If true, then we'd ask why Rohm served Hitler faithfully for a dozen years.
Actually, the statute was used with the height of arbitrariness against anyone the NSDAP wanted to brand, straight or gay.
Most of the gay Nazis were also married because they didn't use the word gay but gleichgeschlechtlich which would now be understood as guy-favoring bi. They didn't like Hirschfeld's words for it so used their own.
My dropped comm; when you said "I can't open the rules" I thought you meant you had the sidebar link to the rules and it didn't open. My trying to be helpful and failing.
u/Perun, this one is less than urgent, but perhaps it's silly, while the TOS require mobile users to follow forum rules, if mobile users can't see forum rules anywhere and can't guess an URL. Maybe put in your pipeline, or ignore if it's already there.
Which is where your game of malicious misquotation should be banished. And "Karen" is namecalling.
At Scored most people know what censorship is and know that you're not being censored when you break TOS (including forum rules) and are disciplined.
Elaborate. That doesn't seem like the sort to produce this OP.
I'm glad you're loving my activity. So if we get a mod team and I report activity of yours that I believe violates the plain rules, as I've elaborated, you'd be fine with the mods judging those violations, and if so presumably giving you opportunity to change or be banned? Should I be specific with your behavior that seems to be in violation right now? Because it's a bit illogical to pretend you obey the rules with people calling out violations on you unanswered.
Odd if there would be wiki pages not enabled for mobile. In this case it's not important at all except as a glitch, but if you find it important to see other wiki content (there's very little) then we have Meta.
In context, it says that marriage is the general rule but not everyone can "accept" it as the general rule for themselves via three categories. If a person chooses to self-castrate that is included, although that is the same category as voluntary celibacy. And of course self-castration is typically a result of the influence of blood representing life in the first place. That doesn't mean the religion commends it.
Did you have some alternative religion better than the principle of respecting blood as being life?
If you could see them you'd only get the same rules repeated, no "detailed explanation".
You should at least be able to navigate here to the intended link https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/wiki/community_rules/ to see what I mean.
All socialists start out as human beings, as long as they haven't sinned unto death.
If they consider others inhuman, after a little while for judgment they may find themselves considered inhuman too.
To give you an update, so far my analysis indicates maybe five very arbitrarily defined and fluid categories we can apply to evidence of cryptids.
-
Earth origin (archaeopteryx, Denisovan): This is when we have DNA evidence and science acknowledges the entity but there's still some difficulty about placement and interpretation.
-
Probable earth origin (dragon, yeti): This is when there isn't DNA evidence but the evidence still treats the entity as a relatively ordinary species that replicates on earth like others; these are distinguishable because the realms where such probable-earth creatures live is harder to explore by humans, leading to the weakness of evidence.
-
Alternate origin (sasquatch, chupacabra): This is when all sightings have an apparent inexplicable cover for them in the sense that the creature doesn't act natural, appears usually one at a time and only in unique incidents, and isn't tracked to a living population on earth like others are assumed to be. This phenomenon is better explained by teleportation of such a creature at occasional times and places from an unearthly source than by such a creature having an ongoing population in the wild.
-
Simulation (grays, reptilians): This is when the phenomenon of regularly inexplicable cover is present and the incidents also take on an unnatural experience that appears extradimensional, hypnotic, or otherwise unearthly. This is best explained not by any physical cryptid but by a simulation of a given form by a nonphysical entity that ordinarily has some other form (e.g. energy patterns that resemble UAPs).
-
Shapeshifting (nephilim, werewolf): This is when the being takes multiple forms, typically a known one (human) and an arcane one (reptilian). This appears to be similar to simulation as above, except that the entity is physical but still retains power to simulate the additional form. Unlike the other cases, these appear to require the concession of ordinary human rights because the entities are subject to the weaknesses of humanity, but they can also be judged independently on their actions as humans. I hesitate to say much here because there should be no slippery slope to generic disregard of humanity because some of them might be something more or less than others.
It seems there is a general pattern in nature that living beings, sentient or not, are classed into independent species or kinds that each develop from seed form during an immature phase, and therefore any being can be classed in a given species according to its origin. Interfertility is the usual mark. If this were not true then a temporal being would exist without any default species that would be regarded as a conglomeration of many or all; but no beings come into existence in record or observation with this phenomenon. So since we are asking about multiple forms it seems that an instance of a being must be classified according to the form it takes from its origin (parent(s)); and that other forms are then secondary, learned from observation of those forms and from power to manipulate one's resonance in this world (physical or not, or both) so as to reflect those forms.
