@asteroid- it’s a noble dream and someday we will live in a world where people who do hard jobs and make tough choices to protect others from having to do the same will not be necessary. Today we are not yet there. Today in the world if you created a utopia it would only last as long as you could defend it. Who stops other people from coming in and taking your little piece of life hmm? That is the job of a soldier. And yes- every man woman or whatever that serves a purpose is necessary for society, from Janitors to Truck drivers to Soldiers. What makes it different is that soldiers agree to give up their freedoms, to volunteer their very lives if need be to uphold the principals and protect the peoples of their nations.

I think it was more a comparison- that in places where healthcare isn’t guaranteed, many oppose it because they don’t feel they should have to “pay for other people’s needs.” Or that it is “socialism,” but they neglect that in most developed countries without tax funded healthcare (like America,) many services are already provided for the public benefit by other people’s money.

Second that. I can’t stand either and never could. I can BARELY tolerate smashing up roasted cauliflower enough to take a huge swig of drink and swallow the bits whole when social situations demand. The smell of broccoli unsettled me and will make me queasy, and even food like a steak which has touched broccoli or juice on the plate picks up enough of the taste that I find it hard to eat.

I don’t know? I think maybe it’s like... either a reference to those “Air Bud” type movies where an animal plays sports and like- that means someone’s kid got cut from little league for a dog- so the parent who went to the game to see lil Jane or Jim play is asking and what’s the coach gonna say? “A Marmoset named mittens is a better goalie than your child, and I want to win?” Or maybe it’s like a suburban analog to “I want to speak to your manager?”

A whole lotta folks just got et al.’d.

So one person without context making a call and with no oversight is dangerous. So is blind obedience and censorship. Don’t get me wrong. But to the question of “what bad things did he do...” it’s a complex question and needs a complex answer. The short answer is he broke the law. The long answer is above, and what you think is good or bad depends on your perspective. He did more good and more harm than we can just give a sum total too, and we sure as crap can’t just say “ok. We won’t prosecute if you think or feel you’re doin a good thing...” so that’s where we are.

But everyone’s idea of a conscience is different. Some guys might hit the streets and shoot anyone who is rude or loud or has a different political stance they see as “dangerous.” So we can’t just tell people to ignore the law and do what is right without consequence- and even saying “unless we decide you were wrong...” doesn’t help because so what? Damage done. If someone kills your spouse for being rude- you can’t get them back. If someone leaks information you can’t un leak it. So the law is supposed to stop it before it happens. Politics and power and intelligence are complex and a huge game where people play each other and carefully control what they can.

So he leaked classified data. That itself is maybe not so bad in some people’s minds. Especially when that data shows wrong doing of others. However- it’s how the data was retrieved for starters, and then the questions about that. If you break into a system and access classified data you’re going through ALL sorts of data. Things that may not be disinter and are very dangerous to safety. That’s why these systems are protected to start. So on the suspicion without proof of wrongdoing you are compromising a secure system that doesn’t belong to you. If you find nothing you just go about your day, having read through classified files. If you find something you have your “prize.” So imagine if we told people to just fuck the law and follow their conscience?

The root of what is “wrong” that he did comes from 2 sources. The first is that he allegedly violated many, many laws. He hacked a government computer to gain access to provide passwords to classified data to other people to access. He also violated international laws and failed to remit himself to custody for trial as had been agreed upon previously. The second source of wrong is more complex. If we assume that it is right to tell dirty secrets and that it is right to violate the law when it protects those who do wrong- we start running into huge problems off the bat. But let’s say it is...

You might have not remembered her. She’s more a plot device than a character. She shows up as a world renowned genius we’ve never met but can build... life. Then she goes to a party where intron breaks out and most people just remember the avengers trying to lift mjolnir, she is brainwashed and helps Ultraman build his body, and then helps bipod vision. She’s never really a pivotal character nor is she ever really the focus of any scene. She shows up to solve a problem that was created just to make the plot work, then she pushes some of the more tedious scenes forward, and finally they check up on her a little so the audience doesn’t go: “wait... they don’t even care about the lady they were friends with earlier this week...?” I didn’t remember she was in the movie until I saw this meme.

The common usage of measures you will see in most any EU country is Si, it is required by the EU for membership to standardize on Si. However the French, like many other nations have their own customary units. As it relates to this post, and in context to Vietnam- France was still using their customary units along side the metric system when they were defeated in Vietnam. Units like the Poncelet, and later their own unit with the same standard as metric but with their own naming conventions. So if we discuss countries which are not on the metric system at the time they were defeated in Vietnam...

