I am under the understanding that the minimum is "I absolve you". But "I absolve you" is present, at least in letters, in what he said, so is it valid? Or did I get a botched confession?

So in the past I convinced myself a couple of times that a certain mortal sin was venial (was unsure as to how grave it was and found many varying opinions online and at some point I was like 'well this can't be that bad and I enjoy doing it so it's probably not a real sin since it doesn't involve anything sexual nor a real person, the sin was seeking arousal through non sexual thoughts, literature, games and images which were still arousing to me) and took part in the Eucharist after committing it many times. I didn't confess sacrilege as I thought 'oh well I didn't really think it was a mortal sin at the time so even if it is grave I didn't commit a mortal sin' and continued doing the sin anyway until I finally realised that yes, it is mortal. I stopped doing it and didn't confess sacrilege using the excuse that 'I didn't know' and later completely forgot about it in my next confessions. When I did remember I considered it forgiven and so did not confess it again and forgot once more. Was i in mortal sin this whole time?

I often hear people say that the Westboro Baptist Church aren't "true Christians", oftentimes while simultaneously saying that they know about the No True Scotsman fallacy. They often claim that since Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love god/neighbors as yourself, and their actions are demonstrably unloving, that they therefore can't really be considered followers of Christ's teachings.

My current position starts with the fact that "Christianity" wasn't used hardly at all in popular American vocab until the late 1800's. There was no unifying label of Christianity - there were Baptists, Catholics, Quakers, etc, and the thought of using one label for all of them was kind of absurd and pointless...at least, until the rise in popularity of alt viewpoints coming from people like Mark Twain, Bertrand Russel, etc. The coming together of various denominations under the banner of Christianity is an invention of the last 150 years, generously speaking.

(I'm sounding way too confident here in my knowledge of history, these are simply things as I understand them and I am very willing to be corrected about any of it)

It would be much easier when talking about WBC if they claimed a specific denomination with specific dogma, but when we're talking about a very broad classification that contains around 40,000 different denominations (based on a book containing shittons of arguable contradictions and translations), you're very limited in what you can say about someone being "true".

If the WBC dogma surrounding god's nature was true, then their actions would be loving (and complacency in regards to the issues they care about would be unloving). The WBC take their dogma from the book that classifies them as Christian. You might can make an argument about how their interpretation is flawed, but that is completely besides the point when we're talking about NTS. With that kind of rationale you could eliminate everything from the Crusades to the Inquisition to Pat Robertson, and all of a sudden Christianity is this thing that was only figured out sometime in 1994 (and even now there are probably more people that disagree with your position than agree).

CMV

If a person regularly makes dua to Allah for something and then sometime later commits a sin, does that person’s dua which he kept on asking earlier gets delayed or invalidated?

Fathers, I made this confession probably a few months ago, and since then have made a few other confessions. I am worried about the validity because when I was going to confess the sin it was a bit shameful for me to confess, so I kind of 'hid it' behind words.

The words I used to tell the priest what the sin was were mostly accurate, but still kind of somewhat off from what the sin actually was. I could've just confessed it bluntly, but I didn't out of shame.

I recently learned that leaving a sin out of a confession because you’re embarrassed to say it out loud or too ashamed to let a priest hear it, or for some other reason, invalidates the confession. (I don’t know why I never knew this, maybe I didn’t catch that part in Sunday school as a kid.) I did not know this, and it made me think about all the times I’ve gone to confession, and my brain is now a tangled web of what sins have been forgiven, and which ones have not. Should I think through my life and make a long list of everything I’ve ever done (to the best of my recollection) to confess to a priest? Will I then be able to start off on a clean slate with God and be assured that I have been granted legitimate absolution for all my sins?

Hi

There was a situation, someone was employed for about 8 days, did no work (no timesheets, which were a contractual requiment to be paid) then officially let go (in writing), the company offered to pay some money, however this person is not handing over a SIN number after being asked 4-5 times in email (the email are read as they responded from them), the contract stipulated its only binding if proof they can work in Canada is provided, in this case it was a student who says they have a working visa and as a SIN is about the only way to prove this, i assume the whole contract is voided as proof was never obtained and no timesheets were submitted?

A lot of questions were raised about work methods and ultimately the SIN never appeared so they were let go....... its an interesting situation so would like to see what legal thinks of this?

