Sure, both sides are not the same. But the “good” side is still part of the system that allows the “bad” side to exist.

So by all means, vote for the party that will do less damage in the short term. But oppose FPTP voting at the same time.

I would argue that the doctrine of Hell introduced in the New Testament is crazier than anything in the Old Testament.

deleted by creator

What I can find all say seem to say more or less the same things about every candidate.

The US, but why? How does the answer differ in different countries?

Couldn’t you just add a comment that says that if the variable is false, then the person is sitting?

Or if the programming language supports it, you could add a getter called is_person_sitting that returns !is_person_standing.

In Iran, gender reassignment is legal, and they’ll even change the birth certificate to match, from what I learned a decade ago.

Homosexuality, however, is a capital offense, so many gay people are pressured to transition.

Some conservative societies seem to have the attitude that it’s better to go from one role with rigid expectations to another than it is to fail to meet the expectations of your original role.

I’m going to say outdoor.

The “door” part doesn’t really have any significance. No one would say camping under the open sky is an indoor activity, even if there’s a fence with a door around the campsite.

I think it makes more sense for the deciding factor be whether you’re in a controlled or uncontrolled environment. And while part of the cave might be controlled if there’s an artificial entryway or home, that’s not what you’re there to see.

There is, or at least was, at least one place catering to your friend’s tastes: https://urnotalone.com/male-maids-serve-it-up-at-japans-first-cross-dressing-maid-cafe/

Edit: More recent article: https://www.tokyoweekender.com/food-and-drink/restaurants-and-bars/boys-magically-become-girls-at-the-maho-ni-kakerarete-crossdressing-bar/

It’s an interesting interpretation for sure. I could believe it more easily if he was shown to not care about the consequences of his actions rather than being ignorant of them.

Maybe you’re right, except that in addition to having trouble communicating, he also has trouble reading social situations and understanding what others want from him. He is, as you say, very capable of solving problems that don’t involve people.

Hm, he still does “dumb” things though. Trying to strain a canned peach through a sweaty sock to make a drink. Getting lost in China. Not understanding the political implications of rescuing Chairman Mao. Calling the Vietnam war “a bunch of shit” while representing the US military (it’d be one thing if it was intentional, but he didn’t seem to understand what the consequences would be.) Telling Jenny that Lieutenant Dan could use the bathroom without help rather than asking her for a container that’s not his hat. Kidnapping Raquel Welch.

I guess a lot of those things could be explained away one way or another. Your take on the character is definitely an interesting one, but I thought of him as more of a savant type who was capable of learning specific things extremely well, but was generally unintelligent. Though more intelligent than some give him credit for.

It’s been a long time since I read the book, but that’s not how I remember it at all. He was gifted mathematically, but deficient in general. He caused trouble a number of times by misreading situations and not doing what was expected of him.

He was smarter than people assumed, but I got the impression he was still impaired overall. Maybe that was the movie affecting my perception of the character.

But that’s true, isn’t it? Putting aside volume and shape.

I wonder if that was the inspiration for the Nowhere King from Centaur World.

No, 9 months community service.

Aw, dang it, I thought that might be a character, but I didn’t find it.

So one dog is named Rǝx and the other is just “thǝ dog.”

You’ll likely see bows and arrows in just about any movie that has Native American tribes as one of the belligerents.

They might be confusing “right to work” with “at will employment.”

I thought that until just now.