It's at the bottom, slightly outside of the frame. If you continue the vertical lines that would be parallel you intersect there (e.g. the slim building in the front). The same way you can reach the points on either side.
arlaerion
joined 3 years ago
One big problem with your last paragraph: Baptism and many other rite to join religions happen at a very young age. These children know no world without the belief almost everyone around them practices. It's getting their norm how live is. Leaving gets hard, it means leaving your life behind.
Diamonds are produced in the earth's crust. The gold in that ring though...
Globally there's way mor illegal trafficking in construction than in prostitution. So should wo do something there too?
And yes, legalizing will not eliminate human trafficking, but it would put the blame (and criminalization) away from victims.
I am not your enemy, I'm taking part in a discussion. Also this is my first post in this thread, stop talking like I personally offended you.
I explicitly wrote about the state of Israel and not the Jewish people. So the timeframe of my argument the founding of Israel and the decades after that. Jewish europeans settled there since the end of the 19th century, and for almost half a century it worked. The phrase started being used after that.
The Likud Party hat that phrase in it's founding charter: "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
Yes, it was used earlier by the PLO but back then the meaning was more like "take back what was ours". It was not against the jews, they were there before the founding of Israel. It was against the forced taking of land by creating the state of Israel.
Extremist forces took it further, especially Hamas. But by then the sitation was already complicated enough for an easy solution...
Maybe if israeli hardliners didn't support the founding of Hamas and assassinate Rabin they could have reached a peaceful solution almost 20 years ago?
I was talking about the part:
Its not a paradox. Tolerance is a social contract.
If Adam is cancelled for being a homophobe, it is within this contract. My question is: Why was Bob cancelled? Has he done or said something? Has he agreed with Adam? Or was there only gossip about his opinion? The reasons for cancelling someone are important. As is causality. Adam and Bob are not functionally identical. Why is Adam a homophobe? Why was Bob cancelled? Maybe the started at the same spot, but here that is not clear.
Another point:
Bob argues that gay people want to cancel him.
He argues they want to cancel him. How does he know that? What are his arguments, was there a thrat? This reads like an unbacked claim, an accusation. If that's the case, then Bob would be in the wrong for false accusation.
I think you misunderstand the original post. Being tolerant and inclusive ist not a contract you can be for or against, it is the contract you act for or against.
If I act against the contract by being intolerant of others i will be excluded. In your example a homosexual person by being homosexual is not acting against the contract. He/she by being homosexual does not exclude other people from society. If I say: "They have no place in society!", I am the intolerant one and should be excluded from the contract.
Any chance to get to know which one? :)
There are some, but many nouns you just have to remember. Diminuitives are neutral, living beings commonly use their biological gender. There are many exeptions, but knowing the origin of them helps (e.g. girl -> das Mädchen is a dimiuitive of maid -> die Maid)
It helps reading books or watching shows/movies in german to get a feel for the gender of nouns.