We should be so lucky to have someone on the left in Congress with a political project they believed in so much that they would do something like this.
The issue is that by Senate policy, one person can throw a massive wrench in the process and grind things to a halt. Progressives typically want to do things, which cannot be done by one person throwing a hissy fit.
One of their neighbours has to be erratically throwing their family and stuff into the car, awkwardly saying hey to the main character as they jump in their car and speed off.
To be fair, it’s like playing billiards with a rope for a cue, in 3 dimensions, in zero gravity, with rocks for balls, and a coke can for the white, and the balls are moving.
I’m surprised they even hit it, give them a few years before you start expecting them to do trickshots.
However, a teacher and his class studying the rock have now discovered that since the collision, it has moved in a strange and unexpected way.
By crashing into the smaller asteroid, the Dart mission successfully altered Dimorphos’ orbit by “tens of metres”.
Dart, which stands for Double Asteroid Redirection Test, used a spacecraft around the size of a fridge.
By successfully crashing directly into Dimorphos, Nasa was testing if it could use similar methods to knock an asteroid off course, if one is in danger of hitting the Earth.
After discovering the unusual behaviour of Dimorphos, it’s likely that Nasa will have to factor in the high school’s findings, if they ever launch another asteroid redirection mission in the future.
The European Space Agency is launching a mission called Hera, which will arrive at Dimorphos in 2026 and could reveal more details as to what happened to the asteroid following the impact.
The original article contains 360 words, the summary contains 152 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I don’t understand how it is more ethical to create an embryo from a stem cell than to create one from a sperm and egg. Both are viable, neither is a person. How are they different?
(Keeping the stem cell version in vitro past the the age when it would need to implant isn’t really a solution/distinction because we can do the same thing with a sperm-and-egg version.)
I’m not an expert in maritime law, or any law for that matter, but why they had to help him?
If he wanted to be in danger he succeeded, provided he doesn’t request the coastal guard for assistance he is not hurting anything but himself. Is It because his hamster wheel might have been a hazard to other boats?
Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers:
a. to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost;
b. to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such action may reasonably be expected of him;
c. after a collision, to render assistance to the other ship, its crew and its passengers and, where possible, to inform the other ship of the name of his own ship, its port of registry and the nearest port at which it will call.
Every coastal State shall promote the establishment, operation and maintenance of an adequate and effective search and rescue service regarding safety on and over the sea and, where circumstances so require, by way of mutual regional arrangements cooperate with neighbouring States for this purpose.
Thank you barsoap! So even if there is no assistance request is given if the person is clearly lost or soon to be in need of assistance you need to provide assistance.
I don’t understand it either… He’s obviously nuts, but that’s his life and he should be able to choose to do what he wishes to. Doesn’t matter on law. Most of the laws is just jurisdictional bullshit anyway. You don’t need to have laws to know what’s good or bad. Every decent moral ethic human being knows what’s good or bad.
Except for humans who are mentally unwell and might cause damage to others or their property which is why detaining mentally unwell people and getting them help before they can hurt themselves is important.
Would you let a child crawl into a washing machine?
I don’t want to be cruel but natural selection has its meaning. We as a society are exaggerating helping and healing some individuals who should rather be alone somewhere where they can live peacefuly or weirdly without depleting our resources. It is already out-of control and will end by the end of our civilization. It’s inevitable.
Child is a child and should be watched and teached but severely mentally ill individual cannot be integrated. And if someone wants to die on the see, just fucking let him.
I think I understand where you’re coming from but I have to say I think you’re totally wrong and dangerously so.
First things first, we’re talking about human life and death and thus should treat things carefully because the results are, well deadly and irreversible.
Now, to get right to the point, natural selection is about masses and populations >>naturally<< surviving those who did not adapt as well. It’s not about what causes death, but what enables the continual existence of life and that distinction is vital.
Lastly, for my opinion portion, we as human beings are cognizant of ourselves and of the universe. We are not birds on an island and thus it’s in our nature to be cognizant and to make choices through our consciousness. That’s our natural selection right there.
