I hadn't heard of the word either but I sure do have the condition! I was a triathlete at one point, but I would take a very large swing around the marker buoys just in case one might touch me... and the grandparents comment of "big spooky tubes" sent a surge of adrenaline through my body. I feel so seen:)
I also have megalophobia specifically related to ducting and that picture set of my panic response. I hadn’t really thought too much of it, but I wonder if Thr Empire Strikes Back is to blame.
likewise, learning to sail as a kid and having to go around these large partially submerged objects just kicked off some irrational fear in me (and stil does today, though to a lesser degree).
From an English background, I imagine we are sitting at a meeting. Something that is tabled is between us and under discussion. Something shelved has been removed from the table. What things are Americans visualising here when they say table?
It comes from picking something up to discuss and setting it down when discussion is over. I don't know how many people visualize anything when they say it.
What about if the police had a dedicated fund for arrests.
For the employer - they aren't allowed to sack the employee, but administrative costs of finding temp staff can be claimed from the fund.
For the arrested, all cost of living expenses are covered until trial, but should they be found guilty, this becomes a CPI indexed, interest free debt.
Any pre-conviction incarceration costs where accused is found innocent are also paid by the fund.
This seems to grab most of the data in one account. But does also seem to add a big incentive to find people guilty...
As someone who has gradually moved away from the more "woo" end of the spectrum and more towards the practical end, I found Waking Up to be a really good read.
That improperly restates my rebuttal. I'm not saying that Islam is never Muslim or vice versa. He's making the forall statement, not me. I'm saying that it's completely false that "The only way that Muslims can reasonably be said to exist as a group is in terms of their adherence to the doctrine of Islam". Trivially refuted since he's making a ∀ statement. You only have to find a ∃ to refute it. Google "cultural muslim", etc.
Well the impression I get is the idea of a "cultural" muslim is contested from both within and without the muslim community so I don't think it's quite that clear cut. Who gets to own the labels seems to always be a political battle. You could argue that it is only "reasonable" to use the label for those who hold the beliefs.
I'm not really sure if there's a term for the problem with this, but "moral hazard" may apply. If a determination is made to exclude all "cultural muslims" from the definition of muslim, then that determination is probably made by someone who is not a "cultural muslim", and the effects might really suck for the cultural muslims.
"No true Scotsman" is only a fallacy when one uses irrelevant criteria to exclude people from a group.
It's not NtS to point out that James "Scotty" Doohan wasn't Scottish (he was a Canadian of Irish descent.) Nor is it NtS to point out that certain people don't hold various relevant defining characteristics and therefore to claim that they don't count as being in a particular category. Of course, that exclusion is contextual -- it can apply to a particular use of a label without applying to all uses of it.
Note that I disagree with Sam Harris overall. His claim is that the only way Muslims can be reasonably said to exist is his definition; I would argue that one way Muslims can be said to exist is his definition. I would further argue that some people who use other definitions of Islam have irrational/unjustified/disproportionate fear, and can therefore be said to be Islamophobic.
I'm assuming that there is some sort of Star Trek universe remake of the scene from Spartacus, but I can't seem to find it. If so, does it have the same set-up (slave gladiators battling for the amusement of the elites)? I'm not entirely sure this makes sense...
There is a Star Trek episode where Kirk is forced to watch as Spock and McCoy fight as gladiators against Roman guards. There aren't any Klingons involved, but it does feature Roman clothing. There is another episode where alien brains want Kirk, Ohura and Checkov to fight as gladiators on their planet for the rest of their lives. There is a third episode in which Spock and Kirk are forced to fight in front of Vulcans as part of a Vulcan trial-by-combat marriage ceremony. Their is also a fourth episode in Voyager which features a gladiatorial combat but in a sci-fi arena that looks like the set of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire." Those are the only references I could find, but let's just say that this idea has seen its fair share of screen time on Star Trek.
Thanks. None of those quite seem to fit the email though. I'm guessing that the allusion in the email must have just been to general Klingon war-like attitudes.
I was wondering if the explicit naming of the weapons was supposed to refer to that exact scene in the Kubrick movie. Which, given it was one of the triggers of the slave rebellion make the original email seem possibly quite weird.
Politics, nothing -- someone who can read a review such as the one Mrs. Bezos wrote, and not once question his assumption that a 13-year-old wrote it, has extremely sloppy habits of thinking at the very least.
Maybe imagine you're a happily married account manager for a baby formula company and then when you go to professional conferences (of mostly women), every time you try to engage someone or get involved in a group conversation the talk subtly turns to nipple tenderness and mid-term horniness. It makes doing your job and life in general harder than if you were just another woman.
