“how do you compensate for the fact that your capitalist ideology cares very little for the fact that things valuable in a capitalist economy (resources) are not evenly distributed? how do you compensate for the fact that your communist ideology cares very little for the fact that things valuable in a communist economy (capacity to work) are not evenly distributed?”
Be the change you want to see in the world
You would be amazed
Saw it live in the West End, it’s excellent
Not really. They sound like someone who was raised conservative, thinks the foetus has some sort of status, but thinks they shouldn’t get in the way of others choices.
I went through that stage myself on my way out of evangelical Christianity. I don’t find anything particularly disingenuous about how they’re speaking.
Are you referring to this?
But yet again, for the pro-lifers, murdering babies, no matter how good the results etc might be is fundamentally wrong.
Because that’s very obviously referring to the matter in the way that “pro lifers” would.
And you are ignoring the preceding:
I tend to agree with you that abortion should be available to all who want one because it’s not my damned decision to make.
I would read comments more carefully if you’re going to cast aspersions…
You are being perfectly reasonable and coherent by the way. Whoever is downvoting you doesn’t seem to understand the point of discussion.
Sad you’re downvoted for pointing out the truth, it’s not even your opinion!
Let’s call it a personality trait for a moment, do you think much would change?
It happens to be a ‘personality trait’ that others routinely address you by, and set expectations by, and which might grate if it doesn’t match up with your experience of yourself.
Gender theory investigates the subtlety of what’s going on when people are referred to as “he” or “she” in society. It is not just about what genitals or sex characteristics a person has. It goes far beyond that to your social role, and expected behaviours.
Society has a whole ton of expectations and presumptions towards a “she” and similarly towards a “he” that aren’t biologically grounded. Those things shift about through history and vary by culture. That’s what people mean by “socially constructed”.
Gender queer people would like to be addressed by the social category they internally line up with. Call that a personality trait if you like but it’s such a major one - affecting how people perceive your other personality traits - that it’s in a category of its own.
Touchscreen basically being unusable in any kind of rain no matter how light
A bit of nuance to what you say there…
LGBT people say gender (not sex, gender) is a social construct because the evidence points to this. How gender has been expressed has varied wildly over recorded human history (from customs to clothes to behaviours to jobs to everything else). In any given point of history someone’s sex has been linked strongly to a particular gender expression, but the fact that those expressions vary deeply from culture to culture show they’re socially constructed rather than purely biologically determined.
When you say they think they’re not “important”, I think LGBT do think gender expression is important. What’s not important is squeezing into the two expressions that society traditionally had. Or welding yourself to society’s expectations based on what genatalia you have.
History (for the most part) had two distinct gender expressions corresponding to the two sexes. But this itself was heavily influenced by society being tightly coupled to the biological reality and differences between men and women. Women had babies. Men were stronger. The gender expressions followed from that and you had to stay in the one society expected because that’s what kept society functioning. Religion is a social construct that enforces this.
But as society has evolved we’re no longer bound to these distinctions in the same way and the gender fluidity of people - which has always been there - is now able to express itself in more variety.
There are people born male who are far more comfortable living in society’s ‘female’ behaviours and traits. And vice versa. There are men who are attracted to men and women to women. There are people born female who have deep seated psychological need for their body to be male. All these people have always existed it’s just in the past they got sidelined as ‘sinners’ or divergent because society basically consisted of childbearing and hard manual labour.
And those that didn’t realise the number was actually ternary…
We used this, simple and works. Straps the dryer to top of washing machine (lashing strap runs under washing machine, over dryer and is cranked tight). Plus you get a pull out shelf in between
https://www.argos.co.uk/product/5982099
Have also had combo washer / dryers which also work but don’t tend to dry as well or as quickly as dedicated dryers.
The dryer would always need to go on top if you have two machines. Plus look for one that lets you connect the condensed water to the same drain as the washing machine. (You can get ones that collect water in a drawer but need to constantly empty them which is a pain)
There are GUI wrappers that issue the equivalent commands for you, but a lot of Linux users would just write something like this on the command line:
sudo apt install vlc
That’s how you would install VLC (media player) on Debian linux without any prior file download or browsing. It connects to the Debian repository for you, downloads and installs.
You don’t generally download the file like you would an exe or MSI on windows. Rather you enter a command line that tells Linux to connect to the repository (like an app store) of that particular type of Linux, pull the latest installation file and install it.
You can still download the file and install it directly, but it’s not a straightforward double click like on windows.
I got a minor error on my test in the UK for “unnecessarily touching the gear stick” so …
It may be what you say, the algorithm being dumb. Or it may be deliberate: you’ve shown yourself willing to categorize these annoying ads so you will be sent more so that fb can collect more data on them.
Abandoning is the only option. It’s a dopamine casino now, full of flashing lights.
It’s not though is it? “From the river to the sea” is referring to a Palestinian territory spanning from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. It’s referring to establishing a state over that area the exact same way Jews use it. The question meta weighed up was not “what are state actors doing”. Because if they had done so and had decided the saying was explicitly support for Hamas then they would have banned it, because Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation according to the US.
