees. It’s a lot harder as a celebrity to win a defamation lawsuit than it is being a normal person. You typically have to show actual malice. Frankly, that’s the legal standard that would probably apply to any lawsuit involving the deep fakes anyway.
That’s not their point and you know it. Get your bad faith debating tactics out of here.
She isn’t living “every woman’s nightmare” because a woman without the wealth and influence Taylor has might actually suffer significant consequences. For Taylor, it’s just a weird Tuesday. For an average small town lady, it might mean loss of a job, loss of mate, estrangement from family and friends… That’s a nightmare.
Just because the company making money off of purchasers says it’s good for cats. Doesn’t mean it’s good for cats. Other than one study that relied on surveyed answers from vegan pet owners, I haven’t seen any evidence that a vegan diet is safe for cats.