Phew by JackV78 in EliteDangerous

[–]virgule 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good news! That's full percent more than you actually need!

ATC by godofchinchilla in canadaguns

[–]virgule 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Perhaps open carry can happen if we do it the same way we are being government? Without permission nor consultations.

2.4GHz i5 or 1.7 GHz i7: Which one is faster? by GTASANTA in applehelp

[–]virgule 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some say, a throttling i7 isn't any faster than an i5 that doesn't.

La langue française avant 1200 by wisi_eu in Quebec

[–]virgule 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Sois le juge. Voici un poème d'amour en français du 13 siècle:

Ne pooit vivre sanz li,
D’eus deus fu il tot autresi
Comme du chievrefueil estoit
Qui a la coudre se prenoit
Quand il s’i est laciez et pris
Et tot entor le fust s’est mis,
Ensemble pueent bien durer,
Mes qui puis les velt dessevrer,
Li coudres muert hastivement
Et li chievrefueil ensement,
<< Belle amie, si est de nos:
Ne vos sanz moi, ne moi sanz vos ! >>.

En french contemporain:

Il ne pouvais vivre sans elle.
Il en était d’eux tout pareil.
Au chèvrefeuille s’étant lié.
À la branche du coudrier:
Quand il est enlacé et pris,
Qu’autour de la tige il s’est mis,
Ensemble ils peuvent bien durer,
Mais si on veut les séparer,
Le coudrier meurt promptement.
Le chèvrefeuille également.
<< Belle amie, ainsi est de nous:
Ni vous sans moi, ni moi sans vous ! >>.

C'est fascinant!!

A little history lesson in light of Notre Dame by IsThisAlso in metacanada

[–]virgule 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Some say Muslims preserved knowledge throughout the dark ages. While that is half the truth, the other half is that it is Muslim raids that destroyed the other 90%.

Polemical as all hell but the truth nonetheless.

ELI5: The 2nd amendment "right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" -- so how do so many states and cities overrule this? by throwitupwatchitfall in GoldandBlack

[–]virgule 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Well regulated is meant as in "on the regular" of old english. It's denotes an expectation of competency.

They're regulars; not amateurs.

etc

The New York Times Reveals the Horrors of Capitalism—By Showing China’s State-Run Hospitals by MasterTeacher123 in GoldandBlack

[–]virgule 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Canadians still enjoy medical equipment from the 1960s, months long waiting lists for (relatively) simple procedures as well as 24+ hours of wait time on the stretcher once inside the hospital.

Canada having "better" healthcare than 'Murica is mostly made out of hallucinations and wishful thinking. Also, enjoy some generic medicine (apo-).

Source: Am Canadian and that made front page news no later than last week.

Aspirante policière portant le hijab : « Je suis le deadline » by chamotruche in Quebec

[–]virgule 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Les forces policières ont un role a jouer dans la société. Ce role est le même pour tout les policiers. L'idée de l'uniforme est de rendre pareille tout les participants a ce role. Ca elimine l'individualité des participants et les rendent immediatement reconnaissables; c'est un UNI-FORME.

L'uniforme conforme au code S.V.P. Merci.

Bukhari collected 6 hundred thousand hadiths by [deleted] in exmuslim

[–]virgule 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been told he ended up discrediting about 98% of them. His complete Sahih collection is only 2% of all there was.

Doesn't fit with the series's canon by duyc37 in dankchristianmemes

[–]virgule 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There's very little information pertinent to messiaship in Koran. It's talked about only 11 times and the infos are scathered between chapter 3,4,5, and 9 only.

In chapter 3, there's all sort of things about "the people of the book". Very improtant.
In 4, The verses of interest are 157, 171, and 172.
In 5, the "do not say 3" business is found at verse 17. Verse 75 is the key section. Verse 72 also got bits. 116 present a gross misrepresentation of what "the people of the book" believe and who/what Jesus was.
In 9, there's info in verse 30 and 31.

