MSC

For what it is worth to you, I do actually believe you are a good person. You're here, talking about ethics, making good points and not being apathetic to the issue. I can be pretty critical. This I know, and it does rub people the wrong way. I do try to minimize it and work toward being less critical in my personal life. This subject is my career and vocation however. So I'll always be critical in this type of venue and I don't pull punches. I understand that you are doing your best as we all have to, but for me, part of doing my best is knowing I can always improve on my best over time. You also sound like a good parent. 👍 We can only have a dialogue with the people in front of us. Show me a person doing nothing and see how much more critical we can both be 😆 Also, I'm not your enemy. Being critical of you or anyone else does not make me your enemy. It just is what it is. It's not like you aren't allowed to also be critical of me and you have been. I don't mind though. It helps.

Nope. However I would take issue if they didn't encourage more people to do the same when they have the chance to do so. I do understand where you are coming from. We do all have limited time and resources. What concerns me, is that others reading some of your comments may be inclined to only do the bare minimum. A really simple example to show what I mean. Four men want to lift a heavy rock. They set up a system of ropes. The system works best when there is one person on the end of each of the four ropes that need to be pulled. But instead of doing this, all four men try to pull on the same rope. The rock does not budge. What I mean by this, is that some of your comments could be interpreted as telling everyone to pull on the exact same rope. I'm not saying that at all. I'm sorry I have upset you. I didn't mean to offend. My usage of the word "you" before, wasn't intended to be directed solely at you as an individual. You are correct though. The metal on my bike needed to be mined, refined and cast. Fossil fuels contributed to the structure and creation of the tires. The same is also true of the shoes I wear to walk and ride. It's a shitty state of affairs for sure. What we all lack, not just in the abortion debate, is a better quality and quantity of choices. How our society is structured, currently leads is into only being able to adopt half measures, ineffective compromises and unavoidable hypocrisy in some instances. I can reduce my carbon footprint. I can't elimate it completely without eliminating myself, as you say. But to not reduce it where we can, leads to us collectively eliminating ourselves and many other creatures we share this planet with. In order to really have effective dialogues we have to be willing to state the truth of it all. My criticisms of your means are as valid as your criticisms of mine are. I am not more or less virtuous than you. Even if I believed it was possible for one of us to be more virtuous than the other, I don't know enough about you to be able to say. I could be more in some ways and you in other ways. I'm not blaming you, I'm not saying you are the one holding us back. I am not judging individuals at all. I am judging the society we individuals belong to and contribute to. As a group, we aren't doing enough. We aren't in the right. We aren't virtuous and we aren't good. Even if good individuals exist in our society; collectively we just aren't good enough. This needs to change. I'm doing the things I can do. I am setting myself up to be able to do more as I live my life. Part of that is trying to convince others to do the same. I'm not going to solve the climate crisis. If it does get solved, it's going to be buy us and we, collectively. If it doesn't get solved, it's us and we again that are responsible. If and when it is time for us all to perish because of our own stupidity, I'll be blaming everyone. That includes myself. I'll say I haven't done enough, you haven't done enough, we haven't done enough. I'm not saying you are the cause or you are the problem. It's that mindset that is the problem and you aren't the only one with it, but you can change your mindset. You are capable of looking at things in a different way, you are capable of questioning yourself and your beliefs to see if they truly are serving you and us well. In order to bring us closer to the topic at hand, I have a new question. Should men be allowed to get a vasectomy or get any procedure or treatment that elimates their sperm? What makes a sperm different from an embryo or a zygote?