Instead they explain they just because an individual says it, then the reader cannot infer the support of a state level group like Hamas. Nor is the saying in itself an encouragement to hurt Jewish people.
But this also means of a Jewish individual says it then the reader cannot infer support of the action of a state level group like the Israeli government. Nor can it be taken in itself to be an explicit encouragement to violence against Palestinians.
Cake and eat it etc.
(Also, since it came up, over 70% of Jews in Israel were born in Israel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelis. I assume you’re not the kind of person to say “but where are you really from?”)
Here’s a devils advocate type answer. On balance, I err on the side of Israel rather than Hamas but am not a die hard supporter. I say that because comments below may appear to make me out as such, but I’m just trying to represent the coherent argument for the sake of discussion rather than the strength of my own views per se. For the record I regard the suffering of innocent people in Gaza as grotesque.
Settlements.
The justification for this behaviour is complicated but essentially amounts to the belief that the Geneva conventions were not drafted with Israel’s particular dilemma in mind. The Geneva conventions were drafted by European powers for whom the annexing of territory was strategic and imperially motivated rather than existential. Israel does not believe it can have security if a Palestinian state is established in the West Bank. The justification for this being Arab/Egyptian aggression in '48, '56, '63, and ‘73. Not to mention more recent state sponsored actions by Hezbollah, Hamas et al. A Palestinian state on the West Bank could maintain a standing army on the Israeli border, could invite other Arab nations’ armies to base themselves there. Echos of the previous conflicts listed above. This is unconscionable for Israel, one only needs to glance at the map to see how indefensible its position is if a foreign army was amassed on the West Bank. Ignoring settler activity or evicting Palestinians if a single member of their family commits any kind of act against Israel is just a convenient way to achieve the larger goal. The settlers of course are a lot more religiously / ethnically motivated. The government is too but I think realpolitik plays a larger role.
Gaza civilians
The capricious and deliberate targeting of civilians and children with no other goal is of course horrific. Israel of course will maintain that that’s not what they’re doing, that they are acting on intelligence against Hamas who are using people as human shields. Which is also horrific but is a different type of justification. Everyone of course will have decided in their own minds if they believe what Israel says about its intelligence or whether they believe what Hamas says about their lack of presence in an area.
If we assume for a moment that Israel is being honest about that particular aspect: that they are ok killing innocent people and children if Hamas die too. What’s the justification for that? I think their view is that they’re dealing with a problem that no Western country has to deal with. Britain has seen maybe a hundred deaths over 25 years from about 20 Islamic extremists. The US has seen 3000+ deaths from a similar number. In both cases the number of Islamic extremists are small enough that you could remember their individual names. Israel on the other hand has ~25,000 signed up members of Al Qassam terror brigades on their doorstep. That is a different level of threat all together, by three orders of magnitude. Hamas will not engage with the Israeli military in a standing battle because they would lose. So they are engaging in a guerrilla type strategy where shielding themselves behind civilians is an integral part so they can opportunistically strike out in suicidal attacks. It doesn’t happen accidentally, but repeatedly, it’s a core part of their strategy. A state needs to decide whether they’re ok with Al Qassam brigades existing or killing the civilians they surround themselves with. It’s a shitty choice, but it is a choice Israel sees as Hamas’ when they choose their mode of fighting. Leaving Hamas free to plot their next maraudering attack on Israeli civilians is unconscionable, so the death of Hamas human shields has to be ok. There isn’t another way.
This is a situation so unfamiliar to the West that it is easy to see it as capricious and brutal, horrific and evil. And the death of innocent people are those things, but one has to see the trolley dilemma in full.
America actually has been in this type of situation, only once as far as I’m aware, and it provides a useful insight into how Western countries justify themselves when confronted with the same dilemma. On 9/11, United 93 was identified as under terrorist control and inbound to Washington DC. Fighter jets were dispatched to shoot it down. The deaths of the 40 innocent people on board would obviously be horrific, but one can see the logic that letting a terrorist controlled plane be flown into a densely populated city would be to cause the deaths of hundreds of even thousands.
Was the mission to shoot down United 93 the right one? Was it evil? What if those 40 civilians had been 40 orphans on their way to be placed with foster families? How completely horrific does the situation have to be before it’s better to let the terrorists fly they plane into hundreds or thousands of people?
Israel sees itself caught in this kind of dilemma 24/7 with Hamas. Each signed up member has the proven intention to cross the border and maraude around killing grandparents, babies, children. So Israel calculates that, regrettably, it is necessary to kill them and the civilian shield they themselves have created. It is a shitty awful dilemma with evil on both sides, but Israel feels justified holding Hamas to blame for their human shields deaths the same way most of the American public would have blamed Al-Qaeda if the US Air force had managed to shoot down United 93. (The fact that in reality events meant they didn’t have to doesn’t take away from the logic of what they were prepared to do)
/thread