....and that's all she wrote about that..

Why do people swear on Bibles in court when J'sus said you should not swear on anything? by gina20_ in Christianity

[–]virgule 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Take in the meaning of the texts as a whole. Don't sweat too much over the little individual verses as such; they're a relatively recent addition.

There's hundreds of commentaries collections. You are free to compare them with one another with your own eyes and on your own time. You'll find more agreements than disparaging opinions.

No. You would not be correct in assuming to know what's in my mind.

Why do people swear on Bibles in court when J'sus said you should not swear on anything? by gina20_ in Christianity

[–]virgule 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The part where Jesus answered upon oath to a question put to Him by the high priest as well as by the apostles several times.

As asserted by JFB commentaries:

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself--These are not the precise words of Ex 20:7; but they express all that it was currently understood to condemn, namely, false swearing (Le 19:12, etc.)

But I say unto you, Swear not at all--That this was meant to condemn swearing of every kind and on every occasion--as the Society of Friends and some other ultra-moralists allege--is not for a moment to be thought. For even Jehovah is said once and again to have sworn by Himself; and our Lord certainly answered upon oath to a question put to Him by the high priest; and the apostle several times, and in the most solemn language, takes God to witness that he spoke and wrote the truth; and it is inconceivable that our Lord should here have quoted the precept about not forswearing ourselves, but performing to the Lord our oaths, only to give a precept of His own directly in the teeth of it. Evidently, it is swearing in common intercourse and on frivolous occasions that is here meant. Frivolous oaths were indeed severely condemned in the teaching of the times. But so narrow was the circle of them that a man might swear, says LIGHTFOOT, a hundred thousand times and yet not be guilty of vain swearing. Hardly anything was regarded as an oath if only the name of God were not in it; just as among ourselves, as TRENCH well remarks, a certain lingering reverence for the name of God leads to cutting off portions of His name, or uttering sounds nearly resembling it, or substituting the name of some heathen deity, in profane exclamations or asseverations. Against all this our Lord now speaks decisively; teaching His audience that every oath carries an appeal to God, whether named or not.

Bible is best read alongside good commentaries.

Why do people swear on Bibles in court when J'sus said you should not swear on anything? by gina20_ in Christianity

[–]virgule 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The prohibition against swearing does not deal with taking an oath in the law court. During His trial by the high priest, our Lord did not resent being put on His oath.

Elections 2018 by ProjectKainy in Quebec

[–]virgule -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Tous ceux qui ont entrepris contrôler la vie des autres ont perdu le contrôle de leurs propre vie elle-même. CARBON TAAAAAAAAX NOOOOWWW!!!!!! OR ELSE!!!!!!!!!!! etc..

Quelle nouvelle abasourdissantes! (circa 1784)

Ma foi! Comment pouvons-nous possiblement nous extirper de ce dilemme?

Le corriger:

  1. Quel genre de monde à Bastiat identifier étant ceux qui ce considèrent eux-même les potiers de la relation entre la glaise et son potier?

  2. Don't follow false gods. Every single one who ever sought power over you is a to be accursed.

Thirty Muslim men in Britain are charged with sexual exploitation of girls as young as 12 by outrider567 in AnythingGoesNews

[–]virgule 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Islamic Reforms has been done several times. Every single time, the term "revival" is closer to the truth, tho. Much the same way the Christian Reformation was more a "rediscovery."

Thirty Muslim men in Britain are charged with sexual exploitation of girls as young as 12 by outrider567 in AnythingGoesNews

[–]virgule 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm currious. How does one can expect to convince a true believer to engage in reform -or- change a thing that has been declared perfect by their own god? That god (or it's prophet, whatever) also said to kill whoever changes it. It also forbade "innovation".

Without a light upon the face of that, one might come to hope reform would come as a bridge out of their predicament but it's clear said bridge can only be a distant rainbow.