It’s a joke, but that shit was serious. Imagine a squad of heavily armed men showing up and demanding to sleep in your house, eat your food, and potentially steal your things and sexually assault you or your family members. And if you refuse or resist, they will still do all of those things but assault or kill you.
That’s how this worked in Europe for much of history and for America.
They can also curl their bodies up, which makes complete sense, but when I caught one as a kid I was NOT expecting them to be able to do that as I’d only ever seen them straightened out. I think it tried to bite, but I freaked out and immediately let go.
Ah yes… Western civilization. As pioneered by the famously heterosexual ancient Greeks.
Yeah, extradition will never happen because of this. But in any just world it would.
Munch McCornhole
deleted by creator
…
…Be yourself
… Everyone is welcome
…
.You belong here
…We value all voices
…Your story matters
…
…You deserve support
…You are valued
…
… Choose kindness
…Respect is for everyone
…It’s okay to ask for help
…You matter
…Everyone is welcome
…
(Meta joke about how NTs expect ND people to “just know” about social rules, but ND people have a hard time understanding these unspoken social rules as we have to work much harder than NT people to learn and abide by them to appease sensibilities of NT people.)
Oh wow sure enough. Huh. Well nice job leviticus. Then the only question is if that applies to dead animals, too, but I’d think it’s safe to assume it does. And if the “new covenant” means Christians can ignore that part or not.
Is it morally wrong? I think it’s extremely gross, but it isn’t harming anyone. I think if we are going to say it’s morally wrong, it’d have to be because of the rights an animal has in death to its corpse not being desecrated - but we have no problem with mutilating and eating animal corpses, so this only differs in terms of its disgustingness and depravity.
I actually don’t think the bible has a compelling stance on this subject. The only relevant things the bible had to say that I can think of are that sex is restricted to marriage and the stuff about not spilling seed. So… the reason a Christian couldn’t have sex with roadkill is because they aren’t married to it or because it can’t get pregnant? That’s a pretty weak argument. And if there isn’t anything else in the Bible about it… then we’re left with soemthing like “necrophilic beastiality is gross” - which, while true, is not a strong moral claim and not something Jesus is recorded as having said, believe it or not.
Too frequently people conflate feelings of disgust with proof of unethical/immoral behavior - in this case it happens to work because the act in question is extremely repugnant, but it’s also similar to how religious people justify all sorts of bad actions and bigotry even when their own religious dogma is silent or unclear on the morality of specific things.
It is a normal human impulse to want horrible and disgusting things like this to be immoral, but we do need actual, consistent reasons that make sense if we are going to call something immoral.
Secular ethics are better able to handle this because they can easily include things like animal rights extending beyond death - or we can be comfortable saying this is a disgusting and depraved act, worthy of punishment even, that doesn’t have moral weight due to the lack of harm or rights violations (if we say animals don’t have rights to dignity in death).
My theory is that technology provides cognitive shortcuts/a way to offload cognitive labor.
If you learn the basics without technology, you have to have fundamental understanding and skills.
If you start with technological assistance right away, you may never build that fundamental level of understanding and skill.
The more the tech does for you, the worse it is. You may never learn critical thinking, problem solving, memory, or concentration skills if the answers are just handed to you.
Oh nice. I had looked on opensecrets and it showed a fair bit, but that must have been from a while back then. https://www.opensecrets.org/profiles/ro-khanna/us_congress/summary
I don’t agree with all his positions, and he does take a lot of money from big tech, but his heart is absolutely in the right place. He is a real public servant.
Seems maybe to come originally from some guy’s interpretation of an Arab interpretation of the passage, which replaces water with milk but equates the blood part to “blood of the covenant”:
H.C. Trumbull contrasts the expression with a comparison of blood and milk in the Arab world:
We, in the West, are accustomed to say that “blood is thicker than water”; but the Arabs have the idea that blood is thicker than milk, than a mother’s milk. With them, any two children nourished at the same breast are called “milk-brothers,” or “sucking brothers”; and the tie between such is very strong. […] But the Arabs hold that brothers in the covenant of blood are closer than brothers at a common breast; that those who have tasted each other’s blood are in a surer covenant than those who have tasted the same milk together; that “blood-lickers,” as the blood-brothers are sometimes called, are more truly one than “milk-brothers,” or “sucking brothers”; that, indeed, blood is thicker than milk, as well as thicker than water.[16]
(From the Other Interpretations section)
Yeah that’s the issue. There’s no reprecussions because of the religious and “we don’t want to ruin a young man’s life” reasoning.
They also punish women for reporting, basically. There’s a strict mormon “honor code” that all students have to abide by. So if you are raped, but had a drink or were in a man’s dorm then sorry those are not allowed - and you’re admitting to those while we still have to investigate the rape allegations, so we’ll punish you for your infractions while we determine of you’re lying about the rape.
So, it’s an open secret that there is a lot of sexual assault there and it goes unreported and there are essentially no consequences for men.
If this was a study of BYU students, given the rate of sexual assault on that campus specifically, this would check out extra hard.
Edit: looks like the study was based on pictures of locations from BYU and some other local universities, so I’d bet it has a sample heavily drawn from BYU undergraduates. Not that this isn’t true for women everywhere, just saying fuck BYU in particular
Question: why would this be illegal? Is there some risk I am unaware of?
I wonder then if other sorts of vagus nerve stimulation are effective. Because you can stimulate your vagus nerve with deep breathing, Valsalva maneuver, and lots of other things.
What do we want? No assholes! When do we want them? We don’t!
No JD you have to show her one of charlie kirks possessions mixed into a line up with a bunch of other stuff. Only by picking his thing, being born at the right time, AND having a comically small face can we prove she is the Charlie Lama.