I have always been troubled that there is a lack of humor possibilities without tonal context in reviewing ancient culture. Have we not considered that some of it - maybe cat statues, are just ancient memes or were a gag?
Edit: are there any examples of this where historians later realized “oh that was kind of a joke...”
For me a coworker didn't want to open a RESP for his 3 kids because he thought the government would seeze his money whenever they wanted (and at the same time spend an average of 15 000$ a year on sports bets).
Also had a coworker who didn't want to invest any money into stocks such as diversified ETF (like VEQT), because "what if all the stock markets of the world goes to 0$", to which I usually reply that in that case money has no value anymore and only bottled water, canned foods and bullets have value.
Chances are that if you starts to question something , there would be so much evidence for the belief that you are holding that you would rightly reject the supposed new information which may or may not be true and just a plain rumor
Eg Flat Earth ... There is so many evidence in favour of the earth not flat that no new rumor or any new conspiracy theory will hold
EDIT This Blew Up . I agree this is something not a LPT and should be obvious from get go ... but for the last month faced us with scenario where some of my friend lack of open mindedness left us with terrible loss. Many people I know just dont want to listen and act a dangerous precedent ... As long as you are willing to rationalize and use mind you would be comapartively less to get caught in cult mentality .....
I think Just having an Acceptance that this might be something true even I am sure of the other and do your own research and with enough evidence claim or reject something is what is required
EDIT 2 The obvious LPT definately is more in the context of everyday life and situations. Obviously there are accepted facts that Holocaust Happened , moon revolves around the sun , earth is not flat etc which have Something we Have large amount of evidence that supports it
EDIT 3 I think If there is something that you heard on fb and a new conspiracy theory , its definately have a higher chance that you would reject that because there is nothing that would support that unfounded claim
Why YSK: If you ever need any of these things, just look for the nearest Sikh temple. While you’re there, please respect their culture and cover your hair while you’re in the prayer hall or in “langar” hall. A langar hall is where the food is served. If you like you can also volunteer to help in the kitchen and elsewhere.
Would I need anything other than:
My last one worked for 33 years without an expansion tank, and I have no PRV. I have a drain in the floor right next to the water heater.
Edit: Gas Water heater
According to scholars Reynolds and Wilson (2013):
>Many influential clergy disliked equally the unbelievers and the classical Greek literature which they studied with enthusiasm, and so the members of Christian communities were advised not to read such books. If this attitude had been adopted by all the clergy it would in due course, as the new religion became universal by the fifth century, have imposed an effective censorship on classical literature; as it is there can be little doubt that one of the major reasons for the loss of classical texts is that most Christians were not interested in reading them, and hence not enough new copies of the texts were made to ensure their survival in an age of war and destruction. But the literary merit of the classical authors was sufficient to tempt some Christians to read them, particularly as there were, at least in the early period, comparatively few Christian literary classics which could be recommended as an acceptable substitute for the traditional texts studied at school.
We hear too much about how the Christian church "preserved" ancient Greco-Roman learning during the Dark Ages (and yes, contrary to the "new orthodoxy" of ignorant apologists, there was a Dark Ages! See Ward-Perkins, 2006) and "saved" Western civilization. What apologists conveniently forget is this was done selectively and overwhelmingly favored Christian literature to such an extent, classical literature barely survived the Dark Ages.
According to Reynolds and Marshall (1983):
>The copying of classical texts tapered off to such an extent during the Dark Ages that the continuity of pagan culture came close to being severed.
The losses, of course, were substantial, with estimates ranging from 90 to 99%. Scholar G.W. Trompf says 94% of all Latin literature was lost (1973).
The truth is, the apologists are wrong. Far more ancient works were lost due to Christian indifference than actually preserved. Overall, Christianity had a negative influence on the survival of all classical literature, losing much, if not most of the learning of the noble Greeks and Romans.
As far as I'm aware there's really no other difference to them to Christianity, Islam etc. except for numbers.
Asatro believes are well and alive here in Sweden, but for some reason they are considered a mythological group and nobody really takes them seriously, or at least treat them the same as christians or muslims.
I should clarify that I’m primarily asking if people who converted to Islam in its early period also carried over rituals and beliefs systems from the pagan religions (primarily Arabia and Central Asia, because unorganized polytheistic “pagan” religions were much more widely practiced there) that they were converted from.
Looking for a quick analysis of US political affiliation.
Citizens of other countries are welcome, but please specify where.
Without broadcasting your ideology, how much of your identity is tied into your political beliefs?
Please don't simply say, "my identity is a political statement," as this is a separate question, although it's obvious that different identities would choose certain political ideologies.
I'm more interested in how much your political beliefs affect your life? Do you buy certain products because of your beliefs? Do you pursue or avoid relationships because of them? How much are your apolitical interests and hobbies are affected by your politics?
As stated in the title:
What are the core ideas espoused by the Democratic and Republican parties?
