Black dragons have acid breath. As far as I could tell from the trailer, they do seem to be faithful to D&D as a source. Or at least, I couldn't see anything that stood out as incompatible.

I for one am looking forward to this!

There can be no heartbeat without a heart, which takes another 6-8 + weeks to form chambers, and 16 or more more weeks to develop valves and functional muscle tissue and actually pump blood. There is no heartbeat at 6, 8, or even 10 weeks by any definition, there's a twitch in the place a heart will one day develop.

This abdication of the state's duty to private citizens has been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court when states allowed churches to veto liquor licenses and bars challenged them and won. The government cannot deputize the populace to enforce a law, nor can it pay them with the state imposed fines even if they call it a judgement...You cannot pre set a judgement amount in a law for a civil case.

There has been no medical breakthroughs that change the standard, if it can't survive outside the womb, it's not viable. Period. End of discussion. That's what not viable means.

"Mutually incompatible"!? Nonsense. Legally there is no baby to be harmed, that's the law this is trying to end run around. Covid harms everyone. It's a paper tiger argument, a total fake red herring, there is NO public health danger if a woman has an abortion, you cannot catch abortion. Covid you can catch, and spread, and it's deadly to actual, real, fully cooked legal people AND embryos.

One wonders if the Texas legal system has nothing to do and had this passed as job security...because it's the only kind of civil case they'll be hearing now.

One also wonders if the state has too much money, because there's apparently they weren't smart enough to include exemptions for the state if they help facilitate any abortions by, let's say, offering bus service, maintaining roadways, or supplying electricity and water to the buildings. Any of these is grounds to sue them for $10000. If you live in Texas, file your case now before there's no money left and they rewrite the law to just target liberals.

They'll have to defend every case filed costing another $10000+ in legal fees (they'll have to pay the plaintiff's costs too). Pair that with the companies fleeing the state to avoid boycotts, Texas is going to be so poor they become America's Hati soon. Yee haw!

You!?
Think?!

Bwaaaahahahaha!! I think not.

No, dummy, I’ve been exceptionally clear that I’m happy when violent criminal cops get taken out….not any cop, not cops doing their jobs with honor. Your claim that this means I want all cops taken out means you believe that all cops are criminal thugs that should be taken out. Who’s anti cop?

I’m for taking out cops like these….. https://videosift.com/video/Boston-Cop-Brags-About-Driving-Through-Crowd

I just say they’re all in cahoots, one gang, which is antithetical to proper policing, but they aren’t all murderers. I’m happy when power tripping cops abusing their power get pushback. These cops were not abusing their authority, they weren’t even exercising their power, they abdicated it by not using deadly force against deadly armed attackers. Conversely, when dealing with ANTIFA, there was no such restraint, violence is met with escalated violence not mass retreat, and arrests are made on scene.

I’m quite disappointed that the cops didn’t open fire more than once. If ever it was called for, it was Jan 6. The fact that only one shot was fired is a good indicator of how racist the police are….a black armed violent crowd invading the capitol looking to murder representatives and officials would have been mowed down like a neglected lawn. With the warnings they had of a violent attack/coup, there should have been a few thousand police/national guards staged like when BLM peacefully marched at the white house, and we know how police responded then with no physical provocation. These extra guards were requested and denied against Trump’s mob. Who refused to provide security is a major question of the investigation…one you would think Republicans would have wanted an impartial, unbiased, apolitical team to investigate, but they were dead set against it, or any investigation. Kind of like they are afraid of finding the truth because the truth is they incited the attempted coup/deadly political riot.

Since I’m sure you need help,

Cahoots- acting together with others for an illegal or dishonest purpose
Antithetical- directly opposed or contrasted; mutually incompatible
Abdicated- fail to fulfill or undertake (a responsibility or duty).
Provocation- action or speech that makes someone annoyed or angry, especially deliberately; incitement
Apolitical- not interested or involved in politics
Incitement- the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully

The quiz will be tomorrow, it is not multiple choice. Misspellings like “ANTIA” are considered wrong.

Let's step back then from arguing against other people's claims.

The claim that tyranny is pretty universally based upon an unarmed civilian population provides at least some real world evidence that civilian armament and freedom have some correlation. Whether that warrants allowing citizen's access to weaponized anthrax and cruise missiles is another matter. Can you agree that a well armed population is incompatible with historical tyranny(Mao, Stalin, Saddam, Gadhafi, the Kim's)?

Fair enough, but I thought my longer explanation by examples made my meaning more clear. Making calls that people should not be allowed to deny membership into private clubs/groups based upon behaviors and choices is going to dive away people you need to get the support of.

