domain:nature.com
hydroacetylene
2m ago
It seems like the Ukraine invasion is mostly an analogue to the Iraq war from Russia’s perspective, not the USA’s.
hydroacetylene
4m ago
I don’t think you can blame this on the naivety of republicans because it was an elite stratum doing the invading.
Consider for example a surgery that ends up lethal: what distinguishes accident from murder, and bad luck from negligence? What is the sin of gluttony, if knowing that youre satiated makes no difference?
I think you are saying intent matters. Intent does matter (edit: and i think I made that clear in the above comment when I talked about the subject knowing that they were likely/unlikely to get pregnant that day, and my comparisons were to other situations where it was possible/impossible to be pregnant). Someone having sex when not fertile intends to have sexual intercourse. Someone not having sex while fertile intends to avoid pregnancy by avoiding sex - the most normal way to avoid pregnancy imaginable.
I think there is a conflation between sexual intercourse and the possible results of sexual intercourse - or conception. Sexual intercourse is the ejaculation of a penis in a vagina. A lot of its moral significance comes from what sexual intercourse can do - it can make a new human life. But sexual intercourse is not in itself the making of a new life.
Sexual intercourse between two married people is morally allowed (and considered a fairly good thing) in Catholicism, even if it does not lead to conception. Intending to avoid making a new child is also morally allowed, in the sense that you can choose not to have sex.
You could similarly break the pulling out method down into steps, each of which "surely is allowed": 1) having sex is allowed under the right conditions 2) youre not obligated to keep the penis inside the whole time 3) if you just happen to ejaculate while its outside, thats an involuntary reaction. This assumes you can do it without jerking once outside, but thats possible and I doubt its supposed to make a difference.
- Correct
- Correct
- Correct, if it is truly an accident. I can go further and say that oral sex can accidentally lead to premature ejaculation and that isn't considered a sin if it is truly an accident - but you do have to take it into account the next time you try that kind of foreplay.
(Edit to add: the reason why this would be wrong is not that there is no likelihood of pregnancy, but because it's not sexual intercourse.)
the selling point of natural family planning is that it doesnt feel like technology.
Perhaps to secular people - but then there are so many smart devices now that will do it for you. To Catholics, the selling point is that you are avoiding having a child by avoiding having sex, which is the most normal way to avoid conception imaginable.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
18m ago
As @ToaKraka notes, 13/52 refers to the extremely disproportionate percentage of homicides committed by black people (13% of the population, 52% of the homicides). The US (and the pre-US colonies) already engaged in mass importation of high time preference demographics (I'll reserve judgement on the second part); they've been around as long as most of the white people have, and so deporting them is not possible.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
22m ago
It's a euphemism.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
30m ago
I agree that banning it is hard, and probably impossible to completely stamp out, given it's current prevalence, but I think it's easier to target a specific plant, than literally all sources of sugar, water, and yeast.
jkf
38m ago
What am I missing?
That marijuana is even than this! People are growing it illegally right now!
functor
39m ago
NATO will inherit the rump state of what is left of Ukraine which is the part without the mines and the good agricultural land.
jkf
39m ago
You will be surprised to learn that people have been growing pot illegally for a long time -- you used to be able to buy seeds mail-order; I imagine you can get them on the internet these days without needing to go particularly dark. Or you get them from your pot growing friends. What I'm trying to say here is that the potency of marijuana doesn't depend as much as you seem to think on the strain.
hanikrummihundursvin
45m ago
I dunno dude, the idea of thinking of a wife as like some kind of utility calculation around chore maxxing or whatever seems like the kind of thing that deranges radical feminists.
That's not what is being done by me to any greater extent than it was being done by the person I replied to.
I'm not interested in your selective disagreement with me. Marriage in this thread was leveraged in two contexts, a material function one, i.e. you wife can do things like organizing, doing housework etc, and an emotional function, i.e. you love them, they are your soulmate etc.
My point was that Bezos, on account of being a billionaire, does not need a wife for material function. So leveraging the utilitarian functions of marriage in support of an argument that marriage is beneficial to Bezos is asinine. I'd even argue that such a thing would be stupid. He probably has more than one giant house. Do we expect the wife to clean all of that? Of course not. Same for organizing big social gatherings. Hell, why even bother to cook when you can have a learned chef cook for you? It just doesn't make any sense.
For the emotional function, you don't need marriage to love a person or spend your life with them.
As for your definition of marriage, I'd argue that the only coherent view of marriage is when two persons want to start a family together. Marriage is a contract, Both a legal and not, between two people who a binding themselves for the ultimate task procreating. It can be because two people feel a very special connection and want to be with one another forever and start a family. It can also be because two people who don't really know one another all that much were pushed together because of necessity, and everything in between. Marriage is important and sacred all the same as a starting point for procreation.
To contrast this with your view, you can pay an assistant to functionally have undying loyalty through sickness and health, and you can marry a person who doesn't have that. I'm sure you have an enviable marriage, but I'm not sure if you leveraging that is conducive to a coherent argument.
aceventura
51m ago
History is broader than the last 70 years.
Barfknuckle
55m ago
Yeah, and? That isn't what he's being criticized for here, so what relation does it have to my post? Were you just itching to drop that hot take about how adultery is bad and couldn't be bothered to post it anywhere relevant?