I could say the same thing about making abortion illegal. My entire argument revolves around the ends being to reduce the amount of abortions that happen. And pointing out that making abortion illegal is an example of unjustified means. And how is that working out for us? I use a bike and public transport. I'd only even buy an electric car when the energy infrastructure enabling it to be manufactured doesn't rely on fossil fuels. I'd also argue that you are definitely not pro-life or pro environment when you put your convenience first. If you aren't willing to go all in, then saying you are pro-life or pro-environment is just talk for the sake of virtue signaling, about virtues you don't even have because you're not willing to behave in a way that reflects them. Would you kill in self defense? Impeaching Donald Trump was indeed the right thing to do, both times. Especially from the consequentialist perspective. Incuring the wrath of his supporters may be a bad consequence, but it's a far better outcome than Trump successfully becoming a fascist dictator. Stopping Donald Trump and his cronies, was a good outcome. As far as I'm concerned, trying to claim you did the right thing while not caring about the larger harms done, is just ineffective rationalization to not be held accountable for the things you cause or to justify laziness to not make changes because they are difficult. Good intent is a good start, but if the actions betray the intent, then was the intent ever truly there? Anyone can say they have good intentions. But then, everyone is also capable of lying to themselves to protect their self image. Yet you have the time to post and comment here? If you have time to have discussions about it in places like this, then you can be part of the ideological fight for these things. Nobody is saying you have to physically show up to protests. I don't tend to because I don't like crowds. We can all do what we are best suited to doing. I'm best suited to having these conversations with people and encouraging them to think about it on a deeper level. Since you've made it clear that you have the deontological perspective of right and wrong, what if I say it ought to be a rule that it is always right to try to avoid the worst consequences that cause the most harm? Why can't demonology, utilitarian and consequentialist ethics be used in conjunction with each other as tools to enhance our understanding of right and wrong, instead of the ideological tribalism most engage with? Why can't I value and make use of all three of those types of moral thinking as well as virtue theory?

Well that's a shame. He'd probably have been kicked out of an ethics classroom by now.

Some might be inclined to respond to this by saying: Sometimes whether or not a thing is right or wrong, is defined by the consequences. I don't know that those two things are similar enough to compare like that. I don't see that as a valid equivalence. To the former, I say if you're truly pro-life in an effective and practical way, it's hypocritical to oppose legal abortion when you know the unregulated illegal kind ends more lives. Would be far better for conservatives to just be more open to adopting unwanted children. In every protest outside an abortion clinic, where is the person holding up a sign saying "Let me adopt the child!" Instead of things like "you're going to hell, baby killer!"? The former is helpful, the latter is not. That's exactly what me and my wife plan to do when my daughter is a little older. Adopting a child imo is far more pro-life than hurling abuse at women and medical professionals outside of an abortion clinic, sending them death threats or pushing them into the care of unscrupulous opportunistic individuals in a basement armed with a rusty coat hanger and a distinct lack of medical training. Being pro-life carries certain responsibilities. You have to actually have a duty of care to life, else the claim is empty. Acting like you care and showing that you care demands the moral consideration of the lives of all beings in balance with each other. As for the Trump stuff, again I don't see it as a valid equivalence, but good for you.

Very punny 😆 I'll have you know 98% of my omlettes have been perfect. I fucked up and forgot the butter because I complicated the issue by deciding to make the filling, diced beef burgers and garlic mushrooms. All served on a burger bun. Was literally an omlett burger!! Early experiments and first attempts always go bad. Murphys law! Still tasted awesome though! Next time I'll get it right... it also still doesn't come close to what happened when I first made my own scrambled eggs age 8 in a microwave... no word of a lie, they exploded in my face when I put the fork in. I didn't really say anything against Koti. Most of my interactions with them here have been pleasant most of the time as far as I can recall. That said, he should try having a kid. My daughter melts away more of my bitterness everyday.

Some are for sure. I don't know whether or not I believe in true evil. What I didn't say, is to only give them therapy and don't punish them for what they have done. Sometimes punishment is the therapy. Be they bullies or addicts. So long as punishment is in proportion and includes efforts to reduce recidivism. For some, it will take therapy. For the worst, life sentences, especially for the sadists. Ultimately you have got to do what works and a one size fits all approach isn't. If you have an untrained eye, then try to train it. You'll make mistakes, I'll make mistakes, but at least we'll give a shit and stand for something at the same time. Case and point, I fucked up my omlettes. Forgot to butter the damn pan. Mistakes mistakes mistakes.