Imagine this: Judas never betrays Jesus. What would happen? What if he did, but the Pharisees changed their mind and withdrew their knowingly false accusations? What if they didn’t, but Pilate put a stop to the farce since he knew well and good that the trial was unjust?

The answer is simple: no sacrifice of Jesus, and thus no salvation for the rest of us.

Some things to keep in mind:

1. Jesus knew about this plan before Judas was even turned by the devil.

2. Jesus asked God if there was another way and begged for God to use a different method, but there was no other way.

3. God the Father and God the Son are said to be the same being, which means any wrongdoings of one affects the other.

4. Jesus’s sacrifice is said only to work since he was completely sinless in every aspect of his life.

So what we have is God having foreknowledge and control over future events that would lead to sin (for example Jesus could have protected Judas from Satan as God is said to do for others), wanting to not go through with the chosen method, but doing so anyways. His sacrifice allegedly only worked because he was sinless, but in reality his hands were plenty dirty, especially since God the Father allowed and in fact required all of this sin. After all, it’s logically possible for Jesus to offer up his life without needing other people to sin to make it happen.

Edit: I didn’t expect this to blow up but wow. Thankyou for all the love and support guys. I truly appreciate the people who gave me legal advice on the issue and how to deal with it without any repercussions and the all kind people who took their time to learn about my culture and also the kind people who stood up for me against trolls who invalidated my feelings and dietary concerns. Thankyou for all the awards btw.

I am part timing in an IT company that is very close knit. My boss Steven and his wife were always sweet.

It was my first month and it was my boss’s “birthday week” so he and wife Melissa were kind enough to include me in this fancy dinner they were taking everyone to. A week prior to the dinner, Melissa added everyone to a group chat and asked whether we had any suggestions on where to eat. I told her that I am fine with anything as long there are vegetarian options available or at least chicken.

They brought their daughter Stef(15) to the dinner and she is a sweet little girl. Now Stef was really interested in me and she kept on asking me questions about how I look the way I look. Now I am short(5ft) but can be somewhat deemed as “fit” to today’s generation.

I was transparent with her and told her that I don’t restrict myself to certain foods but rather eat everything in moderation. Plus I have a plant-based diet and home cooked meals so that helps and I also lift weights. Now Melissa overheard our conversation partially. She pulled me aside and told me that Stef was recovering from eating disorder so she encouraged me to be honest with her and not lie to her and not to order anything that screams “diet!”

When I saw the menu, there were little to no vegetarian options available. It didn’t have anything for me. I was very disappointed and made a comment that oh wow there are no vegetarian options. Melissa chimed in and said that eating meat once in a while won’t affect my weight. Now, when I say plant-based diet it’s not that I don’t eat meat but I only eat chicken maybe once a week as a side dish and certain types of fish occasionally but other than that I mostly eat vegetarian dishes. My food habits are not for my “weight” but for my religion/culture. It has nothing to do with my weight.

When the waiter came in, I was still glued to my menu when all the others had already ordered. Melissa said that oh she will have the duck too and I interrupted and said that no I will have the garden salad(I hate salads but there were no other

I’ve started to quit porn as I know it’s haram but it’s a struggle and a couple days ago I watched porn on Ramadan at night does it invalidate my fast and the whole month ? Or is it just a sin

I support weird theories such that the timeline is a big circle, Jon is both the Night's King and Coldhands, Val knows magic and will resurrect Jon through ice, Darkstar is the Last Hero who will fight Jon wielding Dawn, Daario is Euron. Young Griff is Ned and Ashara's son (AKA the true Jon Snow, while the Jon we know is Aemon Sand son of Rhaegar and Lyanna), Daenerys and Tyrion stay in Essos and Sansa becomes a tyrant.

However, I heard a fan theory so weird I myself cannot stand it. I heard people online saying that Tyrion is a Targaryen. Seriously. If this was true, it would invalidate his entire character arc.

Tyrion's arc is focused on the fact that he's a Lannister, he's Tywin's true son, yet Tywin refuses to acknowledge him due to his dwarfism and treats him like shit due to Westerosi society's prejudices over disabled people. Tyrion's killing of his father signifies his darker growth as a product of undeserved hate, and his later dark turn is caused by the fact that he has committed one of the capital sins of the Seven religion. If Tyrion was not Tywin's son (and the son of some enemy Tywin has defeated in the past), then Tywin's hate would be entirely justified and not come off as ableism, and he would not be kinslaying.

