Ukraine could easily be protect if there was a will to do so in the West. Very few people want to go die fighting for a country they can't even point to on a map so the the most effective solution to defending Ukraine is off the table.
Not sure about "easily" but I believe the idea at this point is to not escalate, drag out the war and win on economic grounds. Of course dragging things out also comes at a huge price for Ukraine but the EU/US seem to have accepted that as the price to be paid despite the moral posturing.
This is definitely not the sort of "protection" I would rely on.
I agree that it is just dragging on and that is what I meant by describing the alternative as easy. Sending money and weapons is just leading to more death and destruction and no victory for Ukraine.
I don't think Ukraine can win with the way things are going unless the West joins the fighting or Russia collapses. Waiting until Russia collapses will quite possibly be a long time which will result in a Pyrrhic victory for Ukraine. They will have an entire generation of dead men at the rate things are going.
On the flip side though see how badly things are working out for Russia. I think EU will not do business with Russia for a generation. Russia is really fucked.
PRC sees the writing on the wall and, being the pragmatic bunch that they are, will probably not invade Taiwan. Unless Xi really controls the country 100% (this I do not know since I am not a Chinese observer) and goes crazy like Putin did.
That is a lot of words to make a claim that nobody would accept if they used it for other issues. If somebody said that all blacks are criminals and used your exact argument, nobody would buy it.
There is a difference between a concept (banning social media for kids) and the actual implementation (requiring ID to visit sites or whatever they are going to do).
There is a theoretical difference, but in practice they are the same thing, and we all know it [1]:
> Social media platforms have admitted verifying user ages would likely involve surrendering personal IDs, as the Albanese government forges ahead with its under-16 ban.
I think he is saying nobody on the left is complaining about how it is mandatory for men, but voluntary for women making it a sexist policy. People might be complaining about it is happening overall, but not about the sexist part.
Every leftist org ive interacted with places cis-males basically lower status than anyone else. Ive even