I’ve heard (debated) etymology that “man” is gender neutral because in older English, “male” would have been “wereman” and “female” would have been “wifman,” so the “man” morpheme just designated “human” and the prefix designated the gender.
Which does imply that "were"wolves are exclusively male, and a female wolf person really should be called a wifwolf.
“Gee I’m so grateful for all this trauma.”
And if we were talking about whether it were real, or whether people believed it in those specific terms, you’d have a point. But since we’re talking about your assertion that major earth religions are “directly excluded” by that definition of “higher beings,” i still fail to see the exclusion.
No one, I think, is in my tree.
I mean, it must be high or low.
Turns out that one was actually universal.
Run command: “Fiat Lux”
Warning: it will take 7 days to complete operation. Continue?
“This had better be good.”
“Fuck it, I’m tired of waiting, I’ll come back on the 8th day.”
“Oh, this IS good.”
“What are these stupid apes doing? Fine, I’ll educate them myself.”
Instantiate avatar: “Jesus_Nazareth”
Which part is directly excluded?
If we had the technological power, would humans run simulations of universes with Planck length precision? Obviously yes. So extrapolating from our one and only example of intelligent life (us), it seems like intelligent life enjoys stimulating universes. If our reality were the result of that kind of project, and the engineers lived outside the laws of physics, I would call them higher beings. And they could be as hands-off or as interventionist as they pleased.
Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it.
This, but unironically.
Give shitty advice, get a shitty summary of your own shitty advice.
“If you’re not sure, better take the safer bet and nonconsensually burden some newly created living beings with the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to.”
You mean like in cartoons, if one hit to the head with a frying pan makes you lose your memories, another hit will make them come back?
OK. Thank you for your insights.
Those two actions would suffice?
And, hypothetically of course, what specific actions would the democrats need to perform to become a significantly better choice than the republicans, enough to earn your vote?
And that means you would 1) vote for Trump, 2) make a third party protest vote, or 3) not vote at all? Not criticizing any of those options, just trying to translate your sentiment into concrete actions.
Yep, they do have some areas of overlap. Do you think there’s anything at all that one side does better than the other?
Did you mean the 25th amendment? Article 12 just describes the process for electing the president and VP.