People tend to assign a good side and a bad side to conflicts. Because the IDF is essentially committing genocide to attack Hamas, people who don't know much about Hamas are labeling Hamas the good side.
In reality Hamas and the IDF are both pretty monstrous and civilians are suffering as a result of both their actions, but since "Palestinian civilian" isn't a fun team name they get lumped in with Hamas by ignorant people -_-
It's so funny I got sad, and I'm not sure that even makes sense to say.
Must be a pre-Brexit window.
I had to call
Just hear at all
But in the end
I just was undesired
It requires such a weird pick and choose approach to the law to make these arguments and it just baffles me. Like who do they even expect to back them?
I feel like millennials have a "It is what it is, guess ill work til I die" attitude whereas Gen Z have more of a Bartleby the Scrivener "I'd rather not" energy.
For $50 running is how you move it.
It isn't that they don't want to list previous names it's that the law was buried and not made apparent to the candidate. It wasn't on the candidate requirement guide, the petition has no space for former names, many people weren'teven aware of the law's existence.
While I don't disagree with the law in theory (listing previous names in normal for things like background checks) it's clear this law was dug up specifically to try to disqualify the candidate in bad faith.
That case at least seems more like user error than the science itself being wrong. Third party blind corroboration should be required though.
It feels like everything that isn't DNA evidence has been made up bullshit. Blood spatter, fiber analysis, profiling, truth serum, polygraph, hair comparison...
Though fingerprinting has a place. Even though it has never been proven that no two people have the same fingerprint there's enough variation to single out a person from a list of suspects. Although even fingerprinting can be subjective analysis.
Three fifths compromise was an attempt to determine how to count the population in terms of representation. Free men of any race were counted as a whole person.
Leads to the question, was it racist because a slave should be counted as whole person and thus give slave owning populations more power in government despite the fact that the slave would not have their representatives advocate for them? Or should they not be counted as a person at all and thus be reduced to property with no representatives accounting for their population? Is being in the middle any worse than the extremes?
There is no morally right answer on the subject (because slavery itself makes any decision on the matter inherently immoral), however it needed to be addressed in terms of how representatives are distributed to the states.
It's made for Strixhaven which is a Mage school.
It's been very fun so far to have them randomly ambush the players.