It at least makes sense if ancient Lannisters descend from Targaryen, but Tyrion being Aerys's son... It would be absolute trash

What about you people? Is there a fan theory you've seen online that you absolutely can't stand? I'd like to hear your opinion on this.

This post is about the apologetic claim that Jesus's resurrection is a historically verifiable event. There's a lot to this topic, so in this post I'm going to focus on one specific narrow bit of it: Paul's claim in 1 Corinthians 15 that five hundred witnesses saw the resurrected Jesus.

This claim is a big deal because it multiplies the number of purported post-resurrection witnesses from twentyish of Jesus's closest friends and family (plus Saul) to over five hundred individuals. It's a significant supporting pillar of, for example, Gary Habermas's Minimal Facts argument. It's also one of the most common responses to the hallucination explanation of the resurrection.

The passage in question is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-6

>3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

So, what's the problem?

There is no independent corroboration of the claim

When it comes to second-hand hearsay claims like this one, we prefer to see a great deal of independent testimony from sources as close to the event as possible. Ideally we'd see testimonies from all five hundred witnesses. Perhaps this could take the form of a big stack of signed letters, or a maybe single document with a statement affirming the event followed by hundreds of names of witnesses. It could be something like Joseph Smith's Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps I am asking too much though. Literacy in ancient Israel was very low, and few of the texts from back then have been preserved for modern readers, so it's unreasonable for me to expect the names of all five hundred witnesses to be preserved. But surely we should see some sort of independent corroboration from someone? Perhaps one or two statements from the five hundred witnesses? Or at the least, matching claims from some of the other Biblical authors?

We have none of that. In fact, there is only one single primary source, in all of recorded history, including the all of Paul's let

This is the story of the splintering of the Babylon 5 newsgroup on Usenet in the mid-90's.

An Overview

Between the years 1994 and 1995, a group of infamous trolls sparked into existence a great flamewar that sundered a once-beloved newsgroup. From the ashes of this newsgroup came two (2) twin newsgroups--rastb5 and rastb5.mod. Yes, two newsgroups for the same sci-fi show--an unprecedented thing in the dawn of early fandom culture on Usenet. What makes this more spectacular is that the proposal for the new moderated Babylon 5 newsgroup was, at that time, the most responded to Request for Discussion (RFD) in Usenet's history. That is how much fans of the series wanted to escape the flames.

This drama was very involved and there were a lot of moving parts, so I won't be able to cover everything, but there was everything. Callout posts, conspiracy theories, netstalking, doxxing, sockpuppets, accusations of real-life crimes, hacking--all in the pursuit of agitating the creator of a television show so successfully he flounced from the newsgroup.

This is very much a time capsule of early Internet drama. It was a time when the term "netiquette" was used unironically, and as such, due to “ye olde” nature of this hobby drama, here’s some relevant people and terms for the purposes of explaining this drama.

• Usenet: a collection of newsgroups; resembles a bulletin board in structure (precursor to forums, even greater precursor to Reddit). It popularized a lot of what we know about Internet culture today.
• Request for Discussion (aka RFD): the proposals to Usenet to have a newsgroup created.
• Killfile: basically the old Usenet equivalent of a block list. (I don't mention this a whole lot, but it's a scary-sounding word and it does come up in linked threads so just some clarification.)
• Babylon 5 (aka B5): a sci-fi TV series that aired from 1993-1997 with a devoted following.
• J. Michael Straczynski (aka JMS): creator of Babylon 5
• rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 (aka rastb5): the Babylon 5 newsgroup where the drama went down
• rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (aka rastb5.mod): the spin-off Babylon 5 newsgroup (with extra moderation!)
• Ford Thaxton: a troll, newsgroup enemy of JMS
• The Fullers, Theron and Deborah: trolls, also newsgroup enemies of JMS
• Jay Denebeim: moderator of rastb5.mod
• Harlan Ellison: sci-fi writer an

Hello there! We are happy to announce that Mod Organizer 2 version 2.4.2 has entered public release and is now available for download.

Nexus GitHub Discord

You can update directly from within MO2 by pressing the Update Available icon at the top right of the MO2 toolbar.

Updating MO2 is safe and does not mess with your mods!

