DomeGuy
"this job requires specialized training we're not willing to provide" is the same management failure as "the wages offered for this job are not sufficient to attract workers."
Raise the latter, and give the former with a reduced wage for a set number of years.
If you're dealing with relationship advice, the differences from one person to another are substantially greater than those which separate men and women. Even if we ignore transgender and same-gender relationships, or how a huge portion of western society's gender differences are just toxic sexism.
"How can I (M) suggest $FETISH to partner (F)" is essentially the same question if you swap the genders, make them both F, or make them both M. And to the extent that they aren't, many of the answers and clarifying questions will be.
In a winner-take-all election, anything but a vote for the runner-up is an endorsement of whoever wins.
Yes, this system is stupid. But we're not going to ever fix it by pretending that the rules of the game aren't what they are. Any eligible voter who didn't vote for Trump or Harris make a clear statement that Donald and protect 2025 were just fine by them. Regardless if they stayed home, voted for a vanity campaign, or just left the POTUS choice blank.
Are you an atheist, a neo-pagan, or just a protesting with an anti-papal bias?
I ignored most of your anti-catholic bullshit because that's what it is -- anti-catholic bullshit. You asked where I got my assertion from, and I answered. If you want to get into more detail, sure, let's do that.
Go ahead and rebut how millions of lives were lost by actively sabotaging condom use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS
Condoms are very effective at stopping the spread of HIV, but they do fuckall to keep anyone infected with HIV from developing AIDS and dying. If the catholics are providing 25% of the world healthcare for people with AIDS, that means that there are "millions" of people alive today because of the roman church. And if celebrities like Princess Diana or Magic Johnson get credit for humanizing victims of the AIDS epidemic, so does the catholic church.
I don't want to defend their wrongheaded opposition to prophylactics due to their family planning usage, but how much blame they get for the spread of HIV and how much credit they get for research and healthcare is, like I said. complex as fuck.
Between 500-1000AD the Church systematically destroyed classical libraries and learning centers.
To paraphrase wikipedia, "citation fucking needed." Here's some random links I found, starting with two biased statements.
https://churchandstate.org.uk/2023/01/christian-vandalism-of-the-classical-world/ https://www.christian-thinktank.com/qburnbx.html
The first is a pop-formatted article by a rather obviously biased author, who doesn't seem to have any actual citations for his claims. The second is a more scholarly formatted article from someone with a more pro-christian bias, but numerous citations are included. Here's a less biased take, whose short form is "no":
The Church burned books, destroyed manuscripts, and executed or exiled intellectuals who challenged religious orthodoxy.
I'm going to infer that you're alluding to the story of Galileo Galilei here. In short, Galileo was condemned by the church not because he was an "intellectual who challenged religious orthodoxy", but because he didn't even try and hide his anti-catholic bias. There's a world of difference between telling the king he's wrong and telling the king that he should abdicate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
To paraphrase what I said before, if you want to assert as a matter of faith that Christianity in general or the roman church in particular are bad and evil, then there's no way I could convince you otherwise. If your perspective is more religiously agnostic, however, I encourage you to do a bit more research before you repeat the biased accusations of others as if they were objective fact.
I'm basing it on an understand of history and nuance.
The roman catholic church is at least sixteen centuries old. I dare you to name any human organization of which endured for over a millennium and did not partake in something odious to modern sensibilities.
I could probably go point-for-point with a rebuttal to each bad things you noted, but the only one that really merits rebuttal is "dark ages". The term is out-of-vouge in modern scholarship largely because it was essentially an anti-theistic smear from the start; the roman catholic church's obsessive need to keep books and insist that the world was made by a rational intelligence laid the fundamental foundation for the renaissance, and the era between the fall of Rome and the enlightenment was far more advanced than the term you used implies.
Like I said, whether the roman catholic church is a net-good in 2025 is entirely based on how you weight the value of both the good and bad things they do. You're free to assign them an arbitrarily high negative value because you have religious differences with them if you like, but pretending that they've never done anything good and aren't doing anything good today is a position of willful ignorance.
Come to think of it, I doubt you can find a single organization that was even a century old which doesn't have at least one black mark against them.
The catholic church has been a considerable "force for good" for centuries. Whether or not the bad they do outweighs that is a question of how much value you assign to the bad things they do and how much credit you give them for good intentions.
Sure, they're anti-abortion and implicitly sexist, but they're also pro-mercy, anti-war, anti-death-penalty, and possibly the most pro-science of all theistic churches. Bishops in the USA are obnoxious right-wing partisans, but in other countries they're firmly in the local center or on the bleeding edge of the local left. (There's a reason why the first American-born pop wasn't a working priest in the USA.)
Getting millions of Americans to go out and essentially shout "F U Donald" is a little bit more than a hang. And is potentially much more effective than a riot or occupy wall street.
America is still a democracy, in that all the roads to power require you to get folk to show up and vote for you.
Who I am and who did the study should be irrelevant. An idea should stand on its own or not.
Or do you really want to be the sort of person who dismissed Einstein as "Jewish science" or who told the Wright brothers that heavier than air flight is impossible? (Or, worse, the sort of person who pays for a scam "bomb sniffer" after a terrorist attack, or assumes Donald must be smart because he's rich?)
It's perfectly fine to answer a question with "I don't know," especially when your other option is "no, the emperor must have clothes on."
In NY we have these amazing devices, where they can adhere a chemical to blank ballots before voters mark them to be scanned.
It's a fairly obscure tech, kind of like an additive manufacturing rig that, instead of adding one plane at a time to build a 3D physical thing from the bottom up, uses small rows of line segments to create a two-dimensional image. These "printers" used to be widespread, but still do have enough niche uses that the government was able to acquire some fairly easily.
It's also going to make that lawsuit in New Paltz very interesting.
Since you read it, and don't reference them addressing the fact pattern I mentioned, I'm not sure reading it would be worth my time. I'd love to be convinced, however, if you can answer one question.
How did she categorize a movement as "non-violent" or not?
It shouldn't be. Asserting that "no non-violent protests have failed" ignores an obvious null hypothesis.
Tyrannical regimes attack non-violent protests that get large enough, and then call said movements "violent" to justify what the state did to them.