Despite that, the Nazi government implemented a number of policies which were for the good of their people and those of the future; many of these policies are now implemented by our own governments. This list hopefully shows that even amidst great evil, the good of man is still able to shine through. This list is an homage to those men and women living in Nazi Germany who were able to make change for good whilst living under a severely corrupt and wrong regime.
We saw that risk and tail risk are mathematically separate objects, conflated by the IYI intellectual yet idiot crowd. Two people can be using the same word, meaning different things, yet continue the conversation, which is fine for coffee, but not when making decisions, particularly policy decisions affecting others.
But we also have had many pronouncements by idiots using labels. People rarely mean the same thing when they say "religion", nor do they realize that they don't mean the same thing. For early Jews and Muslims, religion was law.
Din means law in Hebrew and religion in Arabic. For early Jews, religion was also tribal; for early Muslims, it was universal. For the Romans, religion was social events, rituals, and festivals —the word religio was opposition to superstitio, and while present in the Roman zeitgeist had no equivalent concept in the Greek-Byzantine East.
The difference is marked in that Christian Aramaic uses a different word: Neither Islam nor Judaism have a marked separation between holy and profane. And of course Christianity moved away from the solely-spiritual domain to embrace the ceremonial and ritualistic, integrating much of the pagan rites of the Levant and Asia Minor.
For Jews today, religion became ethnocultural, without the law --and for many, a nation. For Orthodox and Catholic Christians religion is aesthetics, pomp and rituals.
For Protestants, religion is belief with no aesthetics, pomp or law. So when Hindu talk about the Hindu "religion" they don't mean the same thing to a Pakistani as it would to a Hindu, and certainly something different for a Persian.
When the nation-state idea came about, things got more, much more complicated. When an Arab now says "Jew" he largely means something about a creed; to Arabs, a converted Jew is no longer a Jew.
But for a Jew, a Jew is someone whose mother is a Jew. But it somewhat merged into nation-state and now means a nation. In Serbia-Croatia and Lebanon, religion means something at times of peace, and something quite different at times of war.
Same for the gnostics Druids, Druze, Mandeans, Alawis. As we saw with the minority rule, the intolerant will run over the tolerant; cancer requires being stopped before it becomes metastatic.
Some beliefs are largely decorativesome are functional they help in survival ; others are literal. And to revert to our metastatic Salafi problem: You may be able to get all of it from solar panels the cost of which is getting cheaper and cheapterbut would get most of it during a 5h window.
Say you need to store for hours and the cost of storage is prohibitive: But the way to calculate the effectiveness in cost savings is in taking the difference from the upper bound, not raw costs.
And unlike other sources there is strong optionality: Most people doing static analyses fail to get such convexity. We can expect serious, serious acceleration in use. Likewise I am against interventionism on the part of government: Words cannot convey the nonlinearity of the statement.
Am I "for" or "against" intervention? Singapore and China have similar government, but works in the small better than in the large. So It also happens that the discussion about government misses a dimension. A municipality is a goverment; a top-down centralized system is one as well.
Should we have no municipalities or just no central government? A coop in NY has a government, with coercive rules for those who elect to be part of it. Should we have no coops? Clearly one cannot rule out size and centralization as the main reason the Soviet system collapsed.
The same happens with corporations when they get large hence protected by centralized governments. They may be localists as I am or simply anarchists against all rules.Ted Nugent is giving hunters bad names. I'm a pro anti-sport hunter and not trying to defend those terrorist and dictator of the wild but Ted with his unstable mental status he is giving hunters and other sportsmen very bad names and he's a menace to today's society.
The dozens of organizations using animals – ranging from monkeys to actual guinea pigs – as the basis for experimentation serve as a reminder that most of us indirectly support the practice, not only at the grocery store, but also in the voting booth.
Granted it’s for a nobler purpose than. Animal testing should not be banned! By testing on animals we have been able to save billions of lives and develop thousands of vaccines that have saves children's lives. Say a train was going down a track, and you only had time to say one or the other.
There was a dog strapped down, and a BABY. Shame on you if you wouldn't pick the baby. Aspirin is toxic to many animals, including cats, mice and rats and would not be on our pharmacy shelves if it had been tested according to current animal testing standards.
Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous. The thunder-and-lightning example seems like a bad comparison for this kind of situation, in that the false claim is (1) easily observable to be untrue, and (2) utterly useless to the society that propagates it.
Apr 03, · Animal experimentation has been a commonly debated subject for many years, is it cruelty or science? About million animals die each year from animal testing.