u/kaiser11492

So while watching 9-1-1 and its spin-off series Lone Star and Nashville, I naturally felt all three series were unique and different in their own ways despite following the same overall formula and structure. Lone Star for example puts more emphasis and attention on the diversity of its main cast while Nashville is written to be more of a family drama/soap-opera. However, other than that, I’m having difficulty putting into the words how the three series are unique from each other.

So between the three series, how would you describe what makes each of them unique in their own way?

So I’m still kind of unclear when it comes to the new abortion law that was recently signed in Massachusetts. I mean I know tons of people are condemning it because it supposedly legalizes abortions up to birth. However, other sources pointed out that abortions up to birth were already allowed beforehand in certain situations and that all it did give more power to the doctors and medical professionals to make the call.

So if I understand correctly, even under the new law, a woman who is 8-9 months pregnant can’t get an abortion without a presenting a valid reason to a doctor and getting their professional approval?

As many are probably already aware, but many of the emergencies and incidents that occur in the show are based on things that have occurred in real-life. Now the relative of a friend of mine was a police officer and dealt with some cases that are extremely crazy or dramatic. Personally, I think it would be awesome to see them be adapted someway into this show.

I mean there was one case where a guy accidentally shot someone with a real gun during a mock shooting that was part of a Freemason initiation ceremony. I mean have the victim survive and I can see this being an entertaining emergency the 118 responds to.

And another case was the infamous murder of multi-millionaire Ted Ammon, a nationwide-attention case that involved greed, revenge, adultery, and other stuff one would see in a soap-opera. I think elements of this case would work well in an Athena-based plot.

As for other emergencies and incidents based real-life events that would entertaining would a giant flood of molasses or beer. Or perhaps a mining accident that traps a bunch of miners or a bridge collapse?

Any thoughts or other suggestions?

The 2012 remake of the film Red Dawn depicts the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Russia invade both coasts of the mainland USA. While the film does provide an introductory backstory setting up the invasion, I always found it wasn’t nearly sufficient to get to the bare minimum needed to make such a scenario remotely plausible. So, I was wondering other factors and events could be added to get to make it more plausible.

Rules:

1. Original canon backstory and lore (Europe experiencing economic difficulties, the USA deploying more forces abroad and leaving the mainland vulnerable, Russia taken over by ultranationalist extremists, increased cooperation between the DPRK and Russia, both of them developing EMP weapons) is maintained.

2. POD begins at 2010 (the year the film was actually made).

3. No ASBs

In order to unlock the achievement Would You Kindly, you have complete contracts in every province. However, do all these contracts have to be completed in the same season? The reason I ask is because it feels like I’ve completed a contract in each province, yet I haven’t gotten the achievement.

In the 2012 remake of the film Red Dawn, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Russia invade the Western and Eastern coasts of the USA.

Now according to the backstory intro and what is mentioned, this successfully occurred because Europe was experiencing economic problems, Russia was taken over by ultranationalist extremists, the DPRK increased their partnership with them, both crippled US defense via an EMP weapon, and the US had already deployed much of its forces overseas and away from the homeland.

However, even when accounting all those factors, that’s still nowhere close enough to launch a successful invasion of the American mainland. I mean the USA can still project power and strike back via its allies, forces stationed abroad, deployed navy/air-force, EMP-countermeasures, satellites, etc..

So what other changes or additions to the backstory intro and lore of the world would be needed to maximize the chances of Russia and the DPRK launching a successful invasion the American mainland?

When it comes to Massachusetts recently revising its abortion laws by eliminating the 24-weeks ban, practically none of the opposition I’ve seen and heard towards it is based on logic and reason. Like no one is seemingly opposing it because it will lead to more inefficiencies, societal costs, health issues, problems with productivity, complications, etc.. Instead all the opposition seems to only be about how abhorrent, disgusting, sad, and evil it is, all of which are based on feelings and emotion.

So why isn’t none of opposition seemingly based on logic?

On TikTok there’s a political influencer I’ve stumbled upon a few times called Unbothered Moderate (@unbotheredmoderate) who as his name says is politically moderate. Now on a couple of his videos he says he’s a moderate because the most important thing to him isn’t slogans or tribal warfare but finding solutions to problems, open constructive dialogue with people from all across the political spectrum, listening to different perspectives, and reaching across aisle. Now this is pretty much the exact same mentality and thinking I have when approaching politics.

However, whenever I listen to him, I get a feeling he is not being genuine and essentially gives off a phony aura. And frankly I can’t figure out why exactly.

So I was wondering if anyone had any speculation of theories on why I would get such a feeling if I full agree with his line of thinking.

Whenever people bring up nations that adopted socialism and suffered tons of economic problems, many immediately place the entire blame on them adopting socialism.

However, couldn’t it be argued that it wasn’t the adoption of socialism per se but them being idealistic and putting their eggs in one basked that led to many of the problems they experienced?

I mean by being idealistic, this would result in them choosing to not pursue other options that would help deal with problems emerging from an ever changing world. Essentially they refused to adjust to reality.

Also, I know Venezuela and Bolivia were initially doing pretty well in the beginning due to their reliance on natural resources. However, it seems one of the big factors in their failures is that they over-relied on them, which meant they were screwed if the markets went south and they didn’t put much effort diversifying their economy.

Whenever people bring their opposition to the Covid-19 lockdowns and restrictions, they adamantly claim their opposition is due to them being supposedly completely ineffective in curbing the pandemic. However, I’ve never seen anyone who oppose the lockdowns on this basis bring up what alternatively should’ve been done to deal with the pandemic instead. I mean do they think nothing should’ve been done and everyone continue living their lives like nothing had happened?

As far as I see it, if your going to voice your opposition to something because it doesn’t supposedly works, then you should explain what should’ve be done instead. For example, instead of lockdowns which had its flaws, I think a better solution would’ve been contract tracing.

So why are people who oppose Covid-19 lockdowns and restrictions based on effectiveness don’t seemingly provide an alternate solution?

I recently watched a popular influencer dispel the notion that Christianity doesn’t really have a history of spreading via violence. He highlights how the only two examples of Christianity spreading via violence are the Saxon Wars and the Northern Crusades in the Baltics, which lasted around 30 and 200 years respectively according to him. As for colonialism and missionaries, he says that there was an actual law banning them from Christianity at gunpoint and that Christianity was spread to sub-Saharan Africa and Asia by introducing things like hospitals and schools. As a result, he says you can’t really say Christianity spread via violence for it only did so for 230 years or about 10% of its existence.

Of course it was to my understanding that Christianity did spread via violence as a result of colonialism (which lasted for several centuries) for I have never heard of a law that prohibited Christianity at gunpoint.

So I apologize if this is such a stupid question to ask, but how accurate is the argument that you can’t say Christianity spread via violence because violence only represents a minuscule part of its entire history? Am