His thoughts seem to be that they share almost no characteristics, no philosophical underpinnings, and that there seems to be no direct path from the one to the other.
What do you think a discussing of “proto-X” is going to look like, if not comparing it to other things looking for similarities and possible links?
Not before time.
His life has been too long, and his reign not short enough.
Sure, but that’s not a service weapon.
Because the US Army is planning to deliver parts and ammo for 70 different custom rifles to all its bases and outposts.
The logistics challenges would be incredible.
people don’t need a guide when using a chat bot that tells them how they should treat and interact with it.
Then why are people always surprised to find out that chat bots will make shit up to answer their questions?
People absolutely need a guide for using a chat bot, because people are idiots.
He may be, but this is a very US centered post.
You know they don’t let us take our guns home, right?
On this, I think we can agree.
Indeed.
Of course, they are doing all the other for you mentioned, too. Morally, even if not legally. IANAL, so I can’t speak with authority.
If words matter, I’m curious to know what definition of “deporting” you are using to claim that what they are doing is not deporting people.
The one does not flow directly from the other. A better world requires some protecting from each other, which means giving up some freedoms. A system of complete and total freedom would not be good for most people.
However, as Franken said, it is important not to give up essential freedoms. What freedoms, exactly, count as “essential” ones? Hard to say. We should have a thread to discuss it.
No, it isn’t.
What does that have to do with my claim?
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but a lot of the trouble in the US was caused by people using their freedom to do terrible things to people, and to set the stage for more of the same.
Provided they don’t touch freedom to not breed, and we don’t put racist ducks in charge, I think that works be the easiest for me to bear.
But I don’t want kids, so it’s not much of a sacrifice.
Chattel slavery is incompatible with liberal democracy. There’s no fuzzy area to debate the point.
I would agree with that. Can you point to where we were discussing liberal democracy?
For any policy authored by the enfranchised majority that impacts the disenfranchised minority, its passage and execution is categorically and indisputably undemocratic.
So no laws involving children or immigrants, then?
You’re doing exactly what I’m arguing against. You’re attributing a bunch of other qualities to “democracy,” and demanding that they be treated as part of the actual definition.
I think we are done here. You’re arguing against things I’m not writing.
One-Person, One-Vote is the generally recognized answer.
Yes, that is the general answer for who gets to vote. But as I describe, that doesn’t guarantee fair.
To get what we think democracy means, we need as fair system, (who gets to vote) and a fair election. (votes counted properly)
But you’re missing my point. I’m not arguing that a restricted voter population is a good thing. I’m arguing that it’s still a democracy, provided it meets certain qualifications. I’m arguing that words have meanings, and that we shouldn’t be letting 1960 anti-red patriotism trick is into thinking that “democracy” means anything more than leaders appointed by voting.
A bad democracy is still a democracy. An unfair democracy is still a democracy. A corrupt democracy may be a democracy, depending on the nature of the corruption.
And the Wright Flyer was an airplane.
Carefully trimmed sticker?
EDIT: Ah, I see you’ve handled it. Carry on, then.
Should be possible to just not plug them in.
But I have no idea why they are there in the first place.
So you don’t want our opinions, do you? You just want people to agree with you.