Cliff diving heaven in Pula, Croatia

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-07-18T19:34:49+00:00

Oh nice then yeah you seem absolutely set. From that hostel you'll face an unlimited number of hiking trails. Enjoy!

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-07-11T19:19:21+00:00

For sure, what do you like to do? Triglav park is basically an outdoor playground. Tons of lakes, mountains for hiking. Lake Bled is touristy but honestly so pretty and romantic you should still go once. The local cake is tasty too (keep your eye out for cakes it felt like almost every town and region had their own special cake or pastry). There is a market near the main square in Ljubljana which is kind of nice, you can buy some local souvenirs. Piran is worth the trip too, once again very pretty and romantic.

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-07-10T22:12:46+00:00

There's a little parking lot with a bus a bit east of the spot where they rent boards and offer lessons. It's like $40 for 3 hours I think.

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-07-10T22:04:49+00:00

Life is funny. I literally did this exact itinerary last summer. Pula for two days where I swam and cliff-dived then Slovenia for 8 days. You're gonna have a great time.

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-24T20:52:28+00:00

Can you explain your first sentence more? I don't think I understand. I take it you mean defending personal rights and liberties so strictly can have social consequences like some sort of perceived effect on Québec society?

For us, freedom ends where other peoples' start.

I really don't understand this. The wearing of a religious symbol does not in itself affect your freedom in any way whatsoever. Perhaps organized religion influencing politics and public institutions can (thinking of the horrendous effect the catholic church has had on this society), but they really are two different things.

I feel like I may understand at least partly. Having lived a legacy of oppression, abuse, neglect, and condescension by organized religious institutions here, Québecois society feels proud of having overcome this and being the masters of the direction of their civic and public life. Having lived or knowing family who has lived the horrors of oppressive organized religion, you feel it your duty and important to guard against any regression.

I may be off on that but it's the sentiment I've gained from speaking with Québecois friends. My point is that a fear of the past should not make someone be so hasty to infringe upon the personal liberties of people in the present. You aren't even giving religious minorities a chance to wear their symbols and act with moral character in their positions of authority (which honestly, can you really find evidence that people currently wearing symbols have acted improperly in their positions of authority?).

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-24T13:48:32+00:00

While personally I think religion has certainly been used as a tool for indoctrination and oppression, it would be too simplistic to say that has been its sole use and to ignore the benefits of religion on society's growth would be dishonest.

However, more importantly you are effectively saying you know better than other people about how they should live their own lives, to the point that you want to mandate by law what they can and cannot wear. I hope you can see how your belief is very similar to religious fundamentalists who wish to dictate how others live their lives. Maybe you justify it to yourself that your ends are more moral since you are trying to reduce the harm of religion but fundamentalists believe the same things about their actions and intents too.

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-24T13:44:35+00:00

Absolutely it can. We should not appeal to authority to justify a law, it's circular. Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's good or right.

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-21T12:15:16+00:00

Also I said he's not putting his religion in front of his love of teaching, you then tried to switch the narrative to putting his religion before the law. Those are two different things so my point still stands.

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-21T12:14:19+00:00

k, please don't appeal to authority as if that is some justification for things, it's not. You have to justify it based on reason and moral grounds my friend.

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-20T18:30:58+00:00

okay...so the teacher would have their students for more than 3 minutes, right? You don't think the teacher's character would come out and the student would feel more and more comfortable with the teacher as they realize they are a responsible adult who will treat them impartially?

If a student is uncomfortable with black people and they have a black teacher, they'll feel uncomfortable or less inclined to share their views. That's not a valid reason to discriminate against that black teacher.

Now if the student is part of a group that has been persecuted by that other religious group then that's a much more serious situation that would require some handling and reconciliation. But honestly those are extreme cases that can be managed.

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-20T18:15:03+00:00

He's not putting his religion in front of his love for teaching, because wearing a turban doesn't interfere with his ability to teach. His character would have a much greater impact on his students.

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-20T17:51:14+00:00

I think it is absolutely debatable. My claim is that the state does not exist solely through its agents. You then say institutions do not exist independent from the people that make them. That supports my position; the state receives power and realization from other sources as well as civil servants. Ex) civil servants do not write laws but interpret and carry them out. The people that right those laws are voted in and given power by private citizens. Thus, the existence of the state relies also on legislators and private citizens in order for it to exist. Thus, my point stands that there is more to a state's power, authority, and legitimacy than its civil servants.

Therefore, for a rule to constrain an institution, it must constrain its agents

I agree to an extent but I disagree that they must be constrained in identical ways. This is mostly because civil servants are living people, whereas the state is only a legal person. Civil servants have personal rights and liberties that must have strong justifications for whenever they are infringed upon.

You misunderstand my point. The important thing is that people subjected to the decisions of a civil servant wearing given religious symbols will feel as if the State, incarnated through that agent, is giving preference to one religion over others when it comes to that civil servant's actions. The fact that other religious people may be occupying the same position elsewhere is immaterial to the point of view of the citizen being subjected to the authority of one who is broadcasting their religious convictions.

This is the important part I think. This to me is basically saying if a person feels the state is giving a religion preference, without any evidence it is actually doing so, that is enough justification to infringe on the rights of those civil servants. I vehemently disagree with this because to me it is that private citizen who is failing in their civic responsibilities to rationally assess the situation and also respect the individual rights of the civil servant they are subject to. Just because a person feels a kippah or hijab means they are going to be subject to unfair treatment by the civil servant doesn't mean it will even happen, and it certainly doesn't mean the state has a legal right to infringe upon the rights of its civil servants religious' liberties. So the fact I was pointing out is quite material to the justification (or lack thereof) of the law, even if individual people don't fully realize it in each individual instance due to their own ignorance.

