There are a lot of more conservative/fundamentalist protestants who will also tell you that you will go to Hell for suicide, but I'm sure there are places and denominations where that's not true.
I assumed you already hated golf basically the maximal amount short of resorting to stochastic terror attacks because of how much of a greenspace guy you are. I apologize for underestimating the level of fury you are capable of while remaining coherent.
I think Augustine would not assign carte blanche to any law a state may hold regarding killing, or else the Commandment is meaningless and Christians may support their own persecution (though I guess they kind of did in pre-Christian Rome).
But also this is unimportant because we, as a secular society, should not be binding others by the laws of a religion they do not believe in, and that's the main point.
Disgusting and cowardly. Like, it's already miserable of them to buckle to charges of facilitating crime (which I think they did relative to protestors), but there's not even an accusation of that level involved here, they're just bootlicking!
Also, it's just stupid to give conservatives that much more power when they're the ones bullying you in the first place.
Well, Luigi probably overstated the skill involved, but finding the window where he could do the hit still involved a bit of legwork (when that person would be going to a meeting where). In this case, since there aren't CEOs of Islam (and the nearest equivalents aren't in Scotland), the only other option for a similar effect is killing a politician, and they tend to have security. The would-be shooter also surely just personally hate Muslims and wanted the satisfaction of murdering them.
Well, remember how the entire political establishment was mobilized in explicit defense of cops for months? Yeah, it's malleable, but it's not just rocketing around for no reason.
Well, I hope you'll forgive me for the comparison. There was some user who was saying almost exactly the same thing about that show and refused to recognize how various elements (the camera angles, the nudity, the posing, how some things were animated) made it exploitative gooner shit in the same way that Dandadan's UFO scene is, the Dandadan doesn't go quite as far (but also it's done to a minor, so it isn't really any better).
In the interest of diplomacy, I'll mention that outside of the gooner shit, Dandadan is a thousand times better than the pogromist edgelordism of Goblin Slayer, so it actually does have good qualities as well as bad ones.
At the time, as a country suffering under the boot of imperialism, New Democracy really did make sense. The point of it was strategic alliances to handle the most urgent problems first, like fighting off Japan with the KMT before fighting off the KMT. Mao was very emphatic that progress toward a more completely proletarian state must always be occurring and the New Democratic order could not be allowed to ossify. He believed so strongly in that fact that he essentially instigated a civil war against the state that he founded in order to fight the bureaucrats.
But Mao ultimately failed in his fight against bureaucracy and in the very end capitulated to the roaders.
Liberalism is itself not practical (liberal ideology taken to the rational extreme of practicality and efficiency is just fascism)
I think this is giving entirely too much credit to both liberalism and especially fascism. "Practicality" and "efficiency" both imply goals and evaluations of the worth of resources used to reach those goals. What are the goals? Who is doing the evaluating? These are questions that are, at best, hand-waved, but often entirely ignored.
Given the proper level of technological advancement, central planning is endlessly more practical and efficient than the anarchy of production under liberalism if your goal is broad societal welfare and not going through cyclical crises, and it is something that we should be pursuing.
It's something that you can purchase cultural relevance for such backwards gooner shit.