I say no because vampire myths developed in a time and place where only a tiny minority of people were even allowed to own property and almost everyone lived on land they didn’t own, and in those stories the vampires are invited by the resident, not the owner.
Here are some related questions that inform the answer to this one
Can a vampire cross a country’s border without approval from that country’s government? This relates to how a vampire’s inability to cross thresholds relates to governments and concepts of control, occupation, and ownership as they relate to this rule. My gut instinct says yes, a border doesn’t count as a boundary in this case because a vampire can only not enter your house but can go on your yard. Disregarding that, I would lean towards no a vampire would need permission, especially at a defined boundary like a border crossing checkpoint. I don’t think it would necessarily have to be from the government, though, based on concepts I will explore later
Can a vampire enter your home if you’re a tenant and give them permission? I say yes, because during the time period when vampire myths developed barely anyone actually owned their own homes or the land they lived on, and said myths don’t state that the vampire must receive permission from the local lord to enter the homes of his serfs. This establishes that residence is sufficient and ownership isn’t required.
If you are at a friend’s house for a party and a vampire shows up and you say “come on in!” Does that count as an invitation? I would say yes, but there is some argument to be had here. The answer to this question determines if residency is not only sufficient, but required. If you say yes, then, it seems that merely occupying a space is what gives one authority to invite a vampire in, not residence or ownership. If you say no, then it seems that residence or control over a space is more important.
If you give a worker a garage door code and tell him he can use that while you’re not home and he turns out to be a vampire, can he enter your home? I would say yes, because you explicitly gave him permission. If you say no, then it seems that the relationship of the threshold is what’s important. Someone on one side has to be inviting the vampire to cross, and the invitation can’t be given if both parties are on the same side. I say yes, because I feel that the criteria are as follows - A person must have control over a space in some sense (but not necessarily legal authority over it) and they must explicitly give permission to the vampire to enter. The explicit permission requirement is because a vampire theoretically wouldn’t be able to break into your house by smashing a window.
Now as all of this pertains to a warrant - I think that yes, a vampire with a warrant would be able to enter a home with a warrant because the issuing authority has the ability to control access to your home via warrants and you have implicitly delegated that authority to them via the social contract, and the warrant is explicit permission to enter your home.
Depends on what you mean by “high.” I have scored between 130-140 on IQ tests I’ve taken of various quality, which is considered high by most. Idk how it would be different from anyone else’s experience of the world. I did extremely well in school and I work as a chemical engineer with a focus on machine learning implementations and capital expansion. I don’t know if I would consider myself “smarter” than the average person, just better at certain types of tasks. I also grew up in a stable two parent upper middle class household that valued education and academic success, which is a huge leg up that can’t be ignored.
Depends on what you mean by “low.” At a certain level low enough IQ is associated with intellectual disability, and a difficulty functioning in society. IQ is normalized so half of people have, by definition, an IQ lower than 100, and half have an IQ above 100. 15 points is a standard deviation, so about 68% of people fall between 85 and 115, and the remaining 32% fall within the “tails”. I assume by “Low IQ” you would mean the ~16% of the population below 85 IQ, and probably the ~13.5% that fall in the range of 70-85, as below 70 is getting into intellectual disability territory.
Statistically, people in this band do worse in just about every metric for social success. Lower income, higher crime rates, higher rates of drug addiction, poorer health outcomes, etc. However, it is difficult to disentangle these impacts from poverty. Populations’ IQs raise when they become less poor, and people regardless of income tend to be less poor if they have higher IQs. The cycle of poverty is deeply intertwined with IQ, and poverty causes a lot of the social issues associated with low IQ. There is a lot of evidence that as access to education and a more “intellectually rich” upbringing increase IQ, and such things are less available to poor people for a variety of reasons.
As for what it’s like, from my understanding speaking to people I suspect are in this band the main things are a non-inquisitive world view, a sense of resignation around not understanding abstract concepts, and low self esteem associated with these perceived shortcomings. Society does not treat these people kindly as a whole, and I think that we could all stand to be kinder to one another. I also think that our economic system is geared in such a way that not only are low IQ people punished for that, but they are also made to feel that it is a personal shortcoming even though these things are defined statistically such that there is always a group of people at the bottom who are going to be left behind.
This is lawyer territory. Randos on the internet will not be able to help.
Yeah he’s certainly the most famous modern defense lawyer. He got a guy who very obviously murdered someone off through his skills as a lawyer so that sticks in people’s minds. For the young people in this thread, he was OJ Simpson’s lawyer.
Same dude. Like signal word “Fuck” for the spiciest of chemicals that really probably shouldn’t exist in the first place that are desperately trying not to exist
Oxidizers aren’t typically flammable themselves and only react with fuels.
Holy shit fours on blue AND yellow, AND it’s an oxidizer? My guess is some kind of halogenation agent, likely fluorine based. The lack of flammability with those stats makes me think it’s an inorganic compound, probably some wretched fluorine abomination.
We as a society completely ignored teen boys and especially what they were looking at online for over a decade and then we locked them all inside for a couple years during their most formative years while only giving them access to the Internet.
It’s more complicated than that since I do believe God exists but in a way that is incomprehensible to humans, and, according to all evidence, doesn’t “intervene” with the universe. I say “intervene” because God, as classically described, is simultaneously incapable of intervening and incapable of not intervening. If we define God as “an omnipotent being”(which, for the record, I do not), then He is necessarily also all knowing and exists outside of the limitations of time and space. Such a being would be perfectly optimized as well, and so it would be impossible for anything to occur without its express permission and cause. Therefore, under classical theism, it seems impossible for God to say, answer prayers, because this would imply that He could possibly change His mind or that what was happening wasn’t already what He wants to begin with.
Eh. I could care less about downvotes and I understand that the idea of practicing Christianity for reasons beyond personal faith in it is going to be controversial to Christians and atheists alike. If someone made a chill Atheist/agnostic “church” where there was singing and discussions on moral philosophy, and a community of people devoted to helping each other and their community I’d probably be doing that but as it stands religion is the only game in town for such things and I think that it’s good to do something like this. Plus I don’t know, it’s kind of cool to be a part of rituals people have been doing for thousands of years.
It’s complicated but I used to be essentially atheist but now believe that there is something one might as well call “God” after studying philosophy. Essentially everything has a cause and something must be at the end of that chain, and we might as well call that “God.” I also practice Christianity because I feel that it is good to have the community and structure that a religion can provide but I don’t think that “God” necessarily exists in the way Christianity typically presents it.
Highlander 2 is unsalvageable. That movie sucked so bad it wasn’t even fun to watch with friends to make fun of it