No one has suggested you would just execute a person on sight while they are under the influence.
In these situations there are interviews, evaluations and waiting periods to ensure the person is ‘of sound mind’ before proceeding.
So with that cleared up, I’ll repeat my question.
Why should you get to be the arbiter of if someone else is allowed to die?
I still don’t think that answers the question:
Why should anyone other than yourself be the arbiter of if your life should continue?
Nah, it’s neither.
It’s that while I do enjoy whatever it is, if it were to disappear because I’m ad blocking and won’t sub then … ohh well?
There are a select few groups I actually care about and I donate to them (like PBS).
Anything else will either find a way or die but I don’t care which.
Yeah, but I didn’t care about any of that.
The leadership of Gaza is Hamas. Unequivocally.
Hamas was elected to power then pulled the ladder up behind them suspending all future elections.
All officials in the Gaza government are Hamas.
Elections were suspended in the West Bank because there is a real chance Hamas would win an election there today.
This isn’t a case of a tyrannical overlord ruling over the Palestinian people without their consent.
Most supported and still support the organization.
Naw, lots of us stopped when Netflix streaming came in full swing.
A link to the past is my top Zelda game for sure.
… Have you ever tried the randomizer for it? It will give you a rom where all the items are randomly distributed around the map, making you do the whole sequence out of order.
I will play though a random Rom one a year or so and it’s a blast.
Yeah. This is the one that came to my mind.
Dude straight up ended his career. His band members left, label dropped him and his colabs said they wouldn’t work with him anymore.
Turns out he was a lieutenant in the oath keepers and the FBI grabbed him. Last I heard he made a plea deal and got put into the witness protection program.
He is the band and it can’t exist without him. Even if he could continue, he’d have to rebuild it from the ground up.
It’s a shame, I really Loved Demons and Wizards, the iced earth / blind guardian colab group.
… Based on some song lyrics I feel I should have seen this coming when looking back though.
I just want to say that this comment was a rollercoaster of emotions and I enjoyed the ride.
Yes, it does.
The way the amendment reads is that the people must be armed in order to form militias to ensure the states stay free; it does not tie the requirement of arms to a militia.
This is backed up by many statements by the founding fathers who state one of the core components to keeping America free from a tyrannical government is an armed citizenship willing to act, compared to Europe, where the citizenship is disarmed.
deleted by creator
Actually, it really might in this case.
A number of the justices currently sitting on the supreme court are (or claim to be) originalists.
Meaning, the original intent of the writers is the correct interpretation. Evidence showing what that original intent was can be very useful with judges like that.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3748639
Download the paper, read pages 10 and 11 for context.
There is a record of the Senate debate on this amendment.
One questioned ‘Why doesn’t this include the president?’.
Another senator replied ‘It does under the section of anyone who holds an office’.
The response was ‘Ok, I was unclear on that’. And the debate carried on.
So the writers obviously intended this to include the office of the president.
Which is the core reason why there is no peaceful solution.
Israel was founded as a Jewish ethnostate. Imagine if the same was done but it was a white ethnostate. Who would be the first to move there?
White nationalists who want a pure white ethnostate, that’s who. That’s what happened in Israel. Those who wanted àto separate themselves from ‘the other’. It’s why there is such a strong radical ethnic based faction of Jews in Israel whose views aren’t reflected in most of the Jewish populations elsewhere.
Conversely, those who haven’t found a way to flee Gaza over the decades are more likely to believe that they, as an ethnicity, are the rightful owners of the various holy sites and land in the area and the only solution is the removal or subjegation of the Jewish people from the region.
With both sides having significant and loud sections of their populations calling for the destruction of the other, how can peace ever happen?
Anytime you are doing any kind of military or police action within a civilian area there is always the risk of unintended civilian harm.
If police and military forces took this doctorine that any amount of risk is too much then they simply would be unable to operate.
There has to be a certain amount of acceptable civilian risk and that should be proportional to the threat you are attempting to stop.
Just to clarify, I’m not advocating that Israel is taking acceptable risks. But I am advocating that those risks will always exist with ANY police or military action and the primary debate is over where the red line of acceptable/unacceptable is.
All nations are built and maintained by violence, either directly or by threat of it.
It’s a core component of sovereignty. To be able to call your government sovereign you must have the capacity to resist both external and internal actors from being able to overthrow you.
You must also be willing and able to use violence against those under your rule who disobey your laws (i.e, arresting a murderer).
Good. Embrace me technology.
Hasn’t happened to me yet, but I know it will.
Sucks; but to be honest most of the YouTube things I watch have been moving off YouTube for awhile anyway.
First Reddit, now YouTube. This year is a year of change for my Internet habits.
It’s nothing so complicated as all that.
It’s as simple as any possible solution to the issue is to Israels disadvantage, so they work to maintain the status quo.