Jump to content


Supreme User
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SurelySerious last won the day on September 22

SurelySerious had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Flying, auto racing, photography, reading, music.

Recent Profile Visitors

13,557 profile views

SurelySerious's Achievements

Gray Beard

Gray Beard (4/4)



  1. It just had to take time for the participants to go through the stages of airline life.
  2. I would have thrown grandstanding jackass out in this game of charades, but nihilist is more accurate.
  3. Maybe don’t cherry pick one quote from someone that doesn’t actually address the same topic as the original. In yours, the Pope doesn’t address the morality of mandates at all. The topic the Archbishop was addressing was is it moral to force someone to get vaccinated, which the Vatican has the same stated view on in the article entitled “Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines” https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html It’s written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which is what the Archbishop literally quotes in his statement.
  4. Well that’s because you’re only looking for what fits your narrative, and not for the Holy See’s position on the morality of vaccines and a vaccine mandate. Literally the second result on the Vatican website when you search the word vaccine: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html “5. At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.” Which is in fact pretty close to Broglio’s: “Notwithstanding the moral permissibility of these vaccines, the Church treasures her teaching on the sanctity of conscience…Accordingly, no one should be forced to receive a COVID-19 vaccine if it would violate the sanctity of his or her conscience. Individuals possess the “civil right not to be hindered in leading their lives in accordance with their consciences.”6 Even if an individual’s decision seems erroneous or inconsistent to others, conscience does not lose its dignity. This belief permeates Catholic moral theology as well as First Amendment jurisprudence. As stated by the United States Supreme Court, “[R] eligious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.”7 The denial of religious accommodations, or punitive or adverse personnel actions taken against those who raise earnest, conscience-based objections, would be contrary to federal law and morally reprehensible. Those who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine must continue to act in charity for their neighbors and for the common good by undertaking means to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 through wearing face coverings, social distancing “
  5. Sounds pretty similar to the vatican’s position, not a lot of countermanding happening.
  6. Yeah, went generally unnoticed because it was during the Del Rio debacle among other things, but it will allow monitoring of nearly every financial transaction of almost every American. Sounds like one big warrant.
  7. Could also be a hard count, seeing if Taiwan flinches and gives them a reason to intervene.
  8. The BUFF isn’t ever thrust limited; it doesn’t need more. It’s stopping limited (old steel brakes suck), directional control limited, and mx/fuel limited. Same thrust engines let you minimize change to controllability and structural problems, not exacerbate directional control problems, and keep the engines on the wing longer while increasing un-refueled range. Edit: “isn’t ever thrust limited” = incredibly rarely, of course
  9. Not at all. It’s off the shelf; already on the BACN and C-37, as well as civilian G500 and Global Express.
  10. And then an additional 10 years to install the rest, if the projected 2038 completion is accurate. Timely.
  11. If they don’t ef up the strike eagle/hornet radar and pay more to take features away.
  12. Part of the CERP is digital engine display to tie into the modern engine controls, and also act as the modern radar display.
  13. Yeah, I don’t think it’ll be foreign source, but protest on whether the objective/threshold/cost decision was made properly.
  14. Protest to be filed for sure, but agree as above not for those reasons. Same engine already on E-11 and C-37, if I recall. Whether it was the best choice or just the least costly one will be interesting to see play out.
  15. Stupid concept. It’s imaginary money, doesn’t exist until the stock is cashed in. Could be assessed for $50M and then be worth $500 when you have to pay up. Edit add: they also paint buying and holding of stocks as some evil thing super rich people do. No, that’s just a normal thing people do.
  • Create New...