Reporter: "Mr. Putin, how is it possible that you got 132% of the vote?"
Putin: "It is merely the byproduct of our superiour domestic mathematical sciences. The numbers are simply greater than the ones produced by foreign-made axioms. Do think of all of the great achievements our mathematicians have done over centuries, such as proving the Poincaré conjecture."
Reporter: (gasp) "Your ballot results were tabulated by Grigori Perelman?"
Putin: "No, we looked at his qualifications but we figured he was out of our reach, unfortunately. We had the results tabulated by some other weird mathematician with a massive case of cabin fever. We saved a lot of taxpayer money this way."
You see, only 39% of the population voted. 95% of the people who voted, voted for Putin. So if you extrapolate that out to the entire population, you get 37% + 95% = 132%. With math like that you can’t lose!
No, I was totally after voiting for her, and was in a pool of her initial signings. But having that toothless candidate who’s just for the peaceful sky and everything being nice, and progressive, just declined,
a candidate that could’ve been collected like 5% on votes in march,
They want none even questioning war. They fear Tikhanovskaya 2.0, everyone cooperating against the regime under one, any banner, their campaign as a general protest. Just as a possibility.
I don’t feel like her campaign could do that much, or even a fraction of what fearless, furious belarusian bastards did in 2020 before russian corps got involved
(and you need to fucking note it, and pay for the first round for them if you meet any),
but even that little is scary to them. And it speaks volumes more than any queries into public opinion done in decaying police state with a raging propaganda.
I don’t want to be too positive about that and say tis’ are bad news, but also a slight promise of good news, or something. At many points before like in 2011 I hoped that’s the time the straw would break a donkey’s back, and they just kept on going.
But she’s no Navalny, no Nemtsov, just a nobody, and they shut her off. And it means something.
I wonder if he even knows about her. Guy’s like stuck in the ninghties, and everything he gets is in printed papers. There’s a doubt someone even said to him she exists.
And defenestration is too far in her roadmap, still. She didn’t even said any ugly words like ‘war’, or even ‘lustration’. Duntsova has much to do to claim her out-of-the-window voyage. And, still, got denied.
You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. Current polling has major regions in russia polling 113% of the popular vote to putin. Do your research.
you wouldnt believe how staunchly those kind of polls are quoted to prove the popular support of the regime in online(and offline) discussions here and beyond the border
Unless I’m missing something this seems like a huge fucking overreaction and maybe get this guy some behavioral therapy or whatever. He’s incredibly talented and it would be a damn shame to waste that in a hospital. I’m guessing he’ll get a chance to be released, but some rehabilitation would go a long way and I don’t think his life should waste away in a hospital prison
The court heard that Kurtaj had been violent while in custody with dozens of reports of injury or property damage.
A mental health assessment used as part of the sentencing hearing said he “continued to express the intent to return to cyber-crime as soon as possible. He is highly motivated.”
I’m assuming that’s why. Hopefully they can put his mind to good use because he seems to be talented and is clearly motivated.
I get where the other poster is coming from tho, it sounds like 3500 women alive right now will have this type of pregnancy (1 in a million of 3.5bn women)
However, I think its of the .3% that are born dicavitary, there is THEN a 1 in a million shot to have both uteri fertilized, which means it would only happen once every few generations.
As an out-of-hours island GP, she provides healthcare to some of the most remote communities in the world, all while experiencing “magic moments”, from seeing baby seals and king penguins to the northern lights.
When she works on Barra in the Outer Hebrides, an island chain off the west coast of mainland Scotland, her plane has to land on the beach - “just one of the most incredible experiences of my life”.
On this particular shift she was sitting next to the pilot with a sheep shearer and noisy cat on the way back to being reunited with its owner, but the flight was also used to help a farmer find some missing cows from the air.
“I’ve never been on an island yet where I felt like a bad doctor because generally you have the time and the setup that allows you to deliver great care, and that gets me out of bed in the morning,” said Dr Payne.
“There are many islands where people living there don’t have access to a hospital without getting on a ferry… it’s the amazing general practice they receive that makes the difference.”
Dr Payne will be in the Orkney islands with her family this Christmas and then she her sights on St Helena, a remote volcanic outpost in the South Atlantic Ocean.
The original article contains 1,180 words, the summary contains 220 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
They designated them as twins. How far apart would they have to be for them not to be considered twins? Say someone with the same condition gets a second pregnancy started 3 months later and delivers 3 months apart. would those still be considered twins?
Maybe it just has to do with date of conception? If they were both conceived at the same time but one was born earlier, they are still functionally the same as fraternal twins because they come from the same, er, “batch”?