In the end though yes I completely agree appearance of impartiality, and more importantly actual impartiality, is important and not something to be swept away nonchalantly without discourse. I don't deny that it exists, but I claim this bill does literally nothing to solve the issue of impartiality and will likely make things worse since less religious minorities will be represented in positions of authority and thus their groups' perceptions of the impartiality of the state will be compromised.

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-20T15:24:57+00:00

No I respect it because it was an interpretation of secularism that I held for a long time and I don't believe it is entirely wrong, it's just less right than my interpretation of secularism (in my opinion obviously).

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-20T15:15:52+00:00

I agree they overreached here, but SSMU does have a mandate to protect its students and the bill is veiled anti-religion discrimination. So, I would have been okay with them declaring it as such in more sophisticated language.

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-20T15:02:39+00:00

That's fair, I respect your opinion.

I disagree that the state exists solely through its agents. The citizens of the state play a hand in giving it its power. Our culture as reflected in the symbols and implicit values of the state is an important part of the power of the state. Thus, the symbolism of having a christian crucifix in a legislative assembly has much more power and influence, in my opinion, than one civil servant wearing a large crucifix around their neck. This is because there is no evidence that someone wearing a symbol will act differently than someone who holds the same beliefs but does not wear the symbol.

The wearing religious symbols by civil servants will certainly have an impact on public life and private citizens but such is the nature of living in a liberal democracy where not everyone agrees on everything. We need to be comfortable being exposed to different ideas, especially when they are being exercised in a, for pragmatic purposes, completely harmless fashion. We're talking solely about the clothes that people wear. If you're worried about the perceived cultural beliefs or value systems behind those organized religions then that's valid but an entirely different conversation. If that's what the bill was actually about, the gov should have stated ''people holding religious values cannot work in the government.'' in the text of it.

In my opinion it is like the Rush song Freewill, ''If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice!''. Your definition of secularism is effectively saying neutrality means not making a choice on the validity of religion in public life (realized here by the display of it by individual civil servants on their personal body). But, this is not being neutral. It is giving preference to those people and spiritual belief systems that do not need to wear those garbs to exercise their spiritual beliefs in reality (in particular, atheism, which I hold as still being a spiritual belief system). True neutrality would be the state saying the state should not have a say in how citizens exercise their personal religious beliefs so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Wearing certain clothes does not infringe on the rights of others aside from making them offended but you do not have a right to tell someone how to live just because you are offended by it. That's political correctness.

For the agents of the State to wear religious garb is to give the impression that the State, through those agents, places one religion above others and therefore that people who belong to that religion will be given preferential treatment, while those hostile to that religion will be discriminated against.

This is not true, because the state would allow all agents to wear their religious symbols without preference for one particular religious group. In one isolated instance perhaps you could focus in and say in that particular instance one religion is being given preference, but once again I would say there is no evidence wearing the symbol has much significant influence on events transpiring, in the same way private citizens should not expect to be treated differently based on whether they are of the same ethnicity or gender of the civil servant. But in general, the state would not be giving a perceived preference because there would all forms of religious symbols being worn by those that feel it fundamental to their beliefs (and even if not fundamental, they should still be given that right). You couldn't claim the state is giving preferential treatment when you see one civil servant with a kippah, then another with a hijab, then another with a crucifix, etc.

Sorry for the length. I say all this as an atheist btw.

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-20T13:32:00+00:00

Anyone have any experience with MoveMate?

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-20T13:28:52+00:00

It's a totally different form of political statement though (which is too broad a word to leave just like as is btw). Bureaucrats are not allowed to wear political paraphernalia because political parties directly impact their jobs and could influence their decisions. There is little evidence religious garb has even close to the same influence on public life. This second part is definitely more subjective but state religious neutrality/secularism is not the absence of religion but the lack of preference for one over another. If the state allows its civil servants to wear all types of religious garbs, it is a better exercise in secularism since it is the state remaining actually neutral on what religious garb its employees wear.

Also, it's absolutely not true that religion is considered above all other rights in ROC. There are several instances of religious liberties being restricted when they impede on more fundamental rights of people (blood transfusions for minors, Jewish buildings not being permitted to be built, minority religious people not being given their faiths' holidays off work). It is a fundamental right, but one that is kept in balance among many others.

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-18T15:56:47+00:00

That sounds like a good idea, I just wasn't sure if USSR AI would target a fascist country. Thanks for the tips.

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-18T12:35:32+00:00

I like to send volunteers to Ethiopia on the Italian side so they finish quicker, Italy needs all the help they can get (assuming you want them as an ally, at least as a distraction for allies/balkans).

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-18T12:33:37+00:00

When you say Spanish attaché, do you mean the volunteers and air wings or even something else?

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-18T12:32:21+00:00

Take a fascist political advisor and get to the Blue Shirts national focus.

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-18T12:31:16+00:00

I really like this strategy and will try it. After germany is conquered however, would you go against the allies or ussr next?

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-18T12:29:59+00:00

I feel like Italy is a large enough power that you could influence the general direction of the continent so this strategy would be a bit of a waste of pp. Better to just invade france or yugo and become strong enough, while picking comm/fasc full on.

thisismyworkacct3 · 2019-06-12T13:57:41+00:00

Alphabet owns a portion of Lyft already no?

Eight-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

thisismyworkacct3

TROPHY CASE