I'm from the South and I always hated having to drive. I think it's also nicer/safer to drive in a place with public transit than without, because some bad drivers know they're bad drivers and will take another option if it's available, plus it just means fewer cars on the road. No public transit just sucks for everyone.
I live near Chicago, and the worst I've experienced is someone yelling or playing loud music. I'm not saying bad stuff never happens, but it's much safer than driving (admittedly a very low bar).
That's your highest effort one yet.
I'll add to that as things are getting worse, fewer and fewer people are going to go to bat for the status quo, making the situation unsustainable. The status quo is what created these conditions in the first place, and if there isn't at least a reasonable pathway towards addressing the various crises and underlying problems, it should be considered a non-starter.
That's interesting. Why does that standard change so much in the context of presidential candidates compared to every other situation?
Like, if someone was criticizing, say, Fidel Castro, and instead of addressing it I brought up the problems with the Batista regime that he opposed, would that be whataboutism? Just as in a presidential election, there were two realistic possibilities, either Batista stays in power or he's overthrown. So if it's valid to divert from criticism of Biden towards problems with his most realistic alternative, Trump, then why would it not be valid to do the same thing with Castro and Batista, or any number of similar cases?
Does this also apply to more fantasy oriented war games?
No, the ICRC is talking about video games that simulate real-war situations. It is not suggesting that this apply to games that portray more fictional scenarios such as medieval fantasy or futuristic wars in outer space.
A few media reported that certain virtual acts performed by characters in video games could amount to serious violations of the law of armed conflict. Is this correct?
No. Serious violations of the laws of war can only be committed in real-life. A person cannot commit a war crime simply by playing a video game.
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/film/2013/09-28-ihl-video-games.htm
Totally get that. I was also poor after school so I became a hitman. Just a few easy murders and I was able to pay for college and get enough for a down payment on a starter home. I know some people don't approve of it, but it's important to understand how much of a resource joining the mafia can be for social mobility.
And not everyone has to be a hitman like me. My buddy is a getaway driver and he's never harmed anyone and he's helped me get out of a lot of tight spots. Want to sit in a room messing around with numbers all day? I hear the boss is looking for an accountant. Want to change jobs to patching up bullet wounds after a shootout without going to a hospital to get medical experience? They'll pay for that.
Everyone will downvote me too, let's keep up the anti-mafia sentiment.
Lol. Yeah, and my barber is a secret CIA agent and the checkout clerk at the grocery was secretly a lizard person, of course I don't have a shred of evidence and there's no evidence that could falsify these beliefs, but it's consistent with my previous encounters with lizardfolk and CIA agents.
What a truly fascinating worldview you have.
Yes, and he did.
Objection
joined 6 months ago
Biden bypassed congress to send more weapons than what congress approved.
There are numerous laws already in place that make these arms shipments illegal, including the Leahy Law, the Arms Control Export Act, and the U.S. War Crimes Act. Biden has failed to enforce any of them, because he's a lifelong diehard Zionist who's fully supportive of what's happening there.
You are spreading misinformation, whether knowingly or unknowingly.