Ok, so Zack Polanski is absolutely spot on on every issue, more so than Ed Davey, who is a free marketeer who is happy to sell our power infrastructure to foreign interests. Ed Davey privatised Royal Mail and failed to investigate the Horizon scandal whilst in post as the minister for postal affairs. All prominent politicians have some shit in their past, so why are you picking on Polanski?
The beeb is already captured. Their reporting on Gaza is amongst the worst, and the chairman is Tory who uses “impartiality” as an excuse to suppress common sense and compassion
Tu veux dire “gums” là
There are tons of lines I wouldn’t cross at work, but those lines would be different in another job. If arresting people is generally part of your job description, then I would expect you to have different red lines.
Seems a bit daft. The answer then is to have either no police, or to have police who will mindlessly follow any order?
No police would be great, but in the absence of that ideal, I’d rather have people in the role who question the morality of what they’re doing. Compare this response with ICE in the US who kidnap people off the streets and send them to concentration camps and don’t complain that they disagree with what they are doing
Principles can be in conflict though. The promise to provide stability for your family, for example, is often more urgent than more lofty political principles. In this situation, looking actively for another job whilst continuing to perform the tasks you disagree with at a level of bare minimum compliance might be an ethically acceptable compromise.
This is gold. I could see John Oliver or Jon Stewart using this.
Republican Health Minister and sixteen-preventable-illnesses-in-a-trenchcoat, promising he’s a real boy, RFK Jr. said this week…
Whoever downvoted you is wrong. You made a mistake, owned up, and learned from it. That is admirable. More power to your elbow, friend. (And always look up the people you’re quoting!)
You’re quoting a neonazi white supremacist to assert what? That Israel rules over us?
Come on, that’s not a good look is it.
The word is arrogant:-
‘having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities.’
I choose not to. I can choose to be hopeful for the future without being unrealistic. I can see intrinsic value in human life and the human experience even knowing that every single one of us will die at some point, some peacefully, some during suffering. The moment of death doesn’t have to define one’s life. Even a baby who lives for six hours has spent infinitely more time living than dying. Would you be so nihilistic as to erase that life, just because it was short?
Your philosophy is valid; it’s not necessarily correct.
Starting from the assumption that it is denies you the opportunity to see things from a different perspective.
Does reading medicine books count too? Since we’re all driving human bodies 24/7? Or is it just turtles down to the bottom of the tech layer.
The fucks I give about Palestine come WAY after the fucks I give about America. Apparently you don’t feel the same.
Do you think that’s justifiable? Only one of those nations has lost 5-10% of its population to US-funded bombs in less than 2 years. I would’ve thought it was obvious which nation is more in need of your fucks right now.
Things are getting worse in the UK in terms of wealth inequality, living standards, civil rights and democratic freedom.
You stop at the R and change if to a Z. Barry = Baz, Darren = Daz, Carol = Caz etc etc. Because British English is non rhotic, it doesn’t work if we stop at the R (like USAians can say “Gar” for Gary) so the z sound gets used instead, because it’s pretty close.
Then the A gets added if you’re being extra friendly or cute, a bit like Michael > Mike > Mikey. Gareth becomes Gary becomes Gaz becomes Gazza.
Make sense?
Stupid numbfuck mongoloid.
That’s a very good point you make.
The comment I “ignored” (written after mine, so I don’t know how you expected me to take it into account) was a biased reading of history. To claim the suffragettes were “a total failure” and that the suffragists would have succeeded if they hadn’t existed is complete conjecture. Your resorting to insults shows how weak you believe your argument to be.
Absolutely incredible. The front of you to put that edit in then gaslight as though it was there when I wrote my comment.
I feel you’ve missed a minimum of two very important points here. Person 1 actually shared a link showing that treatment of 'flu-induced fever prolonged the infection (rather than attempted to prove quackery, or failed to affirm the negative). Then it was argued that feeling better is not a helpful way of measuring effectiveness of treatment.
Pov You contract gangrene in the tropics, far from a hospital.
Your best chance of survival is still to bite on this wood while I cut off your leg. It’s not going to make you feel better, but you might just live.
Would you still prefer the analgesics?