This is a minor release so basically a handful of bug fixes and some small new features.

Mod Organizer v2.4.2

New Features

• Added basic support for Divinity: Original Sin (Enhanced Edition and Classic)
• Added basic support for Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen (thanks, EzioTheDeadPoet!)
• Added drop-down to "Visit Nexus" toolbar icon when multiple game downloads are supported
• Added ".ini" as a valid file extension for Bethesda game files
• Added dialogs and logs informing users that Microsoft Store and Gamepass games are not supported by Mod Organizer

Bug Fixes

• USVFS: Fixed problems seen by those with Windows builds 21313 and up (only currently available with Windows Insider)
• Fixed "select" button in the profiles dialog not selecting a profile
• Fixed crash when opening mod information dialog for a mod that has been filtered out
• Reduced the log severity of a couple harmless failures (thanks, foresto!)
• Fixed tutorials for Bethesda games
• Fixed "." and ".." showing up as files in the mod installer
• Fixed downloading files that contain invalid Windows characters
• Pulled in fixes to the Paper Automata theme by 6788

Archive distribution

Starting from Mod Organizer 2.4.0, we decided to only distribute the archive version of Mod Organizer on GitHub. See the GitHub issue for the reasons. The installer can be used to do everything that was possible with the archive version.

• To upgrade an existing MO2 installation, simply point the installer to the existing MO2 installation folder.
• To upgrade an existing MO2 portable instance, simply point the installer to the existing MO2 instance folder.
• To create a new portable instance, point the installer to the location you want for the instance and choose "Portable Instance" when starting MO2.

The archive is only provided for automated new installations, such as t

EDIT: Version 2.0, now also available here.

Many of you are asking "What can I do?" The answer is PLENTY! Wherever you are, you can help. Here is a plan.

#Step 1: Awareness

Most people think this is about sports, or saving children from irreversible surgery. But what these laws really do is far worse than what most people hear:

• The trans sports bans and bathroom bills open up all women -- cis and trans -- to invasive on-demand checks of their genitals, blood, or birth certificate. (How else can you prove that the woman trying to get on the team or into the "wrong" bathroom isn't trans?)

• The religious bills open up all LGBTQ to having their heath care denied at every step of delivery. "Sorry, my pastor says gay marriage is a sin, so I won't fill your prescriptions." "This church-supported hospital system does not perform surgeries for lesbians." There are huge swaths of this country only served by religious hospitals, and these bills threaten to force LGBTQ to either move to another area or just accept that they might not have access to medicine, even if they can pay for it themselves.

• Most of the trans health care bans criminalize support for trans children as felony child abuse. Doctors who followed their Hippocratic Oath would lose their license. Parents who supported their children would have them taken from them and thrown into foster care. These bills threaten to break up loving families. In any other circumstances we would call this a war crime.

So tell people what these laws really mean!

• Send them this letter from 1500 parents describing the ordeal their families are going through. Forward it to every parent of a trans, non-binary, or gender-expansive child you know to sign also.

• Show them this map so they can see how widespread this attack is. Or this simplified version for just the health care bans.

What if they want to discuss the science? Well, if they really want to get into the details [here are some references.](https://www.

The problems with the big players in meditation and self-help (Headspace, Calm) are:

• they're dogmatic to certain cultural and psychiatric artifacts
• indirectly reinforce stress, anxiety, depression, being epistemically incorrect
• they rely on quantity over quality
• provide temporary relief (why they even have monthly subscriptions) instead of fixing the problem at its core

We're free with an optional one time premium upgrade, for some extra features. We kept the free model as beefed up as possible, all main feature are available in the free model, the optional upgrade just gives you a few cool features on top for whoever wants to support us!

We're live on Web and Desktop and will also come to Linux, Mac, iOS, Android. Much more is up on our website https://immaterialapp.com

Feel free to reach out here or wherever else you find us, questions or feedback are all welcome!

The Old Testament has been frequently read as a text that has a negative view towards same-sex relations. However, I think the opposite is true. Here, I will show it.