Excellent! This means we'll save some time. Yup. The hypocrisy of the right in this area has definitely marred this subject with heavy bs. Especially during the pandemic when "My body, my choice" was used to justify not getting vaccinated or wearing a mask... even though pregnancy isn't an infectious disease... Thank you for the summary exactly what I asked for. Glad to be back also! I'm glad you phrased it this way. When I say pro-life, I mean a value for life and encouraging life and an overall desire for less abortions to happen. By this standard, I am pro-life. When I say pro-choice, I mean a value for a womans freedom to choose whether or not they have to devote a large part of their bodies resources to creating a new life, with a new set of biological needs and an inability to fend for itself. Through defending the right to seek an abortion or an adoption depending on what the individual wants to do. Legal and affordable. By this standard, I am pro-choice also. So to most, those two values seem.at odds with one another. I want less abortions to happen, but I don't want abortions to be made illegal. There is a term I like to use that describes why the same value, expresses itself differently between individuals. So in this case, we are discussing a values modality. Now, a woman's motivations for seeking an abortion, are pretty diverse. Some want but can't afford, some can afford but don't want, some are too young, some are too old, for some the pregnancy was forced in some way, for some pregnancy carries a higher risk of death for mother, baby or both at the same time. I probably haven't exhausted the list, so by all means add to it if you wish. It can only help better lay out the different contexts that exist. So an ideal of mine, is that less abortions happen overall. Instead of demanding it be made illegal, I would seek to address the quality and number of choices woman with real wombs and couples have when facing this decision. One example; addressing abuse in care situations. Orphanages, foster homes, adoptions, all of these need more oversight, scrutiny and the last could also do with a bit of deregulation. It needs to be far easier to adopt, but also far easier for effective oversight of this and keeping children out of unsuitable homes where they are likely to be abused and neglected. That's just one area. I'm sure a lot of people can think of more and I have a lot more in mind, but this is getting lengthy. The main point is, you can do things to reduce the amount of abortions that happen, that are truly focused on increasing the quantity and quality of people's choices when expecting a child, without having to ban it. Being anti abortion, to me, is the equivalent of only giving a shit about the quantity of new life that is enabled, not the quality of it. It's also about control and sheer laziness and it does not stop abortions. It just sends them underground. The rich will still get abortions when they want, they'll pay a medical professional to do it under the table. Those who can't afford it, will be left to basement dwelling charlatans, witch doctors, or their own imaginations and people will die and maim themselves, who would not have come to harm if they were in a clean, sterilized, legal and well regulated system of pregnancy termination. This isn't even a secular vs religious institutions issue either. There is a first ammendment argument for Jewish people to always have the right to an abortion. Rabbinic Judaism has established clear guidelines that when an expecting mothers pregnancy is discovered to be a fatal delivery or pregnancy if carried too long or to term, they must seek to terminate the pregnancy to preserve their own life. In Islam, there are actually four different views on abortion. Only one of the positions within Islam calls for outright banning of abortion. It's not even mentioned in the Quran. The views on abortion were born of post-prophet Islamic thought. Most believe that the process of ensoulment, the event where the earthly vessel is deemed ready to contain a soul, is at 16 weeks. For most of the history of the USA, abortion was legal. It's only in the last century that new evangelical ideology has condemned the practice completely in all contexts. For all intents and purposes, the length of time that passed in the USA before it was ever made illegal, could be construed as an example of an unenumerated right to be able to seek out an abortion if you wish to do so, unenumerated rights being the topic of interest in the 9th amendment. Do I think that seeking an abortion could be argued to be immoral in some contexts? Yes. But I think making it illegal would also be immoral. Especially if you are someone who claims to value the sanctity of life.

Based on what little I have read of their other comments on this thread, I'm inclined to agree with you. Which is a shame really. Why can't we have these discussions without the motivation for it being a sensationalist celebrity fued? The main question in the OP: How best to start including men whom are victims of abuse by women into the public discourse? Ought to be obvious by now. 1. Stop ridiculing men whom are abused by women. While you're at it, stop hurling abuse at women for speaking out about it when they are abused. You can't allow one without the other. 2. Be more willing to talk about your own abuse, by or against someone else and stand up for abuse victims when people don't have anything constructive or helpful to say about them. 3. Try to focus less on separating the discussions based on characteristics of identity. Less of this men vs women crap, acknowledging abuse in homosexual relationships is important too. 4. Recognize that abuse is abuse. Whomever the perpetrator is. 5. Even if you have never suffered from abuse, the best way to include these things in the public discourse... is to be a member of the public, talking about them! Pressuring politicians, local and beyond to take the issue seriously. Prosecution, legislation, affordable mental healthcare, incarceration and rehabilitation. 6. Consistently give a shit. Stop only giving a shit when it impacts on who may or may not get cast in a movie or TV show. 7. Leave the door open for forgiveness of those willing to take responsibility for what they have done. Treat abusers as sick and in need of therapy instead of as evil irredeemable bastards who will be torched when found. 8. Give people claiming to be victims of abuse the benefit of the doubt and don't make your mind up about it based on some stupid celebrity trial that technically isn't even over yet. 9. Be a nicer and kinder person in general. As an individual we can all make ourselves more approachable. This way we are more open to lending an ear and aid to victims and perpetrators both. (By aid of perpetrators, I don't mean shield from responsibility. I mean enable them to feel safe enough to take responsibility and get the help they need to manage their shit. Some of those 9 are easier than others. But then nothing worthwhile is ever easy. Except for making omlettes, super easy but also worthwhile. Okay I'm hungry now.

