Age is not the only standard (as other posters have pointed to Scientology). In reality, there is no standard other than "Did you convince the relevant judge that your religion is 'legitimate,' for some arbitrary value of legitimate relevant only to that judge?" Age, popularity, relative distance from other accepted belief systems are all factors in the decisions.
Church of the FSM? New, beliefs that deviate strongly from existing religions, neither a widespread nor a close knit group of followers--Probably won't get recognized. Scientology? Sizeable number of politically connected believers, believers form a very closely knit group--gets recognized even though it's beliefs are bizarre by the standard of "traditional" religions, and it hasn't been around long.
In the case of casinos on reservation land the tribes STILL need permission from the states to run them. They are granted exceptions to state bans; they are not allowed to just open one up because 'fuck it, we're sovereign.'
WW3? Not likely. World wars require entangled alliances of opposed powers. Those don't exist anymore. Even the mutual defense alliances (like NATO) wouldn't go in for that shit. You've got 3 major nuclear powers with orthogonal interests (US, China, Russia), and a smattering of regional powers/lesser nuclear powers with a general lack of alignment (and a near total lack of military cooperation agreements between them). None of that adds up to a world war. Even a nuclear exchange, so long as it wasn't between two of the big 3, wouldn't be a global problem.
Another costly, pointless regional war with $1 trillion in gold and blood down the sand? Yeah, that might happen.
How much money have cellphone operators spent on studies showing that mobile phones are completely harmless? And how much was spent by independent organizations? Which figure do you think is higher?
Irrelevant horseshit.
There is not only no evidence supporting a link between cellphones and cancer, there is no plausible theoretical basis for it besides "OMGZORZ RADIATORS R TEH BAD!!!!!1" The frequencies involved are too low to be ionizing. Dielectric heating could be a problem, but not at the power levels involved. That leaves what? The tumor gremlins who live in every Samsung handset?
It is (theoretically) possible to lose with as much as 75% of the popular vote (if you win 100% to zero in the largest set of states you can without winning the electoral college and lose by a single vote each in all other states) or to win with as little as 25% of the popular vote (if you win enough states to win the electoral college all by one vote, and lose all other states 0% to 100%).
So, to answer your question, maybe. The popular vote winner is USUALLY the electoral college winner, but not always.
Any person is able to represent themselves 'pro se.'
And only a moron does in a patent case. The law is written to be byzantine and incomprehensible as a make work project for the lawyers, by the lawyers.
It's a totally fucked up world under Islam and more often than not the "new Hitler" will come from a fucked up world, not from places like the West.
You need to make up your mind. You can't say things like the new Hitler will come from a fucked up world, not from places like a fucked up world and still expect us to listen.
Yes, but possessing it and failing to report your knowledge of it is a crime in some jurisdictions.
In other words, we are in agreement that possession of CP should not be a crime. Criminalizing retention of CP and/or failure to report its presence however would be a more reasonable law (though still somewhat problematic but it would solve some of the problems with total criminalization and would be a healthier middle ground).
My point had nothing to do with this. I was just commenting that my parent's logic was fucked because he has no idea why possession of why CP is prohibited (that bizarro nonsense about "sole purpose" in particular)
ONE church, the Catholics, did most of what you cite
Well that's a horseshit point. Catholics are, and always have been, the majority of all Christians (though it's a slim majority nowadays), and while most modern denominations didn't exist, NONE of their theologies are new. There have always been Christians that believe some or all of those points and they were committing atrocities too. Of course they therefore committed most of the atrocities--it doesn't mean the rest weren't keeping up per capita (the racist crimes of Calvinists alone could, and do, fill books).
Disproportionate education and wealth relative to the general population of western society from the 1850s to the 1950s (when nearly all current/past laureates were born)?
Faulty logic. The time you save is the time at the end of your life, not the time when you're young and can do things. In short, not all time is equal.
Slashdot Mirror
Because propaganda documents are usually so honest...
Or did you mean the parts with the force of law instead of the meaningless preamble? Cause those parts completely support your parent's claim.
How many 17 year-olds have you met? I trust the 13 year-olds a whole lot more.
Age is not the only standard (as other posters have pointed to Scientology). In reality, there is no standard other than "Did you convince the relevant judge that your religion is 'legitimate,' for some arbitrary value of legitimate relevant only to that judge?" Age, popularity, relative distance from other accepted belief systems are all factors in the decisions.