Really interesting point! Also, what about babies born via IVF that don’t technically share a womb at the same time, but were from the same “batch” of sperm and eggs?
I suspect that it would be impossible to get a 2nd pregnant after a couple of weeks of the first. The baby produces hormones that stop ovulation. The 2nd one would have to be in before that window.
I also suspect that the birth of the 1st would induce the second. She likely didn’t leave labour, the 2nd just took longer, since it was, effectively, induced by the first.
Going back to the broader question, it’s likely that both were inside the mother at the same time. In theory they could be 9 months apart, though that would likely require significant medical effort, and so is effectively impossible.
Gotta show off that fictional rape baby. OR ELSE! It’s just a highly religiously influenced state fighting against the people not giving a shit about bad religious fiction.
“Don’t you take that rape baby display down! My fictional god raped that child to make that fictional baby, and you’re going to look at it every single year of your life!”
As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), apart from religious texts and later references to the religion, his existence is only recorded by one historian (josephus), but it is under dispute whether that text is authentic.
A google of "historicity of Jesus" will turn up some results. The wiki link is one of at least three very similar wiki articles on the topic.
tl/dr - it's generally accepted that Jesus was a historical person but all that can be confirmed from written accounts is 1) he was baptized and 2) he was crucified.
Of course people can and do question the independent contemporary Jewish (Josephus) or Roman (Tacitus and Pliny) sources, but they seem to be in the minority. Even the less shady version of Josephus's passage suggests that he was talking about a person who existed.
I don't have anything to add since I'm not Christian - merely surrounded by Christians. I've done a fair bit of reading trying to figure out what's going on with all that.
The story changes depending on which book of the new testament you read, but it essentially boils down to
Mary becomes pregnant out of nowhere and is somehow aware of it and that it was god who did it (but never agreed to it)
Mary is visited by an angel who tells her god will impregnate her very soon
Mary is visited by an angel who tells her god will impregnate her very soon, Mary is afraid but says yes
I’m going to be extremely charitable here and go with that last option, that’s still kinda messed up.
We already know that a power imbalance can make it seem like you have to accept their advances “or else” (think Harvey Weinstein or someone groomed by their priest or a family member).
The power imbalance here is between a teenage girl and the person she knows, from the Old Testament/Torah, to be an all-powerful, vengeful, genocidal, and sadistic deity. She doesn’t really have a choice but to go ahead with it. Does that sound like real consent to you?
How are you mystified by this concept? Sex should involve both parties agreeing that they are okay with what is going on. This also includes fertilization without sex. I, and no other male who has ever lived or will ever live, doesn’t have the right to just make a woman have my child without her agreeing. Mary did not consent to any of this in the story. It is rape.
Good thing not a single aspect of the story occurred. Every nativity scene you have seen in your life depicts the fictional story of a woman raped. Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word woman given her age and should have said girl instead given her age.
Because it’s a very weird distinction to be taught in a religion? “Yes, Mary agreed to having sex but she did not agree to getting pregnant.” This just doesn’t make sense at a time when women were treated worse than a man’s property.
Mary did not consent to any of this in the story.
So like, did she say no? Were guards sent to capture her? I’m genuinely curious about the story being told, but all you’ve people done was tell me “she didn’t consent.” Is that it? Is that what the Bible says?
The fact that you people are so averse to sharing this simple information with me makes me dubious of its existence.
I also did an internet search because you seem pretty useless, “was Mary raped in the Bible” and the only explanations I am seeing for that is that she was underage. This is what I asked about in the beginning of this comment chain.
I feel like if it was so clear and obvious Mary was raped in the Bible, it would be easier to find information on it!
But that’s okay. It’s already clear you’re lying and that’s why you keep trying to send me on a wild goose chase. I’ve seen it many times, and it happens pretty much without fail when pressing people like you for evidence to support their claims.
Looks like everyone who says she was raped say it’s only because she was underage. You’re afraid to admit that’s the only reason why because you are arguing in bad-faith (heh.)
Seems like a bit of a power dynamic problem… one could argue Job consented to all his bad treatment by trusting in the lord. Abraham was gonna kill his son. But I’d wager if I asked them, as a stranger, there’s no way any of them would consent. It’s the threat of etarnal fire that inspires such devotion and sacrifice. Bit of an unhealthy relationship if you ask me… my Christian parents are happy to ruin their lives for a better afterlife - including eroding their relationships with their kids. Bit sad. If I did believe in a god, I wouldn’t believe that he sent us here to make us suffer and make sacrifices.
But you are correct, the gospel I was looking at didn’t mention Mary giving consent. Just one of the problems of having 4 conflicting accounts…
bbc.co.uk
Active