No. Not more precise. There are fractions of inches which can go down to as many decimals as needed before we get to units of measure not used outside theoretical physics. In metric, once you reach a mm, to go smaller you get into micrometers and nano meters. These aren’t commonly used. Si has small units too such as points, picas, and mils (1/1,000 an inch). These smaller units are almost always used in technical trades like precision machining. The metric system is mathematically simpler- but not more precise. Each system will at some point need to default to fractions or decimals as not all objects will fit exactly within the constraints of any unit of measure.

It was an informed choice. That’s the point. The point of the narrative is that in a religious context the only guidance one needs is wether or not a thing would please their God. One may seek happiness and fulfillment and fill their wants and desires- but within religion one is supposed to do so while honoring their God. Even if one takes “god” out of it- if a rich person invited you to live in their mansion and estate, and said to you: “you can have anything you want, do anything you want, just don’t touch this...” would we need to debate that, or would common sense tell you that when you are in someone’s house and they ask you not to eat their shit that you don’t do it? Do you regularly help yourself to whatever you like when you’re in someone else’s house, let alone do specifically what they ask you not to? And do you think they might kick you out for that?

So “lots of money” whatever we personally think that is- is never as much as it seems, and yet at a point, studies show having more doesn’t increase happiness. It can even decrease it as the connection between work and reward, between the “real world” and a bubble of wealth isolates us, before we grow accustomed to it. If McDonald’s or Outback or etc. is a rare treat for you- if you could afford to easily have it every night, it wouldn’t be a treat anymore. Most people won’t ever own a new Ferrari, if you have 6, it stops being a once in a lifetime thing and you could have one whenever you wanted. So “luxury” becomes BIGGER, more extravagant. So... it’s all relative. We tend to want “more” by our nature regardless of how much we have or how little others have.

and most people working high stress long hour jobs for big money will acclimate to the pay and want to enjoy the money- or else they’d work less for less money. So as we make more we tend to spend more. We do t eat like a starving college student on ramen and beer. We buy things we want because even though they are “expensive” they are affordable to us. Say you’re an actor making $3mill per movie or episode of a hit show- that’s $100k a year for 30 years for one job. Most people could retire on that and make more money than they would working. Yet we constantly see celebrities working and in financial trouble. They haggle salaries when objectively- on any deal over $10mill what’s the difference? That’s $200k guaranteed for 50 years already. Do you make $200k right now? Do most people?

It’s all relative. A professional sports star has to pay their own medical bills and most sports stars will end up requiring additional care as they age as well due to the traumas they endure regularly. They also need various insurance, agents, etc. They still take home ALOT of money- just like someone who makes $300k does. But it’s all relative. People get by in life on much less than either make and have to pay “upkeep” expenses like insurance or juggle expensive health issues. We tend to pay what is called “lifestyle tax.” That is to say that most people making big money both have obligations (a CEO of a large investment firm needs to have nice suits and the like as part of their job, people need to pay advertising, promotion, etc..) then there’s the fact we settle in. Most stable people making $40k don’t spend like they make millions,...

The imagery of “heaven” and how to get there is meant to say that a human who chooses to flow god can know paradise again but they do not have to. Hence- choice. The basic idea is that each person must choose for themselves wether they want to follow or not, and each would reap the consequences of their choice. Not that god wanted people to be ignorant. It plugs in to other bible narratives where people often question why a “good” god would ask certain things. The whole idea is that you’re talking to the all knowing all seeing creator of everything, so it would be a tad arrogant to try and tell them they are wrong about something.

It’s not a fruit of knowledge they refer to in genesis- but knowledge of good and evil. To know the concepts of the two. In a religious sense there is no good or evil. There is the will of God and then there is sin- also known as rebellion against god. The idea being that the garden was paradise, and that all humans had to do was follow the will of God and all would by default “be good.” The forbidding of the fruit wasn’t an attempt to rob people of choice. As many point out- an all powerful God could have not put the tree there, guarded it, made humans so they couldn’t disobey. The tree presents a choice. That humans were intended to choose for themselves wether or not they wanted to be obedient in paradise or not. Hence the expulsion from the garden of Eden to a world where there would be “good and evil” and there would be pleasure and pain.