Church of the FSM? New, beliefs that deviate strongly from existing religions, neither a widespread nor a close knit group of followers--Probably won't get recognized. Scientology? Sizeable number of politically connected believers, believers form a very closely knit group--gets recognized even though it's beliefs are bizarre by the standard of "traditional" religions, and it hasn't been around long.
In the case of casinos on reservation land the tribes STILL need permission from the states to run them. They are granted exceptions to state bans; they are not allowed to just open one up because 'fuck it, we're sovereign.'
WW3? Not likely. World wars require entangled alliances of opposed powers. Those don't exist anymore. Even the mutual defense alliances (like NATO) wouldn't go in for that shit. You've got 3 major nuclear powers with orthogonal interests (US, China, Russia), and a smattering of regional powers/lesser nuclear powers with a general lack of alignment (and a near total lack of military cooperation agreements between them). None of that adds up to a world war. Even a nuclear exchange, so long as it wasn't between two of the big 3, wouldn't be a global problem.
Another costly, pointless regional war with $1 trillion in gold and blood down the sand? Yeah, that might happen.
What I want to know is why was he still wearing it during sex?
Hey, smooshing genitals together with people you're not married to is an inalienable right!
So will beer. What's your point?
Probably not until roughly 900 years ago when firearms were invented.
How much money have cellphone operators spent on studies showing that mobile phones are completely harmless? And how much was spent by independent organizations? Which figure do you think is higher?
Irrelevant horseshit.
There is not only no evidence supporting a link between cellphones and cancer, there is no plausible theoretical basis for it besides "OMGZORZ RADIATORS R TEH BAD!!!!!1" The frequencies involved are too low to be ionizing. Dielectric heating could be a problem, but not at the power levels involved. That leaves what? The tumor gremlins who live in every Samsung handset?
Do...do you really have to ask?
Except that judges can issue directed verdicts of "Not Guilty" at their discretion regardless of the jury and the minimum sentencing laws.
It is (theoretically) possible to lose with as much as 75% of the popular vote (if you win 100% to zero in the largest set of states you can without winning the electoral college and lose by a single vote each in all other states) or to win with as little as 25% of the popular vote (if you win enough states to win the electoral college all by one vote, and lose all other states 0% to 100%).
So, to answer your question, maybe. The popular vote winner is USUALLY the electoral college winner, but not always.
Any person is able to represent themselves 'pro se.'
And only a moron does in a patent case. The law is written to be byzantine and incomprehensible as a make work project for the lawyers, by the lawyers.
You must be great at parties.
It's a totally fucked up world under Islam and more often than not the "new Hitler" will come from a fucked up world, not from places like the West.
You need to make up your mind. You can't say things like the new Hitler will come from a fucked up world, not from places like a fucked up world and still expect us to listen.
I'm sure you also find giving to charity and paying your taxes ridiculous too. In other news, no one cares that kickstarter's not for you.
You...you read the story? Who does that?
Yes, but possessing it and failing to report your knowledge of it is a crime in some jurisdictions.
In other words, we are in agreement that possession of CP should not be a crime. Criminalizing retention of CP and/or failure to report its presence however would be a more reasonable law (though still somewhat problematic but it would solve some of the problems with total criminalization and would be a healthier middle ground).
My point had nothing to do with this. I was just commenting that my parent's logic was fucked because he has no idea why possession of why CP is prohibited (that bizarro nonsense about "sole purpose" in particular)
Don't tell the Party that comrade.
ONE church, the Catholics, did most of what you cite
Well that's a horseshit point. Catholics are, and always have been, the majority of all Christians (though it's a slim majority nowadays), and while most modern denominations didn't exist, NONE of their theologies are new. There have always been Christians that believe some or all of those points and they were committing atrocities too. Of course they therefore committed most of the atrocities--it doesn't mean the rest weren't keeping up per capita (the racist crimes of Calvinists alone could, and do, fill books).
Disproportionate education and wealth relative to the general population of western society from the 1850s to the 1950s (when nearly all current/past laureates were born)?
[Citation Seriously Needed]
Faulty logic. The time you save is the time at the end of your life, not the time when you're young and can do things. In short, not all time is equal.
I think child pornography, depicting actual abuse, is illegal because it was created for the sole purpose of creating the video
What? Are you stupid?
Child porn is illegal because its production requires the molestation of a child. It is (essentially) prima facie proof of a severe crime.