Letting someone who is ill harm themselves, instead of helping them live comfortably while we figure out how to “correct or adapt” them to live comfortably is unnatural for us as humans. Many animals and other living creatures seemingly show signs of empathy and team work.
Sounds to me like your environment might be naturally selecting an unnatural outlook for your life if you’re really cool with letting mentally sick or disordered people hurt themselves.
We’re a species that thrives off cooperation and team work, don’t forget that friend! Idk if you’ve had family in your life with mental illness but I know it can burn. You. Out. But you gotta remember that we’re complex and amazing creatures that this planet hasn’t ever fuckin seen yet (probably) were capable of beautiful and powerful things if we keep our heads on straight and our engines cooled
It’s a little more complicated then that. He could be a safety hazard for other boats and travel lanes. And then when some boat calls in the contraption as a rescue concern, they have no way of knowing its him until they get to him. It could be some other idiot in a makeshift raft for all they know.
I guess they could just slap a GPS on the device that way they can warn other boats or ignore rescue calls, but that seems like a lot of work just to placate one dude.
The part where upon being stopped by the Coast Guard - he threatened to kill himself and that he had a bomb. Also his device is not seaworthy and they would be dispatched to find him anyway when he dissapears because that’s what they have to do.
Hazard to other traffic. If you cant steer, dont have lights, dont have a radio, and dont have a beacon or radar reflector, you’re being a pain in the ass for everyone else on the high seas.
Just like how a car needs to have a minimum standard of roadworthiness to drive on public roads
Giving these girls a chance to enjoy school life without being subjected to indoctrination every minute of their lives by their parents is a good thing.
If even some of them see past the bullshit of religion and can function as normal people it will be of benefit.
Oh, like yeah most teenage girls can wear whatever they want, no parents will never ever say “where are you going dressed like that?”
Like literally whatever the standard of the parents is, they will enforce it on their teenagers in most cases, sure they can pick any clothes they want, as long as it fits the standard.
Oh, like yeah most teenage girls can wear whatever they want, no parents will never ever say “where are you going dressed like that?”
Like literally whatever the standard of the parents is, they will enforce it on their teenagers in most cases, sure they can pick any clothes they want, as long as it fits the standard.
Yes, because turning them away is such a good way to give them a chance to enjoy school life. You know what would have been good too? Let them in the school instead of putting them in the light like this and refusing entry for some of them.
But, I suppose we have a different view of “enjoy a school life”; my vision happens in the school, yours happens in the school without some people.
Because it is not particularly religious clothing? It is not exclusively used by religious people, it just happens to be mainly used by one group of people. Also, please, “no one in France is allowed to wear religious iconography”. Tell me you didn’t go to school in France without telling me you didn’t go to school in France. Some religion are overlooked quite often.
I’m all for banning religious iconography from schools; but if that was the real goal (hint: it was not), do it fully, and only do it for actual religious stuff. This is about banning a sleeved dress that have little to no connection with religion except that “some people off said religion sometimes wears it”. I’m sure they sometimes wear snickers too, should we also ban them?
The problem is, theres no definitive distinguishihg description of an abaya. It’s a loose dress. How do you distinguish someone who wants to be comfortable in a loose dress from a girl being oppressed by an abaya?
Maybe this will help: What is more important, allowing girls to feel comfortable in a loose dress or helping girls that are being opressed by an abaya?
There are better ways to prevent oppression than controlling what people wear (which is ironically exactly what their oppressors are doing). These girls and women should feel comfortable and free to wear whatever they want, without being forced by religion or the french government. The answer to oppression and authoritarianism isn’t more oppression and authoritarianism.
Yeah, the answr to opression and authoritianism is peace and love, go tell that to the ukranians, maybe if they surrender, Russia will threat them with love.
The solution of opression and authoritarianism is intolerance to them. The french government is not forcing people to wear something, they are enforcing the opressors to not force people to wear something.