First, I will refute the "traditional" interpretation of Leviticus 18:22; 20:13, Genesis 19, and Judges 19-20. Than, I will show evidence of two same-sex relationships in the Old Testament. The verses that will be discussed here are:

• Leviticus 18:22; 20:13
• Genesis 19
• Judges 19-20
• Ruth 1:14, 16-17; 4:15-17
• 1 Samuel 18:1-4; 20:17, 30-41; 23:18
• 2 Samuel 1:25-26

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

This 2020 article published by Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research boldly announces that:

>"Recent research has undermined the traditional interpretation of the two OT verses in Leviticus, interpreted as condemning every instance of consensual male-male sex. Those verses likely condemned incest and adultery between males, rather than male homosexuality itself. Male with male sex outside the forbidden categories was neither forbidden nor condemned."

While cited by many to condemn homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 in the original Hebrew are actually very vague texts. While many seem to assume that the meaning of these texts is perfectly clear, they have major difficulties. Most importantly, as Bruce Wells writes: "both contain the phrase מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה (vocalized as miškəbê ʾiššâ), a longstanding crux for interpreters. In fact, Jacques Berlinerblau finds this phrase so unintelligible that he believes scholars should “admit defeat” in light of the perplexities it presents and forgo further attempts to arrive at a sensible interpretation of these biblical texts" (Bruce Wells, "On the Beds of a Woman: The Leviticus Texts on Same-Sex Relations Reconsidered," Sexuality and Law in the Torah, 2020, pp. 124). To be sure, there are a lot of bad apologetics on these verses. For example, you may see something like this claimed about these two verses:

>'In the 1946 revision of the bible, the word “pedophilia” was replaced with “homosexuality”. The leviticus verse “Man shall not lie with man” originally said something along the lines of “Man shall not lie with little

Spoiler tags are for this weeks Ep 7 spoilers!

I’m not saying she should be absolved of all her sins, but these last few episodes (esp Momiji’s and this week’s one) have been hitting me in the feels. Like I just feel so much pain from all her past actions and they weren’t primarily motivated by ill intent but a way of expressing her pain and desperation.

I can relate to her wanting an guaranteed unchanging, unwavering bond. I think we would all feel immense comfort and security from that. Even more so when its like the unconditional love Yuki wants from Tohru. Akito’s never really received that from anyone other than her father and even that she felt she had lost to Ren so I feel like she’s still emotionally a child (lmao esp the recent episode when she stabs Kureno and runs off shouting like a sibling who just broke some toys as revenge.

She’s never been taught about anything other than being a God and being loved and THAT coupled with Ren continually breathing down her neck and invalidating what Akito thought of as her only reason for existence makes her so emotionally fraught. Then, having the emotional capacity of a child, she doesn’t know what to do with these feelings and proceeds to try and control the Zodiacs in a way that seems to also be an outlet of her pain.

The scene that got me last season and I appreciate more now knowing the backstory is when she clings onto Kureno. You have a child 10ish years clinging desperately onto something as her reason for existence that suddenly breaks without reason. That must have been terrifying for her.

Then the recent episode where, she says it’s too late to change. Idk but some depressive episodes I have are sometimes along these lines. Akito knows she’s bad and what she’s doing is wrong but she feels too broken for anyone to fix.

So idk I feel like Akito’s character is so relatable with my own anxieties and is just such a well fleshed out character. Obviously I don’t go physically abusing little kids or throwing people out the window because I’m scared I’ll lose people, so there is definitely something wrong with Akito but imho she must not be whole heartedly hated.

So I've rightfully been asked a few times throughout my crusade...

"what do the fair Celts truly need?, Do the poor neglected Eastern Romans or the good sub-continent of India not require flavour more urgently then thy Celts?" and I shall respond. So hear my words, "Aye they do need flavour, for all deserve flavour! but alas my heart, it lies with the fair Celts, and it is in their name I go on this Crusade! So listen closely and hear my list of the needs of the Celts!"

Right! Now that my epic speech is out of the way, lets get serious...ish. Some ground rules? requests? I dunno, I can't stop you from commenting whatever you want on this post/forum thingy but hear me out for a quick sec before you do comment and read ahead. I am fine with counter arguments and challenging my decision on the choices on this list... but I honestly and truly, no disrespect or ill intent or malice, but the argument about something on this list being invalid as an idea because it's "ahistorical" is one that I can't jive with.

