p3n

He should definitely be wearing orange, just not Netherlands Orange...

The whole purpose of separation of powers into executive, legislative, and judicial branches is to prevent consolidation of power. It is supposed to be like the 3-way standoff from the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

I think the root problem here is that a justice shouldn't be allowed to serve until after the president who nominated them is out of office, and if they would be otherwise eligible for another term, would no longer be permitted to run for the presidency while the justice is serving on the court. This would also cut-down on the issue of lifetime appointments by shortening their appointments by 4-8 years.

That and the President obviously shouldn't have immunity from the law.

What happens with the vacancy on the court while we are waiting for the president to leave office? It gives the legislature plenty of time to argue about the appointment, which they will do anyways.

Not to take anything anyway from the Olympic athletes who are incredibly talented at their sport, but their sport doesn't resemble the practical shooting of real guns.

There are actual competitons for that, such as the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) world shoots. The U.S. is much better represented in these: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPSC_Handgun_World_Shoots

I'll probably get down-voted to oblivion for asking, but continuing this train of thought: If a woman gives birth to a baby and simply walks away, should she be charged with a crime?

If not, why?

If so, why?

There are plenty of examples of this, so it really isn't thoeretical.

Thanks, really no need to apologize. I had assumed it was just selective memory myself and hadn't considered the temp/voltage drop possibility, but now we have learned something.

I would say some of them are, but some are just funny observations. Like the current issue: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/olympic_sports_2x.png

Zero science in that either.

I wonder if there are things you’d judge god for.

I often catch myself trying to do just that, and I have to humble myself and remember that I don't even have the authority to judge other humans let alone God. It is my observation that human beings are incredibly arrogant, myself included. We are tiny specks of dust on a tiny planet that we have barely explored outside of, and we want to declare ourselves masters of the universe and holders of truth. This is a characteristic that I have observed in myself and in others that I believe goes all the way back to the temptation in Genesis 3: "ye shall be as gods". It is in my nature to want to call the shots and decide what is right and wrong and I see myself unconsciously try to slide into that mindset on a regular basis.

Is there suffering so great that you would ask “how can he let that happen”?

This is a separate question. There is a big difference between judging God in my heart and deciding that He is wrong for allowing the suffering I am experiencing or observing, and asking why he is allowing it; Asking: "how can you let things like this happen?" "This seems to be against what I understand your nature to be?" "How can you be who you say you are and allow this?" is very different from saying, "You are wrong and I hate you for it.". The former are genuine questions spurred by a conflict between what I understand about his nature and what I perceive from my experience. The entire book of Job revolves around these very questions and offers some interesting insights.

Or is your god compatible with even the worst realities imaginable?

God isn't my god. He isn't whatever I want him to be, if that were the case, I would never find myself in conflict with him. He is what he is. He is I AM.

Yes, this. This supposes that either:

A. There is the existence good and evil that supersedes the authority of God ( which means God cannot be sovereign over morality )

B. I define good and evil and then judge "god" based on my definition ( which from a moral standpoint would actually make me god )

I suspect that this really isn't a paradox for most people because they either:

A. Look at the world and see horrible things they don't like and then want to judge God for them ( with what authority ? )

B. They don't believe in God to begin with but like to use this chart to re-enforce their belief that they are logically correct.

A God that literally defines good and evil by his existence ( I AM ) breaks this chart.

This is like survivorship bias, but in reverse. Obviously almost everyone who killed themselves with a gun had access to a gun, but this doesn't mean that they wouldn't have committed suicide by some other means if they didn't have access to a gun.

This is something that is impossible to determine scientifically. If everyone in this study group killed themselves with a gun, how many of them would have not killed themselves if they didn't have a gun? They can't un-kill themselves and let us take away their guns so we can determine the effect.

What this study shows is that a gun is likely the first choice of gun owners who are trying to kill themselves. It cannot determine how much less likely they would have been to kill themselves had they not owned a gun, if at all. Intuitively I do believe that it would be less, because other means are likely more difficult, slower, or less effective. Whether this would result in slightly fewer suicides or much fewer I do not know, but this study doesn't prove either.

This is a pretty good video explaining why the imperial system in the U.S. isn't as bad as it seems: https://youtu.be/iJymKowx8cY?si=wcyG7yM150e71Rn4

I feel like you are doing Easter eggs wrong...mine are plastic and filled with candy thats made with only the highest quality high-fructose corn syrup. They do come in some fabulous colors, so I guess there is that...