You asked for an explanation since you obviously didn’t understand the argument you were making.
I understand that it was rhetorical, since you thought you knew what you were talking about. But I thought, if you are already asking so nicely, maybe you’ll learn something from it.
Looks like not only do you not know what you are talking about, but you are also resistant to learning.
That is not true. The first and second commandment together are monotheism.
- I am the Lord thy God
- Thou shalt have no other gods before me
The first one only specifies that “I” is your God, not specifically forbidding other Gods, and only the second one then forbids other Gods.
If the first one should be interpreted as “I am the Lord thy ONLY God”, then the second commandment would be redundant.
Let’s put it into math instead:
Let S1 be the set of people who voted for Biden. Let S2 be the set of people who voted for Trump’s second term.
S1 ∩ S2 ≠ {}
If that’s not helpful, let’s try code:
s1 = getPeopleWhoVotedForBiden()
s2 = getPeopleWhoVotedForTrumpsSecondTerm()
if (x for x in s1 if x in s2 > 0):
print("There are more than enough people qualifying for for what I said")
And lastly, to reformulate the sentence:
There are lots of people who in 2020 voted for Biden and in 2024 voted for Trump.
Me neither. It’s crazy.
What are you going to do? Use your semi-automatic peashooter against modern tanks?
Sure. Because military bases with big guns certainly don’t have the ability to use said big guns.
… says the armchair porkbelly revolutionary.
How many revolutions did you fight in, mighty keyboard warlord?
On the home turf, yes it does. Also, the US only committed a fraction of their military power in these wars. Do you think the same would happen when the war zone was the US itself?
Lemmy also doesn’t make that easy, since it’s not like e.g. Reddit or the phpBB forums of old, where everyone moderates on their own turf only, but each instance has to essentially moderate all other communities on all other instances too.
That’s what you get if you believe that laws written a quarter millenium ago are still some kind of holy infallable scripture.
Weapons have changed enormously since then and so has every part of society.
Back when the 2nd ammendment was written, the average weapon of the military and of private citizens would be about the same: front-loaded, single-shot gun. Soldiers had very low standards of training and militias still formed the backbone of the military.
It’s totally possible for a large amount of private citizens to stand a decent chance against the military.
Nowadays a private citizen would have some kind of gun, while the military has tanks, planes, missiles and aircraft carriers. Even if half the country would take up arms, they’d stand no chance against the US military, which makes the whole point of “resisting unlawful government” moot.
You might not. Finance and wikipedia does.
To be honest, it’s a wrong argument anyways. The cyclist was aware of the pedestrian on the bike lane and he stopped in time. So the whole argument doesn’t matter.
The actual point is whether the pedestrian was in the right to wander onto the bike lane, completely oblivious to his surroundings.
There’s a reason many big corporations have pulled out of online advertisment and focus on print/radio/TV/sponsorships instead: The effectiveness of online advertisment can be measured and it sucks royally.
The whole concept of marketing is just a huge game of “the emperor’s new clothes”. Nobody wants to be blamed if they stop doing marketing and it turns out to actually do have an effect, even if everyone secretly knows it’s garbage.
I know MMP, I live in Austria, you know, right next to Germany, and my wife’s from there. MMP is something different than instant runoff, because it’s primarily a proportional voting system with a ranked choice component tacked onto it.
What I meant is that having 5 candidates decided by ranked choice without the proportional part of MMP hardly helps, especially if these candidates just feed into an otherwise winner-takes-it-all system.
Totally on your side with your arguments, just wanted to add what annoys me most with these obstacles on bike lanes.
Some of them are ok, but none of them would make a list of “best board games”.
So it was a bike lane that you were on. Being to dumb to understand what a bike lane is and that a bike lane is for, you know, bikes is not an excuse.
You complain about that dude’s reaction but wanted to commit theft/vandalism and think you are justified in that?
You are the idiot who actively made riding a bike dangerous in that situation and still believe you are justified?
Let me guess, you are American?
The whole concept of “being at fault” only applies to accidents. If you see someone breaking the law (e.g. walking across the road where it’s not allowed) and you then purposely ram them with your vehicle, then it’s not an accident and of course you are at fault then. If someone else breaks the law you would have to be an utter idiot to think that this gives you the right to legally murder that person.
I repeat: you’d have to be seriously braindead and messed up to belive that you can legally kill someone over a minor traffic violation.
If it’s an actual accident though, e.g. if the pedestrian darts out between parked cars so fast that the driver can’t stop in time, then it’s clearly the pedestrian’s fault (even in France) and the driver will not get in trouble.
Again, all of that is super basic.
A bike lane is not ambiguous. If you don’t inform yourself of laws and customs in a country you travel to, then it’s still your fault if you are too ignorant to understand basic traffic situations, and neither does ignorance excuse you from following the law nor does it make your wrong actions and lawbreaking right, nor does it give you any moral high ground.
Idiots never learn if they are never told what they did wrong.