My penis is a hair dryer, AMA.
One can't judge a relationship on an image alone but… there's a few redflags on this one. I hope for you they're false alarms.
It's a difficult debate, complicated again in the case of the Free France that the institutions against Vichy always controlled a part of the French Empire.
However, my first comment was more because I understood the way you worded your first message as “the Nazis destroyed the Vichy regime” when the Vichy regime was established by the Nazis.
Yes, but there's a conflict on its legitimacy. The question is: had the National Assembly the power to pass the constitutional law of 1940 or not? For Vichy, of course yes, and then the Third Republic stopped there. But for the Free France (the political branch of the Résistance), this law was illegal, and then the Third Republic was still the legitimate form of the French government. That's why in 1944, at the Liberation, De Gaulle didn't proclaimed a new Republic, but passed an ordinance reestablishing the Third one.
I did the contrary.
Small correction in an otherwise very interesting message:
The previous French state (Vichy France) was destroyed by Nazi Germany.
Vichy France is the result of the destruction of the Third Republic by Nazi Germany. But de jure, the Third Republic's constitution was still legitimate until the new constitution of 1946.
I believe the US constitution is the second oldest still valid constitution of the world, after the constitution of San Marino. I'm not sure it's a good thing though: I tend to believe that every generation should rewrite their constitution.
In a homebrew setting still in construction, Volapük is the language of a secret society.
Esperanto is more like Common. A language that everyone speaks, more or less, can only be something from an imperialist power or a neutral ground created for that.
Me, yesterday: "I shouldn't put that booklet with the discounts to show at the checkout in the back pocket of my jeans, it'll fall out and I'll be in trouble."
Me: do it anyway.
Me, at the checkout: "Fuck, I lost the booklet"
view more: next ›
Yeah, it's that. I'm a Christian, but I have atheist close friends, and I love our debates, but it's because we respect each others enough to accept and recognise that we use the words differently. It's generally not the case on the net.
The Epicurian argument is strong only if you have a very broad definition of all-powerfulness. A definition that classical Christian theology doesn't have, as it recognizes a lot of logical limitations. All-powerfulness is the capacity to do everything possible. So yes, the Christian God is limited.
One of these logical limitations is: God can't create anything free without allowing their creation to do thing that they disapprove, thus God being good, they can't create freedom without accepting the existence of evil, which is not a thing per se, but the absence of good. God chose freedom over perfection, and it's not a human.thing, but a cosmological one.
So yeah, this is a strong argument only of you are already convinced, but it's generally the case on religious matters. I tend to tink that the only purely rational position is true agnosticism, but sometimes for important things you have to make choices without being sure. That's why I'm an agnostic theist.