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
Sort of to repeat my question... where did you legally get those seeds? What potency are you expecting this product to have? Why do you reasonably expect said potency from those seeds?
Botond173
1hr ago
What actually compelled the emperor to surrender unconditionally was the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo, coincidentally on the same day as the bombing of Nagasaki. This had two consequences: the possibility of negotiating a conditional surrender with Soviet mediation, which was the last hope the militarists were clinging to (as the USSR was the last remaining great power still neutral in the Pacific war), was obviously nil from that point; and that whatever remaining military units stationed in Manchukuo that they were planning to deploy es reinforcements against the final US invasion were going to be destroyed.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
1hr ago
· Edited 47m ago
kidnapped the inhabitants' children for purposes of forced Russification
Does this narrative of cartoonish supervillainy, which so obviously maximises pushing Western buttons while having dubious practicality (for starters, the complete disinterest and dysfunctionality in the (post-)Soviet space as far as upbringing of orphans is concerned is a matter of lore), not trigger the slightest bit of skepticism?
As far as I can tell, the real core of this story is that children that were found orphaned in Russian-captured territory were put in the Russian orphanage system, which seems like a normal thing to do. Can you think of any example of a war of conquest (e.g. the Franco-German wars over Alsace-Lorraine) where the conqueror also surrendered orphaned children from territories it captured to the target country, and if not, would you consider those wars genocidal as well?
It's obvious that Ukraine's preference, if they must lose the territories, is to have all of the population transferred to the territories they control - that is, what they really want is for Russia to commit ethnic cleansing, and they are incentivised to frame any failure to do so as genocide. At some point, though, this framing just starts turning all these "war crimes" into a military necessity - if Russia per the implicit Ukrainian argument can't fulfill its war goal of removing Ukraine's ability to serve as a NATO outpost without either committing ethnic cleansing or genocide as defined by the Ukrainians, then how can they be persuaded to not choose at least one?
Putin has repeatedly said that his goals in invading Ukraine include (...) forced Russification of the inhabitants
Source? The search results I get with this claim usually link it with an intent to issue Russian passports to the inhabitants. Is making people of a conquered territory citizens of your country genocidal? This would, again, make a lot of other wars into genocides, such as the Franco-Prussian one or everything in the Yugoslavian wars including NATO's Kosovo (Ethnic Serbians on the territory of Kosovo were issued Kosovan passports), and also make Georgia's intent to assert its authority over South Ossetia and Abkhazia (which presumably involves issuing Georgian passports to all the people of other ethnicities who live there) look rather so. In fact, if this is the standard, Azerbaijan's capture of Nagorno-Karabakh is starting to look like the least genocidal of all the US-approved conquests, since they just expelled all of the inhabitants rather than villainously issuing them Azerbaijani citizenship.
(I am not even going to address the implicit assumption that all citizens/residents of Ukraine are of Ukrainian ethnicity, which presupposes that a genocide/assimilation happened there in the past)
walruz
1hr ago
Not to mention that NATO is inheriting a basket case nation that makes nation building in Afghanistan look like a cake walk.
The odds of Russia folding completely and needing NATO occupation as a result of their invasion of Ukraine seems extremely low.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1hr ago
Does your municipality not do dog licenses? I thought they were common everywhere.
Following up on Rear Window, I watched The Birds (1963) yesterday. Apparently Netflix licensed a bunch of Alfred Hitchcock movies; good to know.
Some thoughts:
- We never find out why the birds are attacking, though the trailer implies they are rebelling against human abuse.
- You know how modern horror movies will make you spend twenty minutes with jerks before the monster shows up and starts fucking people up? This movie takes a whole hour for the first major bird attack to take place; that's half of its runtime!
- FMC is adventurous, perhaps a little too much so; lying at the drop of a hat, breaking into LI's home for a prank, etc.
- The shot of the lovebirds leaning with the car turns was amusing.
- LI's jaw could cut diamonds.
- Smoker culture is prevalent, with people offering strangers cigarettes as they would a glass of water.
- Phone calls are expensive enough that FMC offers to pay for them, but cheap enough that the postmaster eats the cost.
- Special effects are a little dated; it's very easy to tell that the actors are in one layer and the birds in another.
- Scariest part of the movie? The post office with a sign saying that dog licenses are issued there. "Oi, mate! Ya got a loicense for dat pupper?"
Cirrus
2hr ago
To this very day my boomer Dad recalls those photos of Iraqi women casting votes. That was powerful enough to him to support the war.
self_made_human
C'est la vie
2hr ago
Thank you!
Doesn't seem like the best idea if you have declining fertility because you can't even get your own domestic original stock bloods to reproduce.
You eventually have to make up the deficit with foreigners and it's better to have foreigners with domestic great grandparents than no relation at all.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
3hr ago
As the meme goes, despite making up only 13% of the population, blacks commit 52% of the crimes. But blacks can't be deported.
TowardsPanna
3hr ago
Dissident right? SS is literally a Nazi who thinks the Holocaust was a good thing (insofar he admits it even happened).
It would shock me if Galicia didn’t have mines and good land, and Russia doesn’t want that part.
More options
Context Copy link