… else?
This presumes I would consider the creature that was killed as 'someone'.
And sure, legally he has to claim that. But unless all the evidence they found on him was planted, which I think is a bit too much of a stretch (not because I don't think they would do it, but because I think it would be too likely to come out that it was planted), then in any situation where my comments do not cause legal jeopardy I don't have an issue talking about him doing it as though it were fact.
Yeah, I've got some tips..
One, don't be a moron and send threatening emails before the job is done, that just puts people on alert and makes it more likely you get caught, especially considering traceability of email.
Two, don't fire blindly into a house you colossal moron, you can probably find a hiding spot good enough to wait until your target comes outside so you can get a clear shot.
Three, don't pull out the gun until you've got a confirmed target, and don't pull the trigger unless you're goddamn sure you got a killing shot, on the right target. Remember one of the things everyone likes about Luigi is that he was successful, and the other thing everyone likes is he didn't hurt anyone.
And four, if successful, once you get out of the immediate area, make sure not to be carrying around any goddamn incriminating evidence.
Frankly, these are really bad laws. It is a good thing that he appears not to be inclined to even try to take advantage, but those laws explicitly encourage remaining at war in order to maintain power, so a worse person would definitely be trying to maintain a forever war situation.
There certainly wouldn't be any regrets (because you would not have time to do so before death).
The way I perceived it, that's exactly what it was. Yeas, the kids of stupid people are stupid but I don't recall it being specified it was genetic. The sequence in the movie just made me think it was upbringing and lack of education.
Stupid people on average will have stupider kids, if their parents believe education to be a prissy intellectual thing for gay liberals and not for good decent hard working people like us.
I find it interesting that this basically never happens. The security details of these guys basically never turn against them. Not just US guys but all the dictators and brutal warlords and such. And I get that it makes sense to be quite rare, but I genuinely know of zero instances of it.
Not that I've done deep historical dives, but...is there any instance of a ruler's bodyguards/security murdering them for the harm they're causing? Cause presumably these people have others they care about that may be being harmed by the things going on.
Depends on what you mean by ringworld. The thing I think of is orders of magnitude more impossible than a Dyson sphere, which is already pretty impossible.
Since at least the 1970s and probably much earlier, any and all non-heterosexual people have been painted as pedophiles by right wing / conservatives.
Indeed, a lot of the pedophile panic these days is driven by those people, because it is one of the few things they can get everyone to hate, and that hate often shuts down nuance and reason, and while real pedophiles are a problem, they want to expand that unthinking hate, that knee jerk 'burn the heretic' reaction to more people.
This is the reason we now see people attacking even completely fictional media, because they're trying as hard as possible to slippery slope it.
Intelligence would help, increasing the base ability that knowledge's are rolled on.
If the wizard is 17th level or higher, the wizard, assuming they are sufficiently optimized. In every edition of D&D I know, a wizard that can cast 9th level spells will win against anything short of a god, another similarly optimized wizard, or a couple other classes.
If below 17th level, well, maybe. Depends on how optimized they are for this specific challenge, their gear budget, what edition they're built in, and what spells they know.
Depends on what you mean by this. If you mean involving them in it, then yes, probably (qualified because I know of no actual research on the matter; nor do I know of any way such research could be conducted so we will probably have to settle with 'yes, probably' as the closest answer to accurate).
If you mean allowing them to be aware of it as something that adults do, and occasionally seeing adults engaged in sexual activity, then no. The behavior of shielding children from both even having knowledge of sex, and witnessing it performed by adults, is relatively new, largely taking hold after the Reformation based on my relatively surface-level dives into the subject in the past (I have learned that going deep into this is difficult, the scholarly texts are long and difficult to read for laymen). In medieval times and before, children were aware of adults having sex; they often could not be kept unaware because there was no place for the adults to gain privacy. The modern view of the past is bizarrely anachronistic in that we project prudishness and avoidance of sexuality to a time period centuries before it actually became that way.
Thus, it becomes clear that the avoidance of children being aware of sex existing and happening is a very specific cultural phenomenon that does not paint an accurate picture of actual harm to children, and is based primarily in christian moralizing.