Don't worry this could be the last one
Yeah, and I'm positing that the probability he did not have a penis is at least 0.5%.
The Bible is not accurate regarding Jesus' early life.
I don't think it's wrong to exercise an iota of skepticism.
Was Luke there at the circumcision? What was his source?
Wouldn't Jesus being trans and Luke being misinformed (or actually trying to avoid outting him) explain why there isn't really any testimony about Jesus's life during puberty? It was an incredibly misogynistic era right? Is it inconceivable for a person without a penis to try to pass as a man in that era?
If a person can better appreciate Jesus by understanding him as a trans-man should a christian tell them they're wrong? Does it put them in spiritual jeopardy? Is it dishonest to say "maybe"? I don't think so.
Could it be that it's using less power as it charges? ie automatically shuts off power hungry features while charging?
Good data is so hard to get.
What I'd actually care about is how many minutes of usage does 30 minutes of charging get me in both standard and ekeing out as much life as I can mode.
Jesus on the other hand 100% had a dick. [...] Jesus was 100% biologically male.
Oh did they find his body?
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to conclude that the probability of Jesus being biologically male equals the human average of males being biologically male? Ie 99.5%.
Couldn't his radical compassion for outcasts and the downtrodden be related to personal struggles growing up with gender dysphoria?
If you believe he was conceived in a virgin, wouldn't it be MORE likely that he had XX chromosomes?
I wish I could give Elon the benefit of the doubt:
Well maybe he meant that the child's birthname is a deadname and out of respect of his child's identity he will not use it.
But he definitely didn't mean it like that. He refused to celebrate his child doing something difficult, and chose transphobia(or at least the approval of transphobes) over having a relationship with his child.
This is peak nightmare before Christmas season
This is the level of critical thinking that conservative pundits are exercising.
Shifts team to generative AI.
If your car development team can be transferred to AI developement you weren't building much of a car.
I'm not a law talking guy, this isn't the law, and it isn't ethical best practice but it might help people understand the reasonableness of the poster.
I believe it's true that drunk people can't consent. I think that what juries are likely to actually care about is the question:
Did the accused have the reasonable belief that the plaintiff would consent to sex while sober?
If you're in a police interview or a trial and are asked:
What made you think the plaintiff consented to your actions?
And all you can say without perjuring yourself is:
I vaguely recall that they seemed kinda into it, and they didn't say no, oh! and they didn't fight back.
You're going to have a bad time. ESPECIALLY if you've been drinking, because it will be easier to question the reasonableness of your belief in their consent.
This poster is clearly meant for a place similar to a university dormitory.
This poster is bad because: it makes the law seem lopsided, and perpetuates sexist ideas about gender and sex.
The poster is good because: unfortunately, too many men think that if a girl is drunk at a place where he thinks the girls are looking for drunk hookups, that she consents to whatever she doesn't fight (and maybe more). Too many men misunderstand consent and have dangerous ideas about what women really want. It's much better they be scared into over thinking whether they're risking arrest than that they rape somebody.
Obviously more nuance is good, but if you're trying to stop drunk 18 year olds from raping/being raped, taping up a poster like this in the stairwell is more effective than taping up an essay.
I seem to recall Diogenes replied:
Likewise: if I were not Diogenes I too would wish I were Diogenes
I mean it's all probably made up but what a guy.
It seems he bought Twitter and successfully traded twitter's market cap into right wing populist influence (RWPI) [and presumably a capital gains deduction], and now RWPI into governmental influence.