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 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.

Only if you suck until the creamy goodness reaches your lips.

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.

My question to the politicians…

Has praying been working so far?

School shootings in the USA occur so frequently now that there is very clear evidence that prayer does not prevent them. Therefore , at what point should the strategy be changed to try something else? The most powerful people in the USA claim they have no power to stop this, yet can very significantly curtail abortion access I under the guise of protecting lives.

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

There have been 416 school shootings since Columbine. Every time prayer is offered by politicians. Every time another school shooting was just around the corner.

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.

You know it doesn’t seem like all that long ago that people were being sued or threatened for playing music in shops or in the back office of a hotel and stuff like that. It might have been urban legend at the time when the music industry was over reacting to Napster, KaZaA, Limewire, Bearshare, etc, etc. but it is true that those venues officially need a license for any music they play in public. So how come a nationwide advertising campaign can make use of music, without the permission of the artist, and not be sued into oblivion by the RIAA? Or does the artist not own the copyright to their own work? Or does the RIAA sympathise more with gentle, kind Billionaires than nasty greedy non billionaires??

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

Because you are a kid and you don’t know but are pretending to be an adult. Nice try!

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.

So basically upset that the press do their job??

IMO the main reason for the press to exist is to hold people in power accountable for their actions. It doesn’t matter the lengths they go to to get the information or their motivation. There will always be press looking into politics on both sides of the spectrum and we as the public should be glad for it.

You should not excuse bad behaviour just because they are on your team. You should encourage the press to do their job as long as they don’t go too far into harassment, distortion of the truth or digging up irrelevant personal details about someone that affect noone outside that someone.

I really like the line “democracy does in darkness” because it is so true. Political figures who dislike the press generally have something to hide.

If counter with: “We’d be well served to remember the long and cherished tradition of settling criminal matters in the courts.”

Basically they want the right to commit crimes without consequences beyond the possibility of simply not being re-elected… But only for Republican politicians. Democrats should be treated differently.