Can someone help provide me with a brief summary of ground covered in this discussion so far? I will go back and read up as I find the time but a summary would be appreciated. Abortion is actually one of my preferred topics for explaining my research in moral philosophy and moral psychology. I could even upload a brief essay and a PowerPoint on this subject. It has a very interesting history and some rather unexpected conflicts within religious circles as well. In order to get people thinking about this in a different way, I tend to start of this lesson with the question; Are pro-life and pro-choice stances/beliefs/values mutually exclusive and incompatible with one another, or can a person be both pro-life and pro-choice?

Agreed. +1. I suppose this leads me to the question; How does abuse between public figures and abuse between ordinary people differ in presentation and what are the commonalities? Definitely a complicated issue as you say. I definitely don't think this case is a good starting point to talk about domestic abuse or the abuse men face. Maybe the OP would like to cite some different cases for the discussion to proceed effectively?

I'm pretty much reserving my judgement until the judicial processes have run their course. To be honest I didn't like the way it was handled. Jury wasn't sequestered properly, they were allowed to keep their phones. The trial was made public and allowed members of the public to be in the courtroom. The jeers, snickers and laughing created a dramatic atmosphere that could have impacted the jury's perception of testimony and evidence. Now, JD has been in a lot of movies that I have thoroughly enjoyed. I've also enjoyed a number of his performances as an individual. That said; his demeanor in court was quite disrespectful and needlessly dramatic. I've seen court rooms where individuals with non celebrity status, have been warned and found in contempt of court, for less. I had actually never heard of Amber Heard until a few years ago when this all started coming out. The more this started to unfold, the more biased trash came out about her from various sources where I couldn't read half a sentence without coming across some loaded words or phrases used to describe her. This wasn't even news I sought out. This was the "trending" stuff that I usually ignore when its about celebrities. Obviously during this trial, it became inescapable unless you decided not to open any news apps or better yet just turned your phone off. The things that confused me about this trial, were enough to make me question the feelings of defensiveness I get when a person I've only ever been entertained by or had positive interactions with, is accused of something as severe as being a domestic abuser. The thing that confused me the most, was finding Amber Heard guilty on three counts and JD on one. I had always been led to believe that it is only defamation or slander, if what is claimed is untrue. So the verdicts confused the issue because it's as if the jury said "they are both untrue claims, nobody was abused, nobody is a liar, nothing to see here." Which sounds extremely contradictory to me. When it comes to abuse, I don't believe in mutual domestic abuse unless you have the very rare circumstances of where both of the individuals involved have equal power in the relationship and and social circle. Quite frankly, JD has more wealth, fame and social capital than Amber heard. A power difference it would be extremely easy for an abuser to wield. Which lends a lot of plausibility to AHs claims of being abused by JD. In similar cases, where neither parties were a celebrity, but financially successful enough to suffer concrete harm to their reputations, the outcome would have likely been very different if other factors were the same. For example, if the person acused of abuse had a problem with Drugs and Alcohol, like JD admitted to having, this would have severely damaged their credibility when claiming they had done nothing of the sort. I've been black out drunk before, to the point where I was told I was banging on the club door after it closed to get more booze and was essentially trolling a taxi driver by telling him to stop every five minutes, to the point where me and my friend got kicked out of the cab. That stuff is out of character for me, I don't remember any of it, but I do believe it. Drugs and alcohol do that to you. Considering how much we know about the effects of drugs and alcohol, to suggest that you are capable of remembering everything well enough to know you did not do what you are accused of doing, is effectively unscientific to the extreme. Anyone with enough self knowledge of their drug and drinking habits, when being honest with themselves about claims of their wrong doing while under the influence, can only know that they don't know. If they claim they do know, they are lying to themselves. One of the other things I took issue with was the breaking of the goldwater rule by JDs expert witness with a background in mental health, claiming she had histrionic personality disorder. I also have an issue with the history behind that particular psychiatric label and the circular logic associated with its diagnosis, where any and every behavior becomes a symptom of it because of the underlying assumption that everything that motivates the individual, is attempts to seek attention by any means. That's not to say I don't think the condition does not exist, but I truly do doubt it's claim in the context of having never been an official patient of the expert making the claim. I suppose you could say that a lack of due process in clinical diagnoses severely diminishes the credibility of said diagnoses. For this aspect, even if I was a psychiatrist, having never met Amber Heard and only knowing how she behaves on camera, I'd never suggest she is suffering from x, y or z. If I wanted to know, I'd have to try and gain her as a client/patient and do a thorough psychiatric evaluation and she would be entitled to a second opinion after I've concluded my own evaluation. Of course if that was the case, I could never really appear in court to disclose confidential medical information about her, without her consent. I'm not really done listing what I think of the problems this case were but I'll leave it there for now while I carry on trying to catch up with everything that has been said so far. What I definitely don't believe, is the narrative posited by fans or haters of either JD or AH. Nor the journalists who make a living off of dramatic sensationalism.