IMO the Dems need to stop calling out the flying spaghetti monster club for denying membership to people who eat spaghetti. Spaghetti eaters still have their right to eat spaghetti, they just don't need to join a club of people who think that's immoral. Save the outrage for the FSM branches that deny membership to those without noodley appendages, as that has now crossed over from a choice/behavior and into something immutable.

If we can agree on that in principle, let me then step forward to the real example.

Stop telling Christians that not accepting non-christians as members or leaders in their churchs is immoral or intolerant or bigotry or evil. Most of the major religions in the world on some lesser or greater extent declare each other immoral. Live and live is enough, you don't need to demand they accept membership or leadership candidate from other religions with beliefs or practices they consider incompatible with their own. Oh, and if the Dems really want bonus points here, who you choose to have sex with and how you choose to do it can be included in this.

And now there's this: Sarin used in April Syria attack, chemical weapons watchdog confirms

So now we have two narratives that are mutually incompatible. Splendid, isn't it....

My own confirmation bias favours Hersh. Additionally, the OPCW openly admits they had had access to the site of the attack, and that all of their samples were gathered by third parties, primarily the White Helmets. That's about as tainted as evidence can be.

Either way, nobody has anything of substance in terms of proof, everything's circumstantial. Can't call it.

Educated younger people want to be where the action is, meaning places where they can advance quickly in a career they are passionate about while having a high take-home pay. They also want what their parent's generation had, which was often a home in the suburbs or at least a condo or townhouse they owned outright, to comfortably start a family.

The two things are mostly incompatible, because the work they are passionate about is typically around the cities and their parent's generation is still occupying any and all affordable dwellings in the area, including the surrounding suburbs. This wouldn't be a problem except property owners feel an incentive to actively prevent new developments which might lower their home price plus make the area more crowded/disrupted. This is partly a result of the sprawl in areas like Silicon Valley reaching its physical boundaries, so the price of land just keeps increasing to these crazy numbers like '$2mil median home sale in 2016'.

These young people can afford to rent in these areas, so they see how comfortable it is, but don't see how they could own there without a windfall of money. So they are kind of stuck hoping to make it big, but in reality just putting off either buying property where they can't follow the career they want or choosing to follow their career but watching their rent increase. This isn't a new problem, its just become more exaggerated in the last decade, and is pushing a lot of younger people to not have kids and to carry a lot of anxiety about their place in the world.

There are a lot of potential ways forward, like massively increasing government investment in transportation infrastructure to move people more efficiently by bus/train/etc., and massively scaling up internet speeds to make telecommuting more commonplace.

Anyhow, its really just younger people wanting what their parent's had, struggling really hard towards it, settling for much less, and complaining a bit to each other about it. Its just a newer problem for Americans (and places like Australia as well), where there very recently was all this space, and now its all old people's investment properties, available for rent at 400% what their mortgage is.

Meanwhile in Canada, Black Lives Matter staged a sit-in interrupting the Pride parade.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pride-parade-toronto-1.3662823

They included a list of demands for the Pride Parade organisers. The demands included that the parade will no longer have police floats.

IMHO, the western world is losing it's mind. We are reaching so far with 'protecting' minorities from intolerance that our movements themselves have become intolerant.

When the push goes so far as to declare that dissenting opinions are in and of themselves oppression, then we necessarily lose fundamental freedoms. It becomes inevitable that each special interest group will declare rights for themselves that are incompatible with each other. For example, something like BLM interrupting a Pride event.

This sincerely worries me as freedom of religion as an idea already addressed this. Why is an entire generation seemingly ignoring such an important historical lesson? We have granted each and every religious system the right and freedom to believe and teach what they wish, necessarily including the belief they are 'right' and any or every other religion is 'wrong'. So long as live and let live is the resulting action and everybody respects the others rights to practice their beliefs as well, everything is good. When you go out and declare that disagreement with your beliefs should be punishable, you are in the wrong. It doesn't matter if it's your religious belief, safe space, or social cause, if you class disagreement as fundamentally wrong you are part of the problem.

this is exactly way i think it's important to separate "islam" from "muslims" and why i think the critique of the ideology needs to give its followers the opportunity to adapt. islam may be rigid, have its problems, and may even be "incompatible with civilization" (a sentiment i don't necessarily share) but there is nothing like opportunity, upward mobility, and freedom of expression to shake the foundations of rigid religious ideology and bring people, whatever their belief, into the fold of cultural, civil, and intellectual advancement.

