Cethin

Also, if you’re cooking at too high of a temperature it’ll stick. It’ll burn the very outer layer and stick the the pan.

I got the warning yesterday and then nothing happened. They just threatened me and then didn’t follow through.

I might be weird, but I like the look of a full but chaotic bookshelf.

Many others celebrated though, especially at Sauron’s.

Presumably this means sapient, as in the thing humans have but other animals don’t (the term sentient is often misused to mean sapient). In which case, no. Most brains are not sapient. Only humans are as far as we’re aware currently, but definitely not ants and other insects that far outnumber us.

I just meant a company trusted a bogus phising claim and took down a legitimate site. Yeah, they’re a little different though.

Didn’t this exact thing just happen to itch.io?

True, but I’d rather the fear of doing something not stop us from doing anything.

The point is that the rich have purchased a system that protects them. If they’re scared that people are resorting to other methods, because the system won’t go after them, then they can choose to fix the system so people actually see results without murder. As long as they feel safe and cozy, they have no incentive to fix the system they rigged.

Anyone who knows anything about cooking does. The acidity cuts through all the fatty cheese, and it also pairs great with salty meats. It’s only people ignorant of good cooking techniques who say it shouldn’t be done.

Personally though, I don’t care for pineapple that much. It’s too sweet for me. Nothing against it on pizza in particular, just the fruit itself. Still, on a salty pizza, it’s pretty good.

The shooter seems fairly smart and like they wanted to get away with it. You don’t buy an expensive recognizable backpack if that’s the case. You buy a cheap generic fabric one, ideally second hand for cash. You also have extra clothes and fabric bags in there to swap out as you escape. That’s almost certainly why it’s so large.

I’m fairly confident all of those are wrong. The backpack of the shooter doesn’t have the black bits.

Shooter’s bag looks like 100% fabric (so he can swap it later or ditch/destroy it). If I were him, it’d be a fairly cheap large fabric bag, with a few changes if clothes and extra backpacks inside. Get on a long-distance bus, change in the bathroom, get off before your stop and do this a few more times.

Also, buy everything from a thrift store. It’d save money and cover your tracks.

It was not written poorly on purpose. It was just written poorly. I’d argue it’s pretty obvious when observing historical context. Militias were how nations defended themselves largely, and it’s how the US did. The second amendment was in order to allow for this to be true. If this weren’t the case, why would the even include the first half? They would just say “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” At best, the amendment implies gun ownership should be seen as part of being a part of a well regulated militia, not primarily for personal use.

However, historical context of gun ownership is important. That’s where the 9th amendment (my favorite and probably the most important, though underused) comes in.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The right of personal gun ownership has been historically held by the people, so there needs to be good arguments to limit it. I think these arguments exist.

Exactly. That seems to be the only reasonable way to read it to me. I don’t know why it’s never been contested on this premise in court.

No, it wasn’t. That’s bullshit the Republicans made up to justify it still applying. It’s about defending the nation from attackers. At the time of writing, militias were the common way militaries were formed for most nations. Only the most prosperous had standing professional armies. The brand new US was not expecting this, so militias were seen as the only way to defend itself. This is no longer true, so the second amendment, which bases itself on this premise, is not valid.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I still defend people having the right to own firearms, but I also support restrictions. People should have to be trained in it’s safe operation, maintenance, and storage, for example. They should also have to prove they have a safe place to store it. There are a lot of ways we can still protect people and allow for firearm ownership and usage.

My assumption is that the comment was making a joke to just ignore this face because it isn’t real. I assume they know it is, it’s just an excuse to not pay attention if you see someone who looks like this.

This singular one will not. As sad as it is, it has to become more expected for them to fear it. Terrorism isn’t good, but it can be used to do good.

As the other comment says, the story is almost never about taking back the wealth. It’s about stopping them from doing more harm. The people don’t celebrate because they can take their wealth back. They celebrate because they’re no longer being murdered by a horrible monster.

With this said, someone will take his place. If you slay enough dragons the dragons will start to worry about if they’re next though. They’ll hopefully try to fix the system that they broke so they will be honestly tried for their crimes instead of murdered.

I agree with everything in your comment, except for this:

To murder a person is to take their internal and external value, and to break their dignity. This is something which is not compatible with my consciousness.

The issue is the justice system has been perverted to protect these people. There is no legal avenue to stop this person from doing harm. This leaves only extra-legal options (namely murder, though maybe there’s other options but I don’t know what that’d be). In my ideal world, murder wouldn’t be necessary ever. We don’t live in that world though. Murder that is done to save lives is a positive in my opinion.

Its the trolley problem. There’s an uncountable number of different versions of them (some with babies, some with murderers, some with millions of people, etc.), but they effectively all center around when you think killing is acceptable. Different people will have different lines, but almost always everyone will agree there is some point where at least one person’s death is an acceptable outcome that they’d take part in.

terrible actions, has committed countless crimes. But his actions don’t determine his worth as a human.

Alright, I’m confused with this take. What does determine the worth of a human? I would argue it’s only their actions that do, as that’s the only thing that has an effect on the world. Whether he believes he’s doing good or evil doesn’t really matter if he is actually doing evil.

Value is pretty much required to be something that can be measured. You can’t measure all possible futures. You can measure what they’ve chosen to act on. I don’t really care if Hitler was mislead into believing Jews were evil and could have been a better person. I care that he chose to do immense harm to innocent people. It would have been better had he been murdered earlier, regardless of if there was a chance you could convince him with a really good argument or whatever.

Sure, I hope everyone improves and it’s a shame when people die, but when someone is actively choosing to remove that choice from others, their value is less than that of everyone else.