We’re learning in real time that the ICC and UN are great tools, until they disagree with you, at which point they can be ignored and even threatened.

But, but… Dragging things out forever in court is his only move?

Yes, as the blurb says in the fourth word or so.

Edit: did the math and counted up to the fourth word

Yeah, I’m sure you’re right

Unfortunately I don’t agree.

Good reasons to omit details include brevity, legibility, pedagogy and scope.

Showing the supporting evidence for all steps in an evidence chain is simply not feasible, and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary. And much of the challenge is to be precise enough in the things that need precision.

You’re right to be sceptical until more data is presented, but saying no claim of progress is ever true is quite obviously a gross misrepresentation of our current reality. You are doing this on digital devices interconnected with millions of users ar staggering speed and latency. Every part of which are scientific claims.

There’s a relevant physics anomaly called a Helmholtz resonator, or more broadly waveform interference.

The Ukraine invasion was preceded by drills/exercises close to the Ukraine border. It is a clear escalation, but I’d be surprised if they got more than first strike from it.

When does this raise questions of precedent? Is everyone entitled to 10 violations of a gag order in NYC now?

I’d agree that there are some variation in the European far right. In contrast to Italy, Spain and Russia: German, French, UK, Nordic far right are not restricting abortion, but are doing most of the rest (northern European ones not as much dismantling welfare/healthcare as making it inaccessible to some, especially immigrants, trans, lgbt, etc).

From a European perspective, the US centre-right are more conservative than the European fringe right. The European far right doesn’t (typically) want to restrict abortion, sabotage education or reinstate child labor for example. And are mostly about increasing and militarizing police, disenfranchising minorities, and different schemes to control that only the right people get to vote.

I’d argue that the US centre right is actually as radical, or even more so than the European fringe right, they are certainly causing about the same commotion, but of course have much more power in the US.

The best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago, the second best time is now.

We’re trying to describe the scarcity of something in units of something becoming less scarce every year. ftfy

There are a lot more changes influencing your perception of reality than just sensory development.

I’d agree, but those are enough to clearly demonstrate a mechanism for changed perception in the proposed time span. The underlying question is question begging and whataboutism, so I think I’ve provided an overly generous answer to a dishonest question.

That’s dependent on your consciousness being limited to your physical body. Who’s to say that your consciousness wasn’t limited so a pantheistic deity could interact with itself. Both theories are equally unscientific as you can’t disprove what happens before or after life

As we can reliably affect consciousness though manipulating the body, it’s well established that it’s contingent on the body.

And as we can map consciousness happening in the body down to individual neurons firing, where would a non-corporeal consciousness interact with a body?

You calling these reliably reproducible facts unscientific belies a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

Though naturalism might not be the only way to investigate the universe, we have yet to encounter any reliable other paradigms. And even if we would discover them, naturalism would still be part of science, we’d just add the other paradigms to the areas they’re useful, like we’ve done with psychology, sociology, and even quantum physics.

A difficult question for unfalsifiable hypotheses is that if they’re unfalsifiable, they are also undetectable, and as such no different from figments of imagination. Why should I believe your imagination when my imaginary friend says not to?

I feel different today as my sensory as well as sensory processing organs have developed.

Being dead, just as before being born, I possess no such organs and expect not to “feel”.

But my position isn’t the interesting one, @RadicalEagle suggested something I interpreted as still having perception beyond life, and I was wondering if that excludes having perception before life, and how that ties into their metaphysics.

Is there any reason to feel different after you’ve died than before you were born?

102 times

deleted by creator

Simple, USAmerican

Historically riots, mobs, and terror have been the answer. See the origins of the luddites, saboteurs, the French revolution(s), the socialist movement, etc.