Woooow. The mental gymnastics. Are you actually comparing the french government telling little girls what not to wear to the Ukrainian army forcing out a militant government trying to overtake them?
This so is incomparable I don’t even know where to start. First, the Ukrainians are choosing for themselves how and why to deal with their oppressors. I have never suggest you have to be nice and hold hands to fight authoritarianism. I only said that more authoritarianism is not the answer to authoritarianism.
What the french are tying to do is pander to the far right and distract form other issues within their government with culture war BS while willful idiots like you act like the government is playing white savior helping these poor girls from their oppressive clothes. This is actually peaceful AND AUTHORITARIAN at the same time. You do not need to be violent to be anti authoritarian or violent to be authoritarian. Your weird appeal to force to deal with everything… weird and makes no sense.
You don’t liberate people by being authoritarian. Yes, be intolerant of authoritarianism. Use violence when necessary even. But again, MORE AUTHORITARIANISM DOES NOT COMBAT AUTHORITARIANISM. Forcing people to combat authoritarianism under your control and terms does not work. If it did, the US would control a lot more of South America and the middle east. Instead, they just killed a lot of innocent civilians.
This is not some paradox of tolerance I am appealing to. Be intolerant of authoritarianism. Offer these girls mental health resources and a way to escape their families and religion. Offer them a way out of their oppressive situation. Offer them the power to overcome their oppressors on their own terms. Have consequences FOR THE OPPRESSORS if you want to be forceful. Because banning a “square shape” loose dress does nothing to the actual oppressors. What, you think they’ll send their daughters to school in jeans now? No, lol. They will send their daughters to school in a slightly different style of loose dress now. Nothing has happened to the oppressors forcing girls into the abaya.
But, forcing these little girls into “what is good for them” is not helpful. THEY should have the power to decide what is good for them. Everyone deserves that. They should decide what they want to wear. Not their parents. Not the french government.
I only said that more authoritarianism is not the answer to authoritarianism.
Come on, be real. Muslims and Islam force people into wearing x and y clothing. Dont come here and say they are not authoritarian. Yes, authoritarianism is the answer to authoritarianism. You are not going to win to authoritarianism with kind words.
Not their parents
Exactly. And they are the ones making a big deal out of this.
If a little girl wanted to dress as a unicorn to school, the parents would easily say: “no, you cannot dress to school, it is banned”, or do you think the parens would be like “WHY CANT MY LITTLE GIRL DRESS AS UNICORN TO SCHOOL. FRANCE IS FASCIST!”.
All these “but my daughter wants to cover her whole body, its her choice!!”, its coming from their parents.
All these “but my daughter wants to cover her whole body, its her choice!!”, its coming from their parents.
I think this is a very western take on feminism. There are many Arab atheistic women who write on the liberty of wearing clothes that cover their bodies without it having anything to do with shame or religion. Look into Leila Ahmed for example, a professor in Women’s Studies and Religion at the Harvard Divinity School. She is very against women’s oppression in Islamic tradition and majority countries. She’s based an entire career on it. She once opposed veils on women as an oppressive symbol, but has further dissected it’s role in western society where women are not oppressed by their religion and how it even represents freedom in a way. Because that’s how some western Muslim women feel when they wear it. Its their choice to decide what these clothes represent to them.
Some girls are forced and I won’t deny it. And I don’t think we should be tolerant of it. I really think there should be a system of support for Muslim girls in western societies so they can deal with and navigate these issues on their own terms and with their own autonomy. I wish we saw more of that.
But, acting like a girl living in France choosing to wear an abaya in a healthy Arab family setting (Or any loose dress popular in any culture) is any different from a girl choosing jeans in a healthy western family setting is disingenuous. We are all shaped by our upbringing, but that doesn’t inherently make it some kind of brainwashing or force or abuse.
Also, like… kids wear funky things to school. I don’t know enough about unicorn costumes in France specifically to say anything. But, depending on the costume I assume it would be left alone or stopped if it impeded normal school activity. This seems like a strange example.
