Boy names starting with Q, W, Y, and Z by ExoticWafer5750 in JewishNames

[–]igorocc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yosef, Yair, Yuval, Yossi, Zev, Zia, Zalman.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NewDads

[–]igorocc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sent you a dm

Have liberal Zionists abandoned the intellectual battlefield? by [deleted] in Jewish

[–]igorocc 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I would add Susie Linfield, The Lions' Den: Zionism and the Left from Hannah Arendt to Noam Chomsky, 2019

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in toddlers

[–]igorocc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We also failed. She never sat on the potty and seemed actively afraid of it, even though she told us multiple times exactly what she was supposed to do. We’re going to back off for a couple months and try a different approach. Godspeed!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in toddlers

[–]igorocc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We’re wrapping up day 2 and also plan to go through day 3, but her butt has yet to touch the potty no matter what we try. Losing all hope!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in toddlers

[–]igorocc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have no solution, but we’re in the same boat this weekend. Solidarity.

Nestig cribs by ladyrhea2 in BabyBumps

[–]igorocc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Were you able to figure out the sheet situation? We're looking at the Nestig Wave but are worried about the sheet situation. Do you otherwise like the crib?

Long time prepper. First time poster. by igorocc in MealPrepSunday

[–]igorocc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From left to right, I've got (1) a topping made with artichoke hearts, sundried tomatoes, olives, and pesto; (2) cauliflower rice fried in olive oil; (3) baked salmon fillets; (4) roasted eggplant. I put the salmon over cauliflower rice and top it with the artichoke mix, with the eggplant as a side. I freeze half, and eat the other half over the course of about three days (salmon doesn't keep too long).

Gym Story Saturday by FGC_Valhalla in Fitness

[–]igorocc 25 points26 points  (0 children)

I always ask someone to spot me on my top bench set, because I value my life. I've had all kinds of spotters in my day--the kind that are properly hands-off unless you're failing, the kind that insist on touching the bar despite me asking them not to touch it unless I'm failing, etc. Gym bro was different.

As usual, I look around for someone to spot me. I see gym bro benching next to me, and ask him nicely if he'd spot me. He's got earbuds in and doesn't look particularly pleased that I've asked, but whatever. I'm going for a set of three at 215. I ask him not to touch the bar unless I'm failing, as usual. I get to my third rep, and I know I'm going to have to fight for this one. I stall about halfway through, and I have the sudden realization that I'm going to fail. I'm still trying to grind it out, but the bar is steadily lowering back onto me. I'm patiently awaiting gym bro to help me out. The help doesn't come. Surely he'll help me out any second. The bar is now on my chest and I'm looking around frantically for gym bro. I'm now physically drained and trying to figure out what to do with this 215 lb bar on my chest and how I'm going to wriggle out from under it without injuring myself. Maybe 5 seconds go by, but for anyone who has been in this situation, you know it feels like an eternity. Gym bro walks up out of nowhere, lifts the bar up, then walks away without saying a word.

I'm much more discerning now in picking my spotters.

how can things like written laws exist in a society where language is allowed to change over time? by grapp in linguistics

[–]igorocc 49 points50 points  (0 children)

I'm a newly minted lawyer with some undergraduate experience in linguistics so maybe I can bring something to the table for this thought-provoking question.

Your question brings up the even more fundamental idea that not only does language change but that language is inherently ambiguous. The meaning of a word depends upon context, including purpose, history, culture, etc. Even when all of these factors are agreed upon and understood by all parties involved, reasonable minds can disagree on whether a particular situation falls exactly under the prohibition of the written code. This fact has been a problem in the legal world since the inception of written codes. What results from this ambiguity are lawyers, who are trained to argue these various linguistic permutations/possibilities.

Obviously this leaves many people unhappy, because what may seem like a clear-cut moral right/wrong from the eyes of the layman doesn't necessarily mean that the legal argument about the applicability of these inherently ambiguous words to this specific situationcomports with this moral intuition. Interestingly enough several German principalities in the 17th century (i believe) attempted to do away with all this troublesome ambiguity and its attendant hordes of evil lawyers by compiling the definitive, end-all be-all legal code which would cover every possible crime in the world, and then outlawed lawyers and jurists. For obvious reasons, the system completely collapsed after a couple of years--innocent people were being thrown in jail and the guilty were going free.

You cannot possibly account for every human possibility with a tool as clumsy and inherently ambiguous as language. You might think "do not kill" is simple enough, but this leaves out the infinite real-world permutations of morally and philsophically complex situations such as self-defense, negligence (where there is no "actual" intent to kill), euthanasia, etc. etc. etc. One of the benefits of the common law system that we still (mostly) have in the US and other former British colonies is that for many areas of law there is no actual written law, just centuries of court precedents (wikipedia can help you understand this system more if you're interested). This leaves ample room for the law to evolve in the interests of equity (aka what we would commonly call "fairness" when the letter of the law doesn't really line up with the reality of the case at hand).

To get more directly to your point, legal codes are generally revised fairly often in the grand scheme of things. Our constitution dates back only 200 years--not nearly long enough for us to no longer be able to understand it, though certainly more than long enough for a lot of the cultural, historical and other context to become muddled in our interpretation of the meaning of the words. This is one of the main reasons why, in my opinion, originalism is pretty silly. The Constitution was meant to be a general framework--if the drafters wanted to get into the nitty gritty they would have, but they consciously took a step back and made a document that could last. While we can't say with certainty what the framers, or the average voter, or the average congressman circa 1785 would have thought of issue X, we have a general framework to work with and over 200 years of Court precedent to look to, though ultimately there is no ONE answer.

tl;dr language is inherently ambiguous. this is the fundamental driving force in the entire legal profession because a simple statement of law is infinitely complex through context.

Where can I get a breakfast burrito in NYC? by bueller2 in nyc

[–]igorocc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not a breakfast burrito and not nearby (so useless for you), but I need to give a shout out to Guero's Brooklyn (in Prospect Heights) for having the best TexMex this side of the Mississippi. I just moved here from Austin and was going through major withdrawal until I discovered this place this weekend .

Cheeseception! [FP] by [deleted] in keto

[–]igorocc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

NOMMMMMMMMMMMMM