I don’t think he has any beef with firemen, but if your job is to deliberately expose yourself to an incredibly dangerous situation on the regular, death is kind of an expected outcome.
I agree, as far as that goes, but I still feel sorry for them.
Distilling is dangerous is it goes wrong.
Making meth is dangerous even if everything goes right.
Possible. I’d hardly call that role playing, but I could see it.
OP should take the chance to clear that up for us.
If you’re not talking about furries, then you’re gonna need to use more words to ask your question. Who is role playing animals, under what circumstances. Are you talking about a game? Are you making political commentary? Street Theater? Help us help you.
This collapse didn’t start in January.
In this example, the child is living, and has needs.
I’m an actual engineer with a degree and everything, although this is not my area of expertise, it’s one I’m familiar with.
They could do something like you suggest, but every step becomes more expensive and less effective. The exhaust from a coal fired power plant is still plenty hot, and more energy could be extracted from it. But it requires more and more to make less and less.
The curse of every engineer is to see a way to them every waste stream into a useful product, but not being able to do so profitably. (Which means no-one will approve the project)
The difficulty is, to put it in very simple terms, is that physics doesn’t allow that. The less simple explanation is a thermodynamics textbook, and trust me, you don’t want that.
Everything generates heat. Everything. Everything. Anything that seems to generate “cold” is generating more heat somewhere else.
Note your use of the word “cool.”
A condenser will generate the same amount of heat that they are trying to dissipate.
I suspect that the reaction to the edited video spooked them. They were expecting to get away with that, and when it was so easily called pot as a fraud, they had to reconsider.
Also, that whole thing is nonsense of the highest order.
Some of this makes a bit of sense, but it still leans heavily on perception by others, rather than respecting what people know about themselves. This does not seem to be what many transgender persons want.
I’ll think about it.
using ciswomen and transwomen makes you sound like a TERF.
What would be a correct way to distinguish between the two?
“Woman” seems like it works refer to both, to be used in the majority of cases when the distinction is irrelevant.
I don’t want to say “natural” women, or “real” women, as even someone as thick as me can see that’s insulting.
It seems that using the prefix for both makes them equal.
What do you think world be more appropriate?
it’s impossible for Black people to not pass as Black because it’s been proven they experience racism based on an immutable characteristic.
But they would suggest that as soon as we discover a way to change that characteristic, transrace world be valid.
Further, while gender identity may not be based on appearance, the way one is treated is very much based on appearance. If I look male, I get treated as male. If I look female, I get treated as female. If I look like one, but insist I am the other, people tend to have disagreements between their deliberate and automatic behaviors. (Well, the same people do, anyway.)
I can’t think of a good way to prove it, but I am legitimately curious about this topic. I’m never happy with the answer “because this one is right, and that one is wrong.” There needs to be reasons why.
maybe stop comparing race and gender then.
Isn’t the entire premise of the post that someone is seeing parallels here, and would like to understand why the similarities are not meaningful? As I said, I agree that transracial people are being silly, but I haven’t seen an argument here that can’t be used against transgender people.
trans women only pass because we’re women.
But there are plenty of transwomen who don’t “pass” despite being women. But they should still be treated as women. Hell, there have been at least a few reports of ciswomen who couldn’t pass as women, at least to sufficiently assholish observers. On that basis, I don’t think we can use “passing” as a factor to determine people’s identity.
I’m advised that there is no scientific or genetic basis for race. I’m a little unclear on how “ethnicity” is different from “race.”
All of them seem to be social constructs.
So, as a white person, I cannot pass as black, so I can never expect people to treat me like I’m black?
Don’t get me wrong, I think the idea is silly, but all the arguments I’ve seen in this thread are a word-swap away from being a bad argument against transgender people.
What’s the essential difference?
Problem is that “race” isn’t just cultural. How you will be treated definitely depends on how other people perceive your “race” and subsequently it will shape your life reality
But surely how you will be treated definitely depends on how other people perceive your “gender” and subsequently it will shape your life reality?
Everything you described up there sounds exactly like “cultural.”
Italy was a constitutional monarchy under fascist rule.
And the US is, theoretically, a democracy, and if we aren’t under fascist rule, we will be soon enough. Fascism can spring from any form of government.
your second paragraph is something only ignorant bootlickers say
So you feel that Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump was as stable as any government needs too be? No improvement to be made there?
I agree with you, but no matter has good your training and equipment, you’re taking the chance every time.
As someone pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the same is true of driving to work, which makes OP’s position rather questionable.