The second you un-pause that start screen on whatever starting date, everything on your screen for the next however many hours after that is by definition, ahistorical. Also the Kingdom of Mann and the isles is a thing and CK2 and all It's DLC EXISTS, so 100% historical accuracy has long been thrown out the carriage. also does this rule exist because of the "Yr Hen Ogledd". Yes. yes it is. That being said there are obviously limits, I won't be completely jumping the shark and advocating for I dunno something like wales getting a dejure claim on Sweden or anything... well... okay hear me out on that one! I'll explain it down below in the actual list.

Last part of the Ground rules I swear it's not even actually really rules I promise it's almost all ground!

The Idea behind this list is not for it just to be a simple "check pinned post bro" response to whenever I'm asked what the Celts would/should get. But also a sort of touch point where people can post their Ideas about what they should get, improving these and those new ideas through debate. Ideally the list will get bigger and more refined over time, this may lead to some Overlap countering claims. So take this list as everything I want, but I'll be more then happy with whatever actually gets turned into sweet Celtic flavour.

See barely any rules if any! like 99% ground!

Alright List time, The list is broken into 4 sections the First and probably going to be the biggest at the beginnin

Junglers are the most delusional players in the game when dealing with Katarina. The same events literally unfold every single game, and it's from pure arrogance and ignorance that these junglers play this way.

When you start league of legends for the first time, it becomes apparent that if the jungler is to gank your lane, it needs to be shoved in, they want an opportunity for a flank. This is what they tell you. All beginners learn this because they often will lose their lanes, and need ganks and ask for one. They are told 'stop shoving, let it push into you, and I will gank'.

Convenient for them, Katarina is the worst early laner in the game. It's unironically impossible to not get shoved on by some matchups, especially if the player is good, you will very likely be stuck under your tower for the majority of the game, at best attempting to create a freeze. People don't even fight you in higher elo, they just shove and laugh because of this predicament.

Katarina herself, is in this position all the time, literally always; waiting for a gank. And this itself is actually a losing position scalewise unless your ally jungler actually punishes them for extending. You see, they are winning the fucking game while you aren't ganking them in this position and opening mid. They are able to scale and collect CS/plates, while also denying yours, and they have full prio with normally minion advantage.

The thing is though, the jungler never actually comes through, even with this good position for flank. You could look at this like a probability issue, there are 3 lanes and a jungle where opportunity can present itself, so it would only make sense for Katarina to fall under getting a random gank like 1/4th of the time right? No. She actually never gains ganks, but the question really is why? It has to do with what the jungler is doing, while katarina is shoved in, and what that always leads to while she needs her gank, if you don't gank quick enough, the gank becomes impossible and the entire lane is lost, but that won't stop them from showing up at at 13 minutes and attempting to solo your fed laner and dying when all you wanted the entire time was a early 2v1.

You see the thing is, Katarina wants to snowball hard, she wants to start her lane with a kill, but it isn't preferable for her in her downtime to have her lane shoved in, she does better with Prio, and so the only reason katarina herself isn't even attempting to shove early, is because she can't. Once ka

How It all Started

I agree here with professor Leandro Querido on this Topic: The Original Sin of this whole conflict, was the moment Evo Morales decided 2016’s Plebiscite (which prevented his indefinite re-election) was Invalid

April 2021, marked the end of a “super electoral cycle” defined by the consequences of this Plebiscite

How did everything went so wrong?

After years of Electoral victories, Evo Morales ended it up controlling every institution on Bolivia

• Morales had control of the Government

• Senate Control

• Lower House Control

• Control of the most popular Party, the MAS

• Support of the Military

• Control of almost all Departments (Sort of Bolivian “States”)

• The vast majority of local governments (Close 70% of the Municipalities)

• Strong allies in the Electoral Tribunal

• Strong allies in the Justice system

Evo went from being a simple peasant in the country side, to the de facto “King” of Bolivia. After 13 years in government, Power corrupted him completely. He even built a giant Museum, to honor his own Legacy)

How we managed to fix this mess?

At International level, our initial plan was pretty lame: We just played into Evo’s delusions, in hope he avoids going full Maniac.

But ordinary Bolivians, especially those who live in the Big Cities, saw in Evo a much greater danger than us. After the controversial Electoral results of 2019, thousands of Bolivians rose across the country, in fierce protest. The police, after some time, refused to repress the protests

Seeing their chance, Lima’s Group rapidly drops the act, and used OAS to support the protests, betraying Evo in the process

After weeks of conflict, Morales was forced to resign, to avoid what was seen as an imminent Civil War. Evo proceed to escape Bolivi

1- hijab being a choice is a privilege.

