did Jesus have to play the same drama of enduring torture and sacrificing his life on each of these planets? If this is the way God works, it would have to be the same everywhere, right? — Athena
While the hair is important, the mustache is most often associated with the barbarian aesthetic. While the civilized Romans were clean-shaven or only had hair on their upper lip when it was part of a full beard, the Germanic men set themselves apart by only wearing a mustache – a bit different than the mustachioed, limp-wristed hipsters we see today. For many Romanized Germans, Gauls, and others, the mustache was a way to show off ethnic heritage. These men would wear the traditional styles of the Empire and speak perfect Latin, but still make a nod to their bloodlines by shaving everything but their mustaches.
450px-PazyrikHorseman
Their clothing is also an obvious contrast. Rather than the flowing robes that are impractical for fighting, rough terrain, and the manly art of conquering ones enemies, the Visigoths are seen in leg wraps – believed to have been originally developed to help protect the men’s legs from both the moisture and dense brush common in the parts of Europe from which these tribes originate.
The shorter length of the tunics and the cut-off sleeves allowed for maximum mobility – making them ideal garments for the quick movements required in battle.
Both men and women would dye their tunics, braid their hair, bathe regularly, and many digs have found that most carried a comb with them at all times.
Whoo, wait a minute am I wrong or was that a little misogynistic? What was ever said about Mother Mary for you to say she is concerned about punishing us and would call us sons of bitches? That kind of misogyny is a bit unnerving to me. Are you a safe person for me to interact with or should I expect to be the target of anger? Or perhaps I am misinterpreting you after a marriage with a man who had a controlling and castrating mother? — Athena
Where did you get that picture? It looks like it is a small piece of a larger picture. — Athena
Where did you get that picture? It looks like it is a small piece of a larger picture. — Athena
There's nothing weird about it. Private entities may certainly act to restrict speech. You may too. If you do, though, you do nothing illegal here in God's favorite country. The legal right to freedom of speech can only be infringed by the government or its agents. So it may not be good when private persons or entities restrict speech, but it isn't necessarily illegal. That's all being said by reference to private actors, as far as I know. There's the law and not the law.There's a really weird presumption I'm seeing where people hang their hat on whether or not it's a private entity that's controlling the thing without considering the role such large things occupy — MindForged
There's nothing weird about it. Private entities may certainly act to restrict speech. You may too. If you do, though, you do nothing illegal here in God's favorite country. The legal right to freedom of speech can only be infringed by the government or its agents. So it may not be good when private persons or entities restrict speech, but it isn't necessarily illegal. That's all being said by reference to private actors, as far as I know. There's the law and not the law. — Ciceronianus the White
Due to this, far-right Israeli justice minister Ayelet Shaked reportedly boasted: "A year ago, Facebook removed 50 percent of content that we requested. Today, Facebook is removing 95 percent of the content we ask them to." Facebook becoming a willing accomplice for governments seemed to coincide after two events: Russiagate and after Facebook announced in May that they would be partnering with the pro-Nato, far-right neoliberal Washington DC-based think tank the Atlantic Council.
But none of that dilutes how disturbing and dangerous Facebook’s rationale for its deletion of his accounts is. A Facebook spokesperson told the New York Times that the company deleted these accounts not because Kadyrov is a mass murderer and tyrant, but that “Mr. Kadyrov’s accounts were deactivated because he had just been added to a United States sanctions list and that the company was legally obligated to act.”
You refer to governments doing so in some fashion you leave undefined (the reference to Israel being involved is somewhat ominous). If the federal, state or local governments of the U.S. are involved, then the right to free speech is being restricted.
Only when our democracy is protected by the citizens is it protected and only when education prepares them to do this, do the citizens have the mentality to protect our liberties. We stopped that education in 1958. — Athena
I'm afraid I have no knowledge of the law of Israel, or for that matter that of Venezuela, which apparently is the primary source of funds for TeleSur, speaking of government involvement in sources of information and communication — Ciceronianus the White
There's a tendency to refer to freedom of speech or the right to it as iqere is such a right, apart from the law. There isn't; not an enforceable right, in any case. The distinction between a legal right and a non-legal "right" is significant. One shouldn't be treated as the equivalent of the other. When they are, things get confusing — Ciceronianus the White
Should Facebook, Google etc. restrict access to information? I would say no. What is the remedy if they do? Is there an enforceable right to information? Nope. Should there be? That would require a law. That would require a government. Should government be in control of the availability of information? Will that ensure that democracy (which doesn't exist, really) will obtain? That depends on the government, the nature and extent of the control, and its purpose. — Ciceronianus the White
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.