AfterEpictetus
6mo ago
The press and political opponents can always twist whatever they want however they want. But by responding straightforwardly and honestly, one can at least claim to hold principles instead of having to admit that they're calculating tribalists who make decisions based on tribal allegiances rather than principles.
They would have a much better argument for not taking the bait of they hadn't spent the last decade falling for everything Donald Trump, bait personified, did.
AfterEpictetus
9mo ago
Unless you are descended from unbroken line of scholars (it there ever was such thing in the West), your ancestors were not studying works of Saint Thomas, your ancestors were doing rituals to protect themselves from elves, goblins and leprechauns and were venerating saintly dog to help their sick children.
I wonder how disconnected these really are. Stirner claims the death in belief of ghosts (but goblins/leprechauns/etc will do well enough) caused the mortal wound to the foundation of religion as a whole.
When you don't have this, the primary way normal pre-moderns interacted with the supernatural is lost, and intellectual religious writings have nothing to rest on.
AfterEpictetus
11mo ago
U.S. employers are usually required to confirm US citizenship or legal residency and work authorization before hiring someone
Is that true for state/city governments? I'm reaching back a lot here, but I thought a lot of the laws the government uses here required the torturing of the commerce clause that was common between ~1940-2000 and didn't apply to government agencies themselves.
Of course, plenty of government positions do background checks for their own reasons, but I thought there was a big difference in this particular case.
I mean, these are legal documents. Generally speaking, any difference in phrasing tends to imply a difference in meaning. Otherwise law writers would use the same phrasing
More options
Context Copy link