Hijab culture is so toxic it's pretty much women one upping eachother on how invisible they could be because the more you cover up, the more brownie points you get on being a "good muslim women".

This reaches it's top in the niqab/burqa whose women give up their enitre idnetity becasue it's a race to the bottom. How invisible can you be to avoid triggering men sexually.. well the face is an attractive part of the body.. cover that.

If you grow up in a Muslim community, they will not teach you that hijab is a choice. They will teach you that hijab is mandatory to all women in Islam. Depending on where you live/ your family the option of it being a true free choice is different for every person. And best case scenario in which you are only doing it for Allah it's the choice of wearing it or going to hell.

Instead of advocating that women live their life freely islam advocated that women live their lives trying to avoid triggering men sexually. For example you shouldn't speak softly to avoid triggering men with your voice. Another example there is a religious saying by the prophet that if a woman wore perfume and walked by a group of men and they smelled it, she is considered an adulterer cus she might trigger them with her perfume lol it's so effed up

2- the pressure on men to enforce it

Because of honor culture women are already not free to do what they want anyway, add to that the idea of hijab and you have a society where women's clothes is considered a reflection of how much of a man her husband is.

So, not only is the woman considered less because she doesn't cover up, her husband is also considered less of a man because he doesn't make her do it. Men are shamed for how their wives dress/behave and are called dayouth ديوث ie why do are you letting your wife showing her body to people ..This is because of a hadith by the prophet mentioning the dayouth word.

This means that it's not just men forcing women to do it. It's a whole community that enforces Islam on everyone. Other women can be worse than men.

3- Extreme slut shaming.

Women are called / "motabraja" which is a dergatory term for uncovered women or those who wear makeup/ whores / "naked meat" "cheap meat"/ the wo

The funeral director was asking us what we think Mum should wear in her casket.

Mum always loved to wear sarongs (fabric wraps that go around the torso and drape downward a bit like a long skirt would), so my uncle suggested that she wear a sarong in there.

The funeral director looked a bit confused, as did some of our family members, to which my uncle added:

"What's sarong with that?"

I started laughing like an idiot. He was proud of it too. The funeral director was rather shocked. We assured her, and our more proper relatives, that Mum would've absolutely loved the joke (which is very true).

His delivery was perfect. I'll never forget the risk he took. We sometimes recall the moment as a way help cushion the blows of the grieving process.

--Edit-- I appreciate the condolences. I'm doing well and the worst is behind me and my family. But thanks :)

--Edit-- Massive thanks for all the awards and kind words. And the puns! Love 'em.

I would have a daughter

If a person regularly makes dua to Allah for something and then sometime later commits a sin, does that person’s dua which he kept on asking earlier gets delayed or invalidated?

EDIT: Version 2.0, now also available here.

Many of you are asking "What can I do?" The answer is PLENTY! Wherever you are, you can help. Here is a plan.

#Step 1: Awareness

Most people think this is about sports, or saving children from irreversible surgery. But what these laws really do is far worse than what most people hear:

• The trans sports bans and bathroom bills open up all women -- cis and trans -- to invasive on-demand checks of their genitals, blood, or birth certificate. (How else can you prove that the woman trying to get on the team or into the "wrong" bathroom isn't trans?)

• The religious bills open up all LGBTQ to having their heath care denied at every step of delivery. "Sorry, my pastor says gay marriage is a sin, so I won't fill your prescriptions." "This church-supported hospital system does not perform surgeries for lesbians." There are huge swaths of this country only served by religious hospitals, and these bills threaten to force LGBTQ to either move to another area or just accept that they might not have access to medicine, even if they can pay for it themselves.

• Most of the trans health care bans criminalize support for trans children as felony child abuse. Doctors who followed their Hippocratic Oath would lose their license. Parents who supported their children would have them taken from them and thrown into foster care. These bills threaten to break up loving families. In any other circumstances we would call this a war crime.

So tell people what these laws really mean!

• Send them this letter from 1500 parents describing the ordeal their families are going through. Forward it to every parent of a trans, non-binary, or gender-expansive child you know to sign also.

• Show them this map so they can see how widespread this attack is. Or this simplified version for just the health care bans.

What if they want to discuss the science? Well, if they really want to get into the details [here are some references.](https://www.