Why does he say that we have a "high population of humans" on this planet compared to another populated planet, and therefore aliens will be larger than us? The guy knows we have one data point, so how is he able to establish our population size relative to an alien population? And why should they be larger than us - surely environment and social factors dictate this. For example Earth was home to dinosaurs (some of which were MUCH larger than us) and now it's home to humans? Furthermore, the size of the brain does not necessarily dictate how intelligent a being is, and with a greater body size it's more likely the being will have to spend more time gathering food and less time developing society. The larger the body, the less responsive the extremities become, the more energy and brainpower is required to regulate all of the body's functions?

But besides all of this, he actually opens the video by asking why we are looking for life like ours when life could be any kind of weird and wonderful thing. It could be made in a way that we had no idea could happen, in a place we thought incompatible with life. Why then are we to assume that larger aliens on smaller planets will be more intelligent? Or that the light from stars encourages growth? Why should alien creatures follow our social norms of gathering around popular landmarks - be they football teams or countries? Why are any of these human-based assumptions relevant when your argument is that they don't have to be like humans in any way?

At the end of the day, the best evidence we have about life indicates to us that it should be on an Earth-like planet. Why would we waste our limited time and resources looking elsewhere, especially when we have no idea what the evidence we're looking for might look like? This is a thoroughly uncompelling argument.

Technically, the constitution allows the "United States" to own land. It does not name the government as an owner.

The government of the United States is not the United States. Being a republic, the United States is its citizens.

The government is a manager/caretaker of state's (people's) property, not an owner of property in and of itself.

Technically, the government doesn't even have any authority of its own. It's strictly a body that executes the state's (people's) will, and it does so by the state's (people's) authority - not its own authority (hence the Democracy part). (Officially, the government does nothing of its own accord - hence why in court it's 'the state vs whoever', not 'the government vs whoever').

So, technically, there is no 'government property' - there is only state (people's) property.

Actually, the reason that 'eminent domain' is 'eminent' (i.e. obvious - aka 'obvious domain') - is because the land has always belonged to the state - because the state is the only authority. You never actually own your personal land, you're simply entitled to be the sole occupant. You can buy/sell that right, but the land always has, does, and always will, belong to the state. So under eminent domain, the land is not actually taken from you, because it never belonged to you, hence why the state's domain is eminent (obvious).

In any case, land has this weirdness to it, where all land is state land, and everyone is the state, and no land is private, and all that ever happens is people are bestowed an authority to exclusively manage/reside on a given plot that they never really own. In any case, that authority ends up being functionally equivalent to actual ownership. The phrase 'if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck' comes to mind, because when you have a body of case law that treats property as if private property actually exists, then in a sense, it does exist for all practical purposes - so there is a disconnect between the practical nature of 'land ownership' and the official/ideological nature of 'the state (the people) having authority over all at all times'.

Also, this is why you can't have an allodial land title in the U.S.. So long as it's still U.S. land, it can never truly be privately owned. It's simply incompatible.

Interestingly, way back when before the U.S. was founded, private ownership of land was associated with monarchy - where some royal(s) individual(ly) literally owned the country. The path of events that eroded royal authority and empowered lower levels of society, was the same path that eroded [true] private land ownership, because it introduced the concept of inherent ownership/rights of some other groups (e.g. the people).

-scheherazade

Have fun! I will pass on the new SW movie. There is actually no effin 2D cinema left in my region and my brain and/or glasses/weak eyes are incompatible with this horrible 3D bullshit.

This is education in action. We're all ignorant when young.

What would we be creating if our instructors had a modicum of the scorn reflected for this woman here? We would never educate anyone brave enough to open up about their ignorance or challenge any beliefs.

Everyone with questions and alternative beliefs needs to partake in this kind of discourse. This right here is the solution to disparate, incompatible cultures, beliefs, war, etc.

You must have missed the part where he recapped what he loved/missed, and how he gave those things up for whatever reason he did (Such as peer pressure, societal judgment, poverty, anger, etc.) The fact that he didn't make excuses truly gives me respect for who the man is, but an indomitable will means not faltering and he did in the past. It was a mistake, and who hasn't made a mistake--even a grievous one? By comparing this great man to what he once was is an injustice to what he has become, and I wouldn't slap him in the face as that comparison ironically has.

Now, he could have had a great will, good will, worthwhile will, but the word indomitable is vastly different from those puny words. He could have tried his best and failed. But again, that is different than staying strong against the others rather than forfeiting the things you most love for the lifestyle that is incompatible and with those precious things.

Upvoted for the shameless dig at libertarianism!

Consumer printers seem like the lightbulb cartel of the computer industry. They know we need them and they know how to make them last, but those two two things are somewhat incompatible when profit is the only measure of success.

Of course this is all the evil governments fault and could in no way be addressed by offering subsidies to companies which avoid such abusive practices....

......filthy filthy socialism.....!