An edit for your edit:
Yes, authoritarianism is the answer to authoritarianism. You are not going to win to authoritarianism with kind words.
Part of me barely wants to entertain this. I already explained how anti authoritarianism could be violent and how I wasn’t appealing to kind words or tolerance of intolerance. I offered tangible non authoritarian and even aggressive alternatives. Its scary that, even with this explanation, you think the answer to people behaving the way you don’t like is to control those that they abuse.
It was clearly a strange example to give a point, to which you didnt make any comment.
some girls are forced and I won’t deny it
So in your opinion, how are we going to help these girls that being forced into it? or is your opinion that they dont mind and we should only focus on the girls that want to dress conservative because they want? You mention a system of support for muslim girls… why are muslims not fighting for that? Its strange that they are only enraged, when the government decides to ban the abaya dress, but I wonder if they are also enraged by the fact that some girls are being forced into it.
acting like a girl living in France choosing to wear an abaya in a healthy Arab family setting (Or any loose dress popular in any culture) is any different from a girl choosing jeans in a healthy western family setting is disingenuous.
The difference here is that there is not a group/religion forcing girls/women to wear jeans. Sure, little girls see their moms wearing jeans and they also want to wear jeans, but there is not a religion telling women to wear jeans. With abaya dresses/other coverings, there is a religion telling women to wear them, so saying that little girls wear them because their moms wear them has a different connotation.
Thats the whole point here! Like it or not, this religion is brain washing women to cover their bodies because ELSE!, and they are taught that since childhood.
It was clearly a strange example to give a point, to which you didnt make any comment.
What would I comment on when there is little to no relation between your example and the issue at hand?
So in your opinion, how are we going to help these girls that being forced into it?
i think, at this point, I will just re quote things I’ve already said since it seems you’re just not reading?
" I really think there should be a system of support for Muslim girls in western societies so they can deal with and navigate these issues on their own terms and with their own autonomy."
"Offer these girls mental health resources and a way to escape their families and religion. Offer them a way out of their oppressive situation. Offer them the power to overcome their oppressors on their own terms. Have consequences FOR THE OPPRESSORS if you want to be forceful. "
why are muslims not fighting for that?
You’re saying this like they don’t? There are support systems in western countries too for Muslim women by Muslim women. People can be mad about multiple things at once. And, you will find that many Arab and Muslim women do fight as hard as possible for women in countries with Muslim governments that try to oppress them. Just like they fight the French government who tries to control them in the opposite direction. People don’t like authoritarianism in either direction. I don’t know what to tell you.
but I wonder if they are also enraged by the fact that some girls are being forced into it.
Yes. Yes they are.
The difference here is that there is not a group/religion forcing girls/women to wear jeans.
France is not Afghanistan. Girls are not being forced by religion in France the way they are in the middle east. You are not saving the little girls in Afghanistan by bullying the ones in France. Again, there’s a lot of feminist writing on how these clothes have a very different meaning in the west compared to the middle east. These women often wear these clothes for different reasons.
Hmm no? Please tell me how to distinguish a “regular” dress from a “religious” dress, when they have roughly the same coverage and no specific patterns. That would be helpful to enforce this new restriction without relying on the wearer’s religious belief.
Well, a bunch of men are certainly forcing them not to wear it now. I find it interesting that your answer to men controlling women is to have different men control the same women.
Edit: Honestly, fuck people who use religion as an oppressive tool. But, I find it really frustrating that people are acting like they’re liberating women and girls by controlling what they wear. That’s not liberation. These kids should be given access to confidential in school therapy and resources to report and deal with abusive parents if we’re actually worried about them being oppressed. But that’s not really what this is about.
Additionally, banning the abaya doesn’t prevent oppression. If these girls are being forced to dress modestly and being made ashamed of their bodies, they will just be forced to dress modestly in a vaguely different way now. Acting like this will bring meaningful change to these girls lives is just theater.