Being knowledgeable of those conflicts and making those conflicts your own are two completely different things. I'd say the analogy holds quite well. On one side, you've got Canadians doing their own thing, on the other side you've got Americans trying to dictate to Canadians on what is and isn't okay to say. I imagine there was a time in France, where a French person could be shot by a German person for not capitulating to anti-semetici rhetoric. So yeah, the analogy holds pretty well. Both involve a bully pretending to be a victim because other countries won't put its issues first and foremost over their own. More Nukes too, more cities blown up and wiped off the face of the earth too. So Americans get to dictate how others live and use their own dialects of English because they have more? How is that an argument. They have more school shooters and serial killers too. Is that a point in the Americans favour? Would you care to explain how we should all be keeping score of things so we know whom is king? How does that work exactly? You're missing the point, I said that to illustrate that age discrimination is unacceptable whether you are young or old. One of those things did happen here, iNow made a rude comment toward MigL based on his age and has even went so far as to say all from a certain time, are hateful. I mentioned the other to make clear that I found both unacceptable. You and iNow have ignored too much of what I have said and seem to be suggesting that American English and it's history should be more important to Canadians than their own. In what world is that reasonable? iNow doesn't even deem it worthy of him responding or explaining his point of view to me, that alone should tell you something. This has gone too off topic. I really can't be bothered with a new thread about language policing and respecting the context of another culture. I've said what I wanted to say on the matter. But I didn't realize I would be debating within an environment where only Americans get to have the final say on what is and isn't important within our collective moral discourse. Dyou know what is truly the worst extreme, practiced by both sides of the American political camps? Anti-intellectualism. This idea on each side that suggests to question the rhetoric, means you're either stupid or immoral. On the one hand, you've got people calling you stupid for saying we need to do more to help minority groups. On the other, you've got people for calling you stupid for thinking critically about language policing. Either way, being critical gets you judged. iNows entire attitude of "oh you'll just be ignorant or arrogant to disagree with me on whatever I say" is evidence of this. I even mentioned my wife's views on this, but I guess since she is a woman, that's not worth addressing to either of you? I told you once already, don't treat me like I am stupid. You've carried on, by expecting me to buy any of this knee jerk nonsense about Americans having a very vague "more everything". Left, right, I don't give a shit about that anymore. Because each side is where truth goes to die, just in a different way and both sides spend so much time being outraged at and suspicious of the other, that people are too busy being offended to think critically, solve problems, and minimize creating new ones. I'm not talking about your motivations. Just the consequences of your actions. As for your motivations, I could care less but they aren't as mysterious as you seem to think they are. Oh yeah, holding you accountable isn't self righteous. Particularly when I'm defending someone else, not myself. But then what would you know about accountability? You can't even admit the 1963 bit wasn't rude. I'll be back if you ever figure out how to substantively counter argue against anything I've said. But I won't hold my breath.

