Yeah, but why bother? They can just turn off the body camera and shoot them in self defense. Same outcome and way less work.

Well that solidly changes the context. :)

It’s always been a dream of mine to down an aircraft with nothing but the horrors of my body, but everyone this far has managed to keep me away from dairy before we travel by plane. Spoilsports.

Why would they be horrified? You’re literally trusting them with your life, and if the tamales aren’t safe to eat then you having food poisoning is comparatively minor.

Or was it that you deprived the pilot of vital sustenance and morale boosting food needed to safely fly the plane?

Are you asking me why I have an opinion on something? Because I do. You don’t need special reasons to make comments on a forum.

You aren’t listening. They depicted black people in the fashion that they depicted Greek people. They didn’t find them a weird novelty. The nature of ancient Greek prejudice wouldn’t have them depict people as Greek that they didn’t consider Greek. That intrinsically says something about the cultural integration, because that’s what the Greeks got weird over. If it was uncommon for them to be there they would have mentioned it because they mentioned all manner of uncommon things.
If they were a part of the society, and common enough that it wasn’t worth mentioning “…and then the one black guy in Athens showed up…”, then it seems clear to me that that’s “plenty”.

Nothing is being spun. I and others have given you evidence. You haven’t and are just making vacuous claims. Why do you have the opinion you do about the skin tone content of ancient Greece? Is it the enlightenment era paintings of Greek philosophers as white as could be? That the paint fell off the statues so now they’re just white marble? That all the black people in the pottery are “obviously” artistic choices, but the white people just … Are?
I’m sure you have a reason for thinking what you do, so what is it?
Neither a conversation nor a debate works by one person demanding evidence, denying it, and then refusing to elaborate In their beliefs.

Alright, demonstrate that the demographics are as you assert they are. I’ve shown you that they’re depicted in their arts and culture, both as they depicted outsiders and as they depicted themselves, as well as that they had unremarkable interactions with Ethiopia and beyond.
The link also details the history of using the racial composition of ancient Greece for all manner of racial weirdness that wasn’t representative of the Greeks themselves, up to and including Internet race weirdos who get bent out of shape about a black person being depicted in a movie set in the Mediterranean.

At this point you’ve been given plenty of evidence that there sufficient numbers of dark skinned people that it wasn’t remarkable. If you disagree that it would somehow have been remarkable, or that this isn’t a perfectly workable definition of “plenty”, then show some reason why beyond “well everyone knows”.
Hell, demonstrate that there were plenty of white people.

Define “plenty”.

The ancient Greeks didn’t care about skin tone in the modern sense, so there isn’t some racial census data like we have now.

https://lucas.leeds.ac.uk/article/skin-colour-in-ancient-greece/

They make trivial to find references to black people and depict them in the manner they depict themselves in art.
Because their division was not “Greek” and “black” but “Greek” and “not Greek”, they simply didn’t document it.
Aristotle describes the ideal skin tone as halfway between an Ethiopian and a woman.

Black people were quite literally unremarkable to them, so it’s pretty easy to argue that an ancient Greek wouldn’t find it odd to travel with a black person.

You’d be surprised how many people don’t. It’s a good fun fact, and I stand by supporting arms reduction regardless. :)

Math.
Our typical warhead (100kt) leaves a 200m radius crater if used to maximize the crater size. (Experiment in using nukes for mining and terrain shaping). We have less than 6000. 6000 π (0.2 km)² ~ 6000(0.125km² ) ~ 754km² < 2,586 km².

Nukes are dangerous because (other than the obvious) of what they do to the air, not the ground.

“fun” fact: we could never actually glass the earth, but with the success of disarmament work we’re at the point where, with perfect geometry, ideal yields, and a generous definition of “glass” the biggest country we could do that to is Luxembourg.

The moral of the story: strategic arms reduction treaties work, they’re just very slow.

You may be conflating the quakers with a different religious group.
While still a religious group, the quakers are largely one of the most accepting. They were initially given trouble by the Dutch. Their numbers have never really been high enough to have the type of social sway that you’re thinking.

Maybe you’re thinking the puritans or pilgrims? They’re the ones who kinda took over. Shame, inherent sin and all that.
The quakers are the pacifist abolitionists who think church should be a group of people quietly thinking in someone’s home until someone feels moved to share an idea.

While it would be better if our country was less religiously locked in, I’m pretty sure if it was the quakers that rose to prevalence we’d be way better off, even if only from the “not my job to enforce your morality” part.

Yes, but the case being referenced involved what it means to invoke your fifth amendment rights.
Is remaining silent invoking the right, or do you have to state “I am invoking the right to remain silent”, or some other statement?

Per the supreme Court, you can’t passively invoke the right and can only do so actively. So simply not answering a question isn’t invoking the fifth amendment and could be used against you.