The worst part is draconic abortion bans also hurt those trying to have children. No one’s getting recreational third trimester abortions. You picked out a name, painted the nursery. Late term abortions are tragedies to all parties, and only ever happen because of life threatening conditions.

I wouldn’t want to plan a child when any complication could mean death.

Always faithful terrible lizard?

Enough high school Latin and amateur Greek to puzzle out the meaning of most new words I see.

The Mars Volta in general. Tons of friends have recommended them to me after hearing some of what I listen to, and it’s just not my jam. On paper I should, but alas.

I proposed to my wife at Christmas by putting the ring in a bigger box so she was surprised. It was a box for skincare product, and she was actually excited for it before she even opened it to see the ring. Obviously she was happy for the proposal, but she also seemed a little disappointed she didn’t get skincare stuff.

The following Christmas, I got her a tiny container of a skincare product she liked and put it in a ring box.

Not really, there are lots of gods, sun gods are a specific subset. Different “sun gods” are just different names and attributions to the sun, like different languages have different names for apples.

That’s like asking someone who likes apples if they’d accept a pomme, apfel, manzana, or яблоко.

And he gets to keep the flute after!

I suggest breaking it down into sub questions based on expertise of the audience and nature of the information: technical, narrative, cultural, emotional, etc.

This is too broad. It’s like asking “what’s the best wrench to tighten nuts and bolts?” For some applications that’s a torque wrench, some it’s a box end, some it’s a socket wrench, some it’s a crescent wrench, sometimes it’s a pair of vice grips and a hammer. Anything that could properly be called a mode of communication has use cases where it’s clearer than others.

The OBD code that’s unintelligible to the lay person is the clearest way to communicate a discrete engine problem to a mechanic. A graph that plots a particular change over time might perfectly communicate the raw data, while being incapable of communicating narrative context. A meme image or referential quote might perfectly communicate a specific emotional concept to a broad group that gets the reference, while being totally opaque to those who don’t.

There are a lot of ways to interpret this question, it really depends on the information and the people.

Between experts trained in the method of communication? Between experts and a general audience? One expert and one non-expert? Is it technical data? Nuanced opinion? Simple message?

I think brainstorming is specifically a group activity. When you do it alone, it’s just called “thinking”. The point of brainstorming is to bring in ideas you thought of individually to co-mingle with the ideas other people thought of individually.

Escalate. Start with early digestible low quality sources (AI chat bots, short YouTube videos, old Reddit threads, etc.) to build a general familiarity with the subject matter space.

Once you grasp the basic vocabulary and concepts, you know well enough what questions to ask to find more nuanced discussions and the right Wikipedia rabbit holes.

If you need more comprehensive understanding than that, use your newfound familiarity to start skimming primary sources.

Once you get more involved than deep dives into primary sources, you start blurring the lines of developing a new area of relative expertise.

Hangnails

I don’t actually have a drain that needs to be unclogged. This is a showerthoughtquestion.

Unclogging hair from a drain is the single most relevant practical showerthought

More than 50% of the people.

Substantially less than 100%. The terms are not synonymous.

they certainly do provide insight into the language used in the constitution, as well as the intent of the authors.

Some of the authors. If it was sufficiently representative, it would have made it into the Constitution itself.

If Congress chooses to discuss a term used in the constitution, their usage does not alter the constitutional meaning, but only establishes a legislative meaning.

This still does not establish the constitutional meaning. You have notably not provided sufficient evidence to establish a constitutional meaning.

the states accepted and enacted the constitution in the context of the papers.

Correct. The states accepted and ratified the Constitution, not the Federalist Papers.

and have no problem whatsoever considering the disciplined portion to be unambiguously a part of the Militia.

That portion being the “whole nation”.

The “whole nation” is not disciplined. I was quite specific: if, and only if, the “whole nation” is disciplined, it is appropriate to consider the “whole nation” to be synonymous with the Militia.

What if I argue that Congress found a different way to ensure the population was “properly armed and equipped” that didn’t require annual assembly?

“Properly” being the functional term here. “Armed and equipped” is not the same as “Properly armed and equipped”.

If you don’t like being held to pedantry, don’t make flippant categorical equivalences of precise legal language.

10 USC 246 does not cover males under 17 or over 45, these are part of the People who are not legislative Militia. Hypotheticals are not evidence.

The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution. If you draw a distinction between the constitutional and legislative, I’ll draw a further distinction against commentary.

I am a proponent of disciplining the whole nation, and have no problem whatsoever considering the disciplined portion to be unambiguously a part of the Militia. If Congress does indeed reinstate assembly to properly arm and equip every member of the People, I will promptly concede. But hypotheticals are not evidence.

the constitutional meaning does not exclude anyone

Buddy, you keep just saying that like it’s some b ontological fact. I’ve repeatedly asked you for evidence to support that and you keep shifting focus to avoid doing so.

Until you can provide concrete, tangible evidence to support that interpretation, I’m not interested in hearing anything else. Show me documentation, not just your own assertions. No more dancing.

But not with what you said, and not with what you’re currently saying.

Personally, I disagree with the definition in 10 USC 246; I believe the “unorganized militia” should still imply training, even though the members may not presently be active members of the National Guard. The right to bear arms should fall under the same kind of regulation as operating a vehicle: subject to training and demonstration of competence. But it is what it is.

But this is all secondary to the core issue of the claim that Militia = People, constitutionally speaking. Again, rectangles and squares. So long as the definition of one excludes some members of the other, no matter how large the subset, they are not synonymous. The specific vocabulary is crucial to legal interpretation, and the central point of my contention.

No, this entire argument is based upon the fact that you claimed, and continued to claim, without evidence that Militia and People are constitutionally synonyms. And here again you dance around that nonsense claim, trying to refocus on anything else because, I’ve again, you have absolutely no evidence to support this.

You convincing yourself of this nonsense is not evidence. Your personal interpretations mean exactly nothing to me.