Do you actually have anything to argue what I said though? Like… really. Your best answer to oppression is more oppression? And that makes me an idiot?
This will probably lead to them being pulled out of state school and attending a Muslim school where they will truly get 100% indoctrination every second.
Okay, let’s look at several arguments that have been presented here in favor of this law:
“Display of religion must be banned for a secular learning experience”: Firstly, how do you even define “display of religion”? If I say “Merry Christmas”, is it a display of religion? If I grow my hair out, is that display of religion? If I wear a steel bracelet, is that display of religion? Because the last two actions are actually associated with Sikhism. If I wear the Mormons’ holy underwear, is that display of religion? If I say “Jesus fkin Christ” when I hear about a fascist law like this, is that banned too now? Secularism is respecting all religious classifications and allowing them to coexist. Secularism is NOT forcing everyone to look and behave as if they are in the same religious classification.
“The abaya dress isn’t even French/Respect the culture of the country that you are in:”
Individuals who say this seem to have what is known as the “conventionalist” ethical framework. This framework has maaany problems. However, even if we look at this law from the point of view of this framework, it becomes unethical. The official national motto of France is “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity”. This law seems to contradict all three of these principles.
It contradicts “liberty”, as it literally permits the government to tell its citizens what they can and cannot wear on their body. Abayas are not even inherently religious. It is like the government banning polo t-shirts because they are “Christian”.
The law contradicts “equality” as it unequally affects Muslims and Sikhs, as their religious expression involves the use of clothing more than other religions. Sure, harmful clothing must not be permitted (like the knives that Sikhs are supposed to carry according to their religion). Abayas are not harmful in any way. Hence, they do not fall into this category.
Finally, this law contradicts “fraternity”, as fraternity literally means “brotherhood” in this context. “No matter how different we are, we are still brothers with a goal to work for the people of France” is what this implies. Banning something as harmless as clothing attributed to a given religion is not a sign of brotherhood.
“Just have school uniforms”: Clothing is one of the most important mediums of expression for humans. All humans have their own individual identities. The goal of schools should not be to make Stormtroopers. Rather, it should be to make students better versions of themselves. Having school uniforms goes strongly against this idea. One may argue that this also goes against the idea of “liberty”.
“Did you know that Abayas and Hijabs are the result of an authoritarian religion?” Firstly, no. Abayas have nothing to do with religion. Sure, it is possible that a parent(s) may force their child to wear a particular type of clothing that aligns with their religious beliefs. In that case, the school can provide support to such students. However, what if a child themself wish to wear a particular type of clothing? What’s the harm in that? This argument for the ban is similar to saying “some individuals are buttfucked without their consent. Therefore, let’s ban buttfucking”.
I’m atheist and socialist. I’m sad to see some of my fellow socialists arguing for the ban as well. Atheists have and are presently being persecuted in many countries in the world. By supporting the persecution of other religious classifications, we are essentially doing exactly what is being done to us. There is no moral difference between us and the individuals persecuting us in this case.
Ehh… Doesn’t prove this by any means. For example, a type of clothing called a “kurta” is worn by Hindus and Muslims both. In religious ceremonies in both religions, attendees usually wear it. Now, this doesn’t mean that the garment suddenly is a religious garment, does it? It just is a cultural garment that is usually worn in the Indian subcontinent.
Now, even if the abaya is a religious garment, the points that I mentioned above still apply. What if I started a new religion called “Religion of yellow clothes”? Let’s say my religious clothes are all yellow clothes. Does France ban everyone from wearing yellow clothes now because of me?
Sir, you just said kurta is being weared during religious ceremonies… It’s hard argue that it is not a religious dress…
Well if that yellow thing becomes widely acknowledged as a “religious display” then yes, it will be banned in public schools… It does sound dumb but only because you made an extravagant decision to make “yellow” a religious sign. If you claimed “let’s have a crossed bar” as religious sign, suddenly it becomes easier to imagine
bbc.co.uk
Active