How committed are the parties to these ideas? Are they fundamental and relatively stable? Or have they been adopted for purposes of political expedience and can be dropped or adapted as such?
How have the core ideas of each party changed over the last 20 years?
There is nothing wrong with being a kind, generous, or caring person. But deciding to be a nice person should be a choice that you make, and not an automatic defense mechanism.
Some people act nice just because they are too weak to withstand even the slightest amount of conflict or confrontation. They are too scared to stand up for their beliefs. They only feel safe when they feel that everyone else likes them.
Don’t become a push over, or you will be taken advantage of. People at work will take full credit for your contributions and girls will use you for free dinners and favors.
When preforming favors for others, ask yourself the question: Am I doing this just to try to make others like me or do I really want nothing back in return?
The actions of a so called “nice guy” are often extremely dishonest. By pretending that you are not interested in a woman, and that you are only being nice, you are effectively lying to the woman. There is incongruence between your thoughts, words and actions. This incongruence shows the woman that although you like her, you lack self-confidence, crave her validation, and want an intact ego more than you want her.
In the long run, being a kind person will get you farther than being a jerk, as long as this kindness comes from a place of strength and abundance rather than weakness.
Full Video on Topic: https://youtu.be/hlLxp7PoWSg
I am bored and lazy on this New Year’s Day, so I thought this would potentially be an interesting post: What bothers you about makeup? It could be things people say about makeup, things about makeup itself, the beauty community, certain beauty companies, etc. It could literally be anything!
Here is mine: can we please stop using the words “dupes” and “good for the price” this year.
Dupes: I know “dupes” are not quite as popular as they used to be, but I still see a lot of posts and videos about it. It really bothers me when people say a drugstore product is a good “dupe” for something. I find it funny that some YouTubers will show two products (one high end and the other a dupe) and the high end product is used to death, but the dupe is hardly touched. If it is truly a dupe, why haven’t they touched it? I’m sorry, but I personally believe that there are no such things as dupes. There may be alternatives or other products that will give off a similar vibe, but it will never be exact.
I went through the whole “dupes” phase a few years ago and honestly spent more money than I do now by just buying the high end counterpart. Every so-called “dupe” I tried back in the day, never left me satisfied. Sure you may get a similar color, but the formula or other aspects will never be the same. Also, “dupe” brands like Makeup Revolution honestly disgust me, as they are blatantly copying other brands’ hard work. It doesn’t matter if they are copying an indie brand or a big label brand, it is not ethical IMO. This reminds me...just because the packaging looks similar, does NOT mean it is a dupe! I hope we can start saying “alternatives” or “similar color/vibe” rather than “dupes”
”it is good, for the price”: so these people are basically saying that it is only good for the $5 price tag? So that $50 bronzer is a great product, but that $5 bronzer is also great because of the price? This is just so confusing to me and maybe someone here can explain it.
I absolutely adore high end and luxury makeup, but I have tried some drugstore products that are amazing. For instance, I love the ELF Wow Brow and it is the only fiber eyebrow gel I will buy from now on. I don’t love it because it is a $3 product; I love it because it is a truly great product. If someone says a product is “good, especially for the price,” I am not going to try it out! I personally want to know if a product is good for being genuinely good, not for the cheap price. I hope people can start... keep reading on reddit ➡
This forum consists of a tiny minority of mostly hardcore fans. This subreddit technically has a population of 400,000 members, but the active community is probably, at most, 50,000 people based on the number of active users throughout the week and the most upvoted posts of all time. According to the CEO of Wizards of the Coast, there were approximately 9.5 million active players of D&D 5th Edition as of 2017. That means we make up roughly half a percent of the total player base.
I bring this up to provide some perspective to opinions we often present as established facts like Monk = bad or Sorcerer = bad. The majority of more casual players might not have these opinions. They might not judge the game by the same criteria that hardcore fans do, and so come to different conclusions about their game experiences. For example, they might not care or even know that one option deals 3 DPR more than another option (I know most complaints are more nuanced than this, but I have heard this complaint multiple times).
This is not to say that criticism is bad or that any particular criticism is wrong. I just think the wide and varied audience of the game is one of the reasons WotC pushes the idea that “all rules are optional.” So that you feel empowered to change something that doesn’t align with how your particular group plays the game. That’s why I originally joined this forum: so I could learn how to DM better by adjusting the game to better suit my players.
One of my favorite things about Steph is he has real confidence in his abilities. It’s not fake, it’s real. I always tell him the best attribute you have is unwavering belief in yourself. You’d be shocked by the huge amount of insecurity among NBA players. The power the media has over players is enormous - hearing “you suck” or being ranked in a certain spot - that’s stuff that hits people, especially younger people. You have to fall back on what do I think of myself and my abilities? That’s the only way you’re gonna navigate this.
Thought that was kind of interesting, I would have assumed 90% of players that make it are absurdly confident and don’t pay attention to the talking heads, but Bob is a former agent and seems to think otherwise.