Yes, I'm well aware. But if you needed to ask me the question, then I don't feel respected by you at all. Yes I know. I'm European. Speak to me like I'm stupid again, and it will be the last I speak with you. Not got the time to put up with crap like that. My point; is that differences in language are just as important as differences in dialect. To speak nothing of the reactionary cost of language policing with people in the same country as you, what about the reactionary cost when they aren't even in the same country? My point with the Spanish portion, was that to most English speakers, saying "negro" is wrong. Yet it is just how you say Black in Spanish. If it sounds ridiculous to come down on a Spanish person for using a word in their own language, that has a different connotation somewhere else, then it's similarly ridiculous to come down on a Canadian for using a word in their dialect that also does not have a negative connotation to it. I'm sorry; this chat is starting to come across more like an ultimatum of The New American way, as dictated by the loudest of young people who haven't sat in either an ethics or linguistics classroom, or you're just a racist. The irony of which should not be lost on anybody. Access to the relevant information of what Americans want them to learn in order to be linguistically acceptable in the USA? Where is this forum exactly? Why do Americans get to push the Agenda of their college students onto the rest of the world so pedanticly? Also why do you or iNow get to speak for all Americans? My wife is also American; yet she doesn't believe that language policing beyond borders is acceptable either. She doesn't use the term "coloured" and uses the PC terms here in the USA. Doesn't mean she is going to visit my family in the UK and call someone homophobic because they ask her for a cigarette but say "You got a spare fag on you?". I really wish people would pick their battles better and take the time to critically think about how to figure out the ways and means of real moral progress instead of assuming that good intent is enough. We are far more than the sum of our intentions, iNows language policing might be well intended, but it comes at a cost and is a good example of the ends not justifying the means. Yeah this was how I interpreted that too. Projecting American problems and their solutions onto other places is a nono for me. I've never once heard of Canada having a widespread lynching problem in its South. I don't get why the border has to be porous in the Americans favour either? Because TV and movies? Please, I wasn't born yesterday. If they could actually reach an intellectual consensus with each other I'd be more inclined to listen. But it's extremism on both sides here in the USA and the centrists in the middle are just part of the "fuck both your factions" faction. Oh so everyone else has to explain themselves to you, but not the other way around? You started this ridiculousness by trying to push someone from a different country as you, to accept your verdict, delivered rudely, that they were wrong to use language the way they did because "American way better". Oh and before you go "where was I being rude?" The "1963 called" line was pretty rude. This whole thread revolves around protected characteristics, something which I see as something we have a duty to protect. But you don't get to pick and choose which ones are more worthy of your protection. They are all worthy of it. That's why they are called protected. Ethnicity, Gender AND age. It irks me just as much when the old disrespect the young as when the young disrespect the old. Oh stop with the self-righteousness. You informed us of nothing but your own preferences and willingness to get right down into the dirt with those you perceive to already be slinging it. Even when they weren't. This is one of those situations where, even though someone is arguing for views similar to your own, you just want them to shut up because they are harming the cause in the long run.

France and Germany are also in close proximity toward each other. Doesn't mean one gets to dictate toward the other how the others language works. Whether or not PoC or coloured is an acceptable term to use, is off topic. It offends me that when you use it, you leave out the U in coloured but I didn't come down on you for that. It is also outrage via proxy. MigL isn't the problem when it comes to racism. He's an older dude, he has biases sure but I dont think he means anything offensive when he describes a black person as coloured. I think in general this is one of the problems people have with PC culture. Most of the effort goes into forcing accountability on the people committing the least of offenses as opposed to forcing it onto the people who truly embrace racist and supremacy type ideologies and go on to commit crimes. Ultimately I understand what it is all in aid of and what it is for, but there needs to be room for us to be critical of the ways and means, if for no other reason than making real progress. I mean if we are going to come down on older Canadians for using the term coloured, why not come down on Spanish speakers when they say this "tomaré un café negro"? I don't know, maybe you could try to explain exactly why the term is not appropriate. By that I mean, why is it considered a pejorative term now? Keeping in mind I'm asking that even though I don't use the word in that context myself, and that on the KBJ "pre-announcement" issue we are in total agreement with each other. Wait until you hear someone go to a butchers and ask for some "faggots". Which is literally also a meat product in the UK. Tom Stade, an American comedian does a bit on that. Pointing out that in the US you can't say that and you certainly can't have a bag full of them either. Ahhh linguistics ngl I love this subject and hope we can all have a calm, open minded discussion about language. Fair enough. I'll leave that alone. But they do contain different languages, dialects and cultural attitudes and differences. Not even with just national borders but within county, state and regional borders. If it ought to all be one way, who decides which way? Suspicion of malice gone. I know you did not intend it now. I take that back. What do you mean by "essentially everyone?" It's also not happening near your front door. It's a different country, with different laws, languages and dialects of English. Where I'm from, I could call you and MigL a Sound Cunt. And it would be a good thing. A sound cunt is a good cunt. Cunt also means buttocks in Dutch. Now, if we are talking about crimes of moral turpitude, then I'm with you 100%. Vague and unexplained differences in language use and whether or not a certain word is okay to use and where, those don't veer into moral turpitude territory. Murder and rape are illegal in both places. Free speech isn't. If it is a pejorative term with truly harming consequences for the black community, then you need to explain how and why.

