They basically did the same thing the Satanic Temple often does. Use the rules republicans make thinking only they will benefit. When they are used by the other side as well it has a funny way of causing a reevaluation of if it should in fact be legal after all. My understanding is that CAH made a sort of parody of Musks trick although doing it in a slightly more careful way to make sure that any legal action against them would apply more broadly. I don’t think it’s good that vote buying is a thing, but equating the satirical protest campaign with the actual thing being pushed against is unfair in my opinion. You can argue if they go about it the right way or not but legitimizing the original offense by pointing out people cheered at the counter campaign opposing musk using the same tool and humor feels disingenuous.

If you look her up you will see that this is one of her more tame takes unfortunately. At least this is not about her views on women’s place in marriage or the rights a husband supposedly has to their wives body, regardless of consent. I can’t help but feel a little sad for her though. From her recounting of her life it sounds like she married a man she didn’t love because that’s what she was supposed to do. After over a decade of miserable marriage she broke and saw it as her duty to be servile in all things to a man she was never really attracted to and convinced herself that happiness is to live that submissive life in deference to a man in all things. If it was the story of someone who got out and found a life outside those oppressive beliefs it would be a cautionary tale, but she sees it as the recipe for a good biblical life.

Yeah I was very ready to disagree with it being most people as that is far from my experience. I also come from one of those northern european countries that others describe as cold and closed of because we have a much more introvert aligned culture. And the fact that I’m someone who gets drained probably also biases my sample to more like minded people.

I mean being romantic or sexual carries some other connotations and meanings making them ambiguous in many situations if used as the antonym to the asexual and aromantic label.
I don’t really care what words are used for it but I find the allo ones useful as they are the most commonly understood ones and are unambiguous.

Unfortunately I am still unable to find any stories that tells what happens to the Hamas members after their surrender. I’m unsure if they get treated well or are sent to the same facilities in which there are reports of human rights violations amounting to psykological and physical torture.

I did find some examples of successful surenders, but nothing where hostages were explicitly mentioned to have sweetened the deal of surrender.
I do believe you may be right but I have been unable to verify it myself.

Are there any examples of it being used successfully and the aftermath of it? This is a genuine question stemming from my own ignorance on the subject. I would really like for that to be a good way of handeling situations where hostages are released, but I could easily understand why a member of Hamas might have reservations if they do not have reason to trust the system.
If there is good reason to trust it I will agree that that would have been a viable and good way out and should have been used.

To me it sounded like they were specifically pushing against a claim that Hamas offered to free everyone. They pointed out that they only said civilians and as not all hostages would be considered civilians not all hostages would have been freed as another commenter claimed.

I still see it as them pushing back against an “Hamas was good actually” sentiment, arguing that Hamas was not as good as implied due to a careful reading of the statement and an assessment of the hostages and whether all were civilian or would be considered civilian by Hamas.

There is a greater context, but the thread in which this was written the context was a push back against claims portraying Hamas favorably.

Do you really believe that any member of hamas would be safe just because they let some hostages go? How would that work? Should they surrender themselves to the IDF while delivering the hostages, just notify them of where they are so they won’t be bombed or how would that all work?

How were they doing that? To me it seemed like their point was a distinction between all hostages and civilian ones being released. I don’t know if they are correct, but I cannot see how it in any way dehumanizes anyone.

Aah okay, that makes sense. Paulogia does however put forward at least one more person having an experience, possibly due to a grief hallucination. If I remember correctly he suggested Peter being the one to have it.
I also don’t remember him ever suggesting that the empty tomb is an actual fact in need of explanation. I think he sees it as likely that Jesus would have been unceremoniously put in a mass- or ditch grave as was common for crucifixion victims. The tomb would then be a detail added on later by other christians, likely through narrative evolution.
I may misremember some of it though, so maybe I should go back and rewatch as well.

Oh nice! :D

I think it is more likely that they refer to the minimum witnesses argument put firth by a youtuber Paulogia. He has done a lot to popularize it as a response to the criticism that sceptics have no singular explanation for the proposed evidence of Jesus provided by the spread of christianity and the accounts of early cristians.

So god cannot create a world with free will and without evil?

So god could kill as many innocents unjustly as he wants, as long as he sends them to paradise after?
If so, it seems, any atrocity god commits could be justified.