How can you possibly think you are on the right side of things as you call in a bomb threat on a school?

I just don’t understand how these people can think their tactics are morally justified.

They wanted the IP not the staff.

“I SAVED YOUR LIFE !”

“You ruined my death”

Incredible

Really? I just wrote a big long reply before I realised all I need to say is that you are on the verge of having your first female president and you want to wallow in the fiction that the bad guys represent not just the USA consensus, but the whole world? You know they don’t. Chances of a female leader in the USA in 1920s? Zero. 2020s? You’ve already had one female politician who won the popular vote in 2016 and now have one who might win the whole thing. If you are willing to look outside the USA you might notice there are a few counties who already beat you to it… by decades. While things are by no means equal. Stop acting like we’ve made no progress.

I don’t know if I’m a millennial or generation x

And maybe this answer is kinda what I was thinking of. The justification your are supplying about the diminished influence of record labels makes sense and logically I can see that probably means the sound of the decades I listed was less organic and more manufactured. I also feel that there is probably less air for experimental genres to establish and become dominant like in the past.

Thank you but if the discussion does start going toxic, please do take it down.

P.s. I updated the title to make it clearer that I do not wish to conflate the two

I did not mean to imply that supporting Israel’s right to exist as a state means you must support their actions or vice versa. It is not intended to be a loaded question.

Does one side disregarding the Geneva convention mean the other is free to do so?

I would argue that the Geneva convention is as much about protecting the humanity of adherants as it is about protecting the lives of the innocent.

If you sign up to it, you should not be considering the actions of your enemy in deciding whether to adhere to it or not. Yes the realities of war blur the lines, but as someone else said, if you become a monster to defeat the monster, you still lost.

This is the kind of response I was looking for.

I’m not seeking to pile on the anti Israel sentiment but to genuinely understand what the basis for the Israeli position and supporters of it might be.

No I’m genuinely interested in how people rationalise the actions of Israel against the articles of the Geneva convention. There have been some thoughtful answers already which I appreciate.

Just because you don’t like her music doesn’t mean it’s mediocre or that you are somehow more evolved. When it comes to personal taste, how do you decide who’s opinion is the right one - like you have taken it upon yourself to do and gate keep ‘good’ music. Her music is undeniably popular and all of those people who like it would disagree with you about it being mediocre. So what makes you right and them wrong? There is no objectivity when it comes to things like music, only subjectivity.

Before you jump on me and label be a Taylor Swift fan, the big reveal is, I’m not. I have no problem with you saying “I think her music is mediocre” but that is different to saying " her music is mediocre" the former is an opinion, the latter is trying to paint an opinion as a fact.

This comment will probably not be received well simply because so many people seem to dislike Taylor Swift on here and will miss my point. Taylor Swift is irrelevant to my point, sub in any band or artist if you need to understand that.

Russian warfare is 90% cyber these days. They troll, hack, spy and attempt to influence elections using the internet. Are they really going to cut off their ability to engage in those activities? It’s like saying they will blow up their own weapons factories if people don’t start catching their bullets.

He did a follow up study in 1998 co-authored by some people he met at a bus stop which confirmed these results. hoo cha

My train of thought…

“How is that going to fit on your wrist? I mean I guess it could but would be really heavy and uncomfortable. Oh wait, those are headphones so it’s even bigger than I thought. Ah wait, ‘watch’ not ‘watch’. Dumbass”

Except then the ordinary workers who did nothing wrong are made to suffer. Either they don’t get paid or they lose their jobs. IMHO you make the CEO personally liable. They have the power to change the company attitude and policy. They need to have their personal fortune hit as well as jail time.

I guess it’s “I don’t want to use fossil fuels but I don’t have an alternative. Give me an alternative! Don’t have one? Then I’ll keep using fossil fuels”

In fairness though not using fossil fuels it’s something of a luxury at present. EVs are more expensive that non EVs. Maybe this will change but slowly. Home solar is very expensive and still doesn’t get you self sufficient in most cases. Power companies need to make the grid renewable to make it accessible to the average person for home power.

The problem with this type of thing is intent.

How do we prove intent to deceive?

Lying is not simply stating incorrect information. It is intending to deceive by knowingly stating incorrect information. It is not easy to prove what someone knew.

What if they were misinformed by a third party that may or may not have an agenda? Under these circumstances the politician is not lying and believes they are telling the truth even though the information they uttered is wrong. Do you go after the third party? Does this then give the politician a mechanism to evade charges using fall guys?

I absolutely believe that people like Bojo should be held to account. In his case there was plenty of evidence. It should also be acceptable for the opposition to state that they were lying in the commons without facing repercussions.

Except there is a big difference in that these people choose to live abroad. They have chosen diminished influence of British politics over their lives so they should have diminished influence over British politics.

If they really want to influence politics here, then live here. It is not fair on resident, tax paying citizens to have non resident non tax paying ex pats making choices that may benefit them at the cost of others.

For example, elderly expats may choose to support a policy which significantly increases their pension to cover their overseas lifestyle at the expense of resident pensioners or increased taxes or reduced public services for resident voters. While this is very unlikely to be proposed or succeed, it is theoretically possible. I’m sorry but if I resign from my job should I still get to make demands of my former colleagues because I worked there for 30 years or still feel like an employee??

I just can’t reconcile the thought “I don’t want to live there anymore” with the thought “I deserve a vote in the country I left behind”.

It was a little different when we were in the EU. But we are not.