Contracts were signed ages ago to pay in other currencies. Contracts are a bitch huh? Doesn't it suck when people have written evidence of what your promises are?

You're being deliberately obtuse. How old are you?

Then what was that about?

My thoughts exactly 😆

This is also a pet peeve of mine. I also don't like it when dialectical differences are ignored. Nor do I like Americans trying to dictate to me how to speak English. My Nana still says colored. Considering that she works for, ministers for and tends to the homeless of all descriptions, I'm pretty sure she isn't racist. I'd only really have a problem if she started saying the N word. Which tbh, I feel as if some of the outrage directed towards people who use old words or dialectical colloquialisms but without in combination with bigoted behaviors, is as proxy for the people who do have those behaviors but are usually underground or not around us very often. So quite often we see this phenomenon in language use where a word, isn't considered a pejorative in usage until someone refuses not to use it upon request or demand. In conclusion; ALUMINIUM! 😆 Only by the ignorant and hateful? You've obviously never met my grandmother. 😆 I agree with the second paragraph, not the first. Also did I detect a hint of anti-canadian animosity in your first sentence? Might want to check yourself a little iNow. Lest you veer into hypocritical territory.

Russia cuts off Gas supplies to Poland and Bulgaria, claiming others could be next. This fuckin guy. Now he's weaponising energy demands and trying to divide NATO on their consensus to give more aid to Ukraine. Edit: Link takes you to NBC. Just for clarity.

That's the thing that worries me; it's not just Putins enemies we have to worry about, but NATOs enemies too, within and without Russia. Let's say some group decides to assassinate Putin, seize power in Russia and then uses NATO as a scapegoat. As conspiracy theories go, if Putin were assassinated by anyone, there will be countless conspiracy theories trying to explain it. Blaming NATO or the USA specifically is probably one of the least out there versions of the sorts of things people will think and say happened. Now, some here may be of the opinion that Putin needs to be made an example of. Which is completely understandable given what we know, but one person's example is another person's martyr. Nomatter what you wish to happen, make no mistake, Putin being assassinated would be a very dangerous and uncertain situation that could unfold a number of ways, most of then badly. Better that he is just arrested and charged with war crimes or crimes against the Russian people, than assassinated. Just for the safest approach.

Apparently, because it's racist to point out the demographic makeup of the court... somehow? I don't know anymore. It's the same level of pedanticness that turns people off of the PC thing. Besides intent; there is also the spirit in which something is said or done. Ultimately this was all done in the spirit of inclusion and equity. As for the objections, I don't know how you argue it is with the same spirit as the above, when what is being objected to is inclusive speech and an open desire for more fairness. It certainly wasn't for Ted Cruz.

I dunno Z, I think your one is better 😆 🤣

It would appear Macron won the French elections. So we won't see France getting too friendly with Russia anytime soon with Le Pen defeated again. Do you mean "less lose/lose less"? 😆 But you're right, not a win by any means but a ray of hope. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is so typical of humanity that going green seems like a better option when it is part of a war effort. These damn humans! Hypothetical; What are the chances, that if Putin were assassinated, even by his own people, a worse replacement comes in, then blames the west for the assassination and goes to war with NATO using that as the justification to try and get China on side?