I know that doesn't answer your question, it's just an attempt to begin classification of the question. This is also not to focus on sentience or nonsentience. You seem to be using category (1) as evidence of evolution, and that's an old debate where I gave the hints of an answer, in that the DNA barcode of all species within Homo is the same, so marks of "primitivity" or "development" do not disprove creation. More to the point you use it, and the origin of Pan as well (chimps), to ask about evidence of other sentient races; and it might be used for a long inferential chain, but I don't think we'll find new sentience in category (1). So I inferred the other categories based on the type of evidence we have and the likelihood of different origin methods. (2)-(3) speak of the physical only and cover most of the nonsentient cases, but can include the sentient; (4) is more where we'd put demon testimony, and (5) is more where we'd put shapeshifter testimony ("reptilian" has been used to speak of both, as well as of the chupacabra in group (3)). And in particular (3)-(5) have in common that they are not hiding in earth but that they have pathways to earth from elsewhere. (Some might put them in the volcanos and the hollow earth, but my theorizing is functionally equivalent with that when I speak of not being in the explored earth. Wherever they arise does not follow known physics, which explains why it becomes hiding rather than the trackability of groups (1)-(2).)
You allude to the possibility that the cryptid is also modifying the perceptions of others. I don't rate that option highly, but I must keep an open mind. I don't think we're modifying light for those who are fully awake and using their eyes normally, but I do think that there are powers of hypnosis that transfer imaginative forms into the place in the mind where sight is understood. But I'm not treating any of these events as imaginative. If an abductee reports an experience that is better explained as hypnotic than as physical, that doesn't teach us about form (except maybe energy form). The question is limited to experiences that indicate species of creatures that recur in other experiences, not about hapax visions.
The link to the Conspiracies rules has the same as the sidebar, so that's all we've got to work with. A purpose, 3 rules, and a disclaimer.
Because Bellamy was an idiot self-identified socialist who didn't even put God in the pledge, which didn't happen until long after socialist FDR moved the hand position.
One (partial) within oneness (whole) aka each unit.
Measuring isn't necessary for nature to work
What if nature offers each being choice during linear progression?
So, one process of haling (healing), one breath (inspiration), one resistance (of diverse temptations).
And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.
I find Bohr and Heisenberg as the true culprits while Einstein and Schrodinger seem to be trying to keep reality real, but I also pointed out here that both groups had their ink smudges.
Light speed is not a maximum speed in the universe and traveling with whatever speed does not produce any paradoxes.
Perhaps! If so we need new language to describe it.
If somedody will observe something weird, is not a paradox or a problem. He just used wrong mean of observation, and that's all. Supersonic planes are real, and you can hear weird things listenig their flights, and this does not mean supersonic movement is impossible. Black holes as they are depicted by modern science are also more like visual effect, than something real. Change light as mean of observation to something more advamced and faster, and most black hole weirdness will go away.
Very probably!
Time traveliing using wormhole to the different time, also need space travelling, if you want to travel to the same point in space, but in another time. Everything moves, so with high probability you will just come oiut to interstellar space, travelling only in time through wormhole.
I keep telling people that.
Wormholes have nothing to do with teleportation or whateved. It is just a connection between two points using some shorter path through another dimensions or subspaces. Wormhole move nothing, it is a traveller travel through it, in whole, just like travelling usual ways.
They're very straightforward, but, yes, people call it teleporting anyway due to the unrefined measurement technique.
So, the question of time travel is open and there are no any answers.
Sure, something's gotta give. There are better models than the spaces we've inherited, and we may succeeded in passing the better models on to our kids so they can say how crazy we were in search of still better models.
ask yourself what could prevent cause from moving through each internal effect?
What prevents cause?
a) The question itself implies something other than cause aka a contradiction.
So, nothing, implying effect denying cause, aka one thing denying everything.
One perceives one another as moving differences
Okay then.
Perceivable cannot be held onto.
Yet all was moving, perceivable, enabling forward grasping. All cannot be held onto.
It's holding onto the synthetic which corrupts reproduction, not the existence of synthesis.
So analytical reproduction implies any synthesis is unheld (any conflict is ignored). Passing through inspiration implies information unheld. Presence implies medium undistinguished. Singularity implies dualism disestablished.
What each different potential inhales/exhales implies the same process.
Existence implies ones choice within balance.
(a) Existence implying balance, and imbalance tempting nonexistence aka denial aka nihil, imply choosing existence. Choosing nihil implies not chosing.
(b) Letting go implies emptying aka kenosis. If inhalation/exhalation imply same process, spirit moving in (reflection, bending apart, analysis) and letting spirit go (kenosis) imply same process; spirit moving in lets go of nonexistence, spirit let go lets go of existence.
Thanks, archive indexing is underway, will ping you when I hit it. IMHO it's the same conclusion anyone reasonable would come to in an hour of reviewing what's online about it.
This comment isn't responsive to my point. If it's clear to the average person that an account is essentially AI content, then it's very easy to discipline on current rules. My point is that those admitted humans who regularly quote and lean on AI content might also be deleted by common consensus, as happens in other fora. Your comment fixates again on an allegation that I seek being liked and an allegation that Will is essentially AI (when your own links show many people agreeing he's not, as his writing was far ahead of AI skills when he first released it, and AI still hasn't caught up).
As for fairness, I affirm that because it's already a sidebar rule, Our goal is to create a fairer world. So a mod had better care to be fair!
How can you tell the difference between a real newly joined human and AI chatbot/shill?
A person who makes a commitment to respect, fairness, and transparency is held to it not only by us humans but also by (God in) the universal order that punishes broken commitment. Humans are imperfect, but setting guards is sufficient for the dialogue and growth you seek to flourish. Other guards are possible than those I suggested, they are only a note to the community.
In your first link, the voting on the discussion proceeding is +30/-15, but of 16 main replies only 2 agree with OP and the vast majority reject OP. A mod who judges solely based on a vote total for a discussion wouldn't be taking the whole situation into account. When I held a community discussion on what I thought was an obvious troll, I was shocked to find that there was more mercy in the community than there was demand for resolution of injustice, so we didn't act at that time other than to define a probation (which the "troll" later broke, allowing us to ban).
If the community wants an action being done (these examples provided. I even exclude all of mine...) what mod would provide it? And how can a useless mod be convinced that they are truly circumspective?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? We can only pray that the mod team be based enough that they do have good ear to what the community wants by clear consensus, that they do respond to appeals and allow objections, etc. We only have the people who are here from which to choose. If God puts you in an outpost where there isn't critical mass for establishing a law-abiding system with good guards, then you live under anarchic rules until something better comes along. If you have a tyrant, it's much the same. But humanity has discovered that there are a number of principles of deliberative assembly that have great effect toward minimizing (or at least pushing back) tendencies to these abuses. So, specifically, Conspiracies will either find a mod team it can live with and be stuck with it until something better happens, or it will go on as is, and either way we can only live our best lives (including educating each other about these principles of good governance in the hopes of such improvement).
Weak moderation is all this community had in past time
I think that's the first time I've heard u/axolotl_peyotl or u/clemaneuverers characterized as weak.
if you can't make the hard decisions
I need not give more of my resume of hard decisions until you acknowledge what I've already given of it.
Unfortunately, I see you, and one other candidate, take this mod job as an opportunity to be liked and respected.
What a perspective! I came to Win without care of whether I was liked or respected but only to do the Lord's work here. He blessed it. I do seek to understand everyone and not to mark anyone as recalcitrant unless they cross a specific red line (I think one person has in 5 years). But I do judge individual actions all the time, including those that violate TOS including individual forum rules. The fact that you don't agree with my judgments about Will isn't proof either of us are right or are in agreement with community consensus; it's just that, if either of us were mod, the other might appeal the one's decision on this and a dialogue like this would ensue, and the mod team would continue to judge the appeal based on whether any new information indicates error in the judgment. Your characterizing this disagreement as a general personality trait of people-pleasing, when I express no interest in people-pleasing even as I seek to speak the gospel in language that they receive, is rather broad-brushed.
Anyway, all that's to answer your questions and explain my position in light of your judgment of it. As for trying to prove my mod abilities to you, I'm almost a week past all that now, so your continuing to harp on that point is rather interesting. It's pretty clear that there's no critical mass here to push the status quo very far at all, and in terms of what I could do as user or mod I don't see the call to do much more any given week than I did last week. All I see is a feelgood concept that having a mod team would be better, differently conceived by everyone who expresses that. I may comment more publicly to that effect.
Baalism is real and has infected religions such as Judaism but is easily distinguished from Rabbinical Judaism. Modern attempts to equate baalism with Yahwism, solely because Yahweh refuses to acknowledge others calling themselves by the title baal instead of him, is complete ignorance of the politics involved, treating opposition parties as a monolith. It's like saying Christians are satanists because satanists use anointing.
As I implied, those Jews and others who misuse Biblical text to practice baalism have their sin on their own heads. The rest are innocent of that and we should not judge the innocent with the guilty.
Covenant implies coming together. Chrism aka christening implies each separated anointed one. Anointing is unique (one), oil aka olive is specific (each). What does each imply?
Rise during fall? Inhale and exhale alternate, each within one spirating. Strange!
In the Hebrew text, Ps. 89:37 is what the KJV calls Ps. 89:36. If you look at the Hebrew "Ps. 89:38" you'll see KJV 37 and the term yikkun olam. The root kun is most often translated prepare or establish, and the Jewish notion included older English "fix", meaning establish or set firmly, but has migrated into the newer meaning of "fix" that focuses on healing breaches as a subset of that. Olam refers to any spacetime cosmic system and so can mean world, age, cosmos, or forever, but has the same concept cluster of preparing the whole world, eternally or for eternity.
Obviously Ethan, the psalmist, says literally that tikkun olam cannot happen without David's seed being the one established forever. The greater concept is that this Messianic establishment forever informs the establishment of the whole world in its time.
There is some Rabbinical manipulation of this concept that puts it more in the hands of other humans without direct reference to the Messianic work, and in comparative religion this is identical to Christian manipulation of dominionism that purports to put the Messianic work in Christian hands without significant reference to Christ's part in it (and in Islam it's even bolder). That is indeed to be lamented in both religions, but it's not as if every Jewish man, woman, and child has a theology of getting their fingers into the whole world without reference to God's will. The thing OP complains about is just a wing that seizes upon a balanced Scriptural concept and imbalances it.
In short, to criticize the Jews more accurately one must learn that a subset of Rabbinism has hijacked the covenant and Christian principle that our brother Ethan described with the verbal form of the noun tikkun olam. The assumption that this is related to Moloch is entirely inaccurate and external and has nothing to do with learning how to criticize more accurately.
All was (perceived); all implies ongoing. Cause moves through one effect, cause moves through other effects. What prevents cause? Nothing aka not a thing aka vacuum aka nihil, suggesting resistance.
Does one require measuring another? If one does not measure another, does one perceive one? Does letting go of measuring let go of perceiving?
If one and another analyze and resist synthesis, how can that re-pair (reproduce)? What is reproduction without synthesis?
Action winging through reaction implies re-perpetuation (re-flex perpetuation). Synthesis?
Singular wing? Spectrum implies infrared/ultraviolet (implying past/future). Light (E-M aka I AM) is and re-flects all, past is future, distinguished by their medium between. Balanced wings cooperate like inhale/exhale. Suggestion tempts imbalancing wings.
Good can never destroy bad, nor could bad ever destroy good
Implying dualism aka ignorance of all? If good is existence and bad is nonexistence aka nihil, holding neither implies letting go of existence (implying kenosis) with letting go of nonexistence (implying reflection).
I told you it's in the files. It's also self-evident to any reasonable person who finds and reads the whole transcript. If you're willing to (stop spamming and) wait long enough for me to find the page I'll give it to you.
Was just reviewing how I got banned at ConPro for saying NAME THAT JEW, FOR REAL. "The-Jews" is not a locatable entity but a shapeshifting concept. George Soros and Volodomyr Zelenskyy, for instance, are people who look pretty satanic right now and the idiots who follow collectivism can't be bothered to name them for real. This incidentally always shuts them up, so if we should happen to see someone blaming The-Jews maybe the idea of naming individuals will continue to work to shut them up.
(BTW this goes for OP as well, because it goes a hair too far. For instance, the real synagogue of satan was, as Jesus prophesied rightly, neutralized in 108 AD by the preaching of Ignatius of Antioch; so the use of that term for Judaism today when Jesus says they're not Jews is a very mistaken othering. So the right Now What IMHO is to post "it's the satanists" every time by naming the guilty and sparing the innocent, and then let the races fall as they may.)