“not to mention” and “let alone” are both typically used with the more difficult or unpleasant things after the phrase. The main difference is that “not to mention” is usually used to bring something new into the conversation or to imply that the thing you’re mentioning needs a whole separate conversation.

“Let alone” is a way to add emphasis when denying something. Usually phrased like “I didn’t even X, let alone Y.” Y being the thing you want to deny, X being some first step toward Y or just something related that isn’t as bad as Y.

Some examples:

“Did you kill Dave?” “I didn’t touch him, let alone kill him”

“Can you walk?” “I can’t stand, let alone walk.”

The first part doesn’t even need to be a complete denial as long as it implies the second part is impossible:

“Can you run?” “I can barely stand, let alone run.”

To make the setup work, aye

Sphinx: You there, knight. I am the guardian of this place and cannot allow you to pass without a battle.

Me: My name is Ender, Sir Ender to you. And I’m a bit weary from my long journey here, would you accept a pun battle?

Sphinx: Aye, Sir Ender.

Me: Thank you, please move aside

For me, they manage to trigger the “SNAKE!” and “SPIDER!” panic responses simultaneously. The rational part of my brain likes them, the instinctual part tells me to smash it with a rock

Absolutely post relevant info, I’m saying your audience here doesn’t consider what you posted to be relevant.

If your comments had tied in to the greater anglosphere discussions around trans people or used the examples as a thing to emulate or avoid, that would be relevant.

As they are, your comments just sound like you think of England as an extension of the US or at least you think the lawmakers of England are concerned about bathrooms in California

Sad to see down votes for the truth. The feds print the money so they don’t absolutely NEED to collect it first. But if money going out is more than the money coming in through taxes, it increases the supply and decreases the value of each dollar.

Lol, I swear I can read

“in the country”

Bruh, their point was you are talking about a different country. I happen to agree with your opinion, but how bathrooms work in Los Angeles has no bearing on the laws in the UK.

While I like the comparison between Trump’s legal troubles and Julius Caesar’s, my inner pedant needs to point out that Caesar was not part of the fall of the Roman Empire. Depending on how you break up the timeline, Caesar was the beginning of the end for the Roman Republic and his heir Augustus was the beginning of the Empire.

The EEA shows up in the list of places it does not apply. They worded it strangely, first calling out the US as a place where it does apply. Then they change it up and say it also applies to anywhere not on this specific list of places

Depends on the location and timing. For a lot of the northeast part of the path, the eclipse is going to happen right after school lets out. Most of the students would still be on their way home

This doesn’t seem like an unreasonable requirement for work attire. In a customer-facing role, they are representing the company and so the company is very concerned about it’s image.

For non-customer facing roles, it’s more about keeping the office productive and with minimal conflict. Someone walking in with a “Grab them by the pussy” shirt with a big picture of Trump’s face is going to stir up some shit that the company would rather avoid.

The national guard is part of the military, so funded and supported by the feds. Unlike normal army units though, each state or territory has its own national guard unit under the command of the governor. The intention is to give each state the power to quickly respond to emergency situations without needing federal approval. They’re the successors to the old state militias, but have much stronger federal ties now.

All of these examples got command of a ship after Burnham though, right?

How do you reconcile the idea of a good God worthy of worship with the God who created a bunch of sentient people just to torture them for eternity.

An all-powerful deity can create any universe they want. An all-knowing deity knows exactly how it will all turn out. Then this deity creates a bunch of people they know will misbehave and then punish them for that misbehavior with eternal torment.

To me this sounds an awful lot like leaving a kid in a room with candy, telling them “don’t eat this, it’s bad for you”, then beating them senseless when they eat it anyway.

In what way do these things “plainly point to a creator”? Is it just that you believe that complex things must be created by something equally complex? Does that also mean that since God is complex that something created God as well?

I’d agree that biological processes are complex and fascinating, but they are also very prone to errors. The kind of errors that result in disease, disability, and death. I have a hard time seeing that as plain evidence of an omnipotent creator.

I mean, realistically they are in quarantine leading up to the launch. Don’t want to scrub the launch because your astronaut is sick or injured.

Big Strong City, on their homeworld Pakled Planet

This feels overly pedantic. “Practicing edible recipes without the weed” is more specific than just baking. They are saying what they are baking and why. This is like someone saying “I’m frying some fish for dinner” and getting the response “so…cooking”.

It also seems to imply that it’s not baking anymore if you add the weed.

Not sure where this was taken, but I know a lot of the old buildings in the Netherlands were built with a slight intentional lean toward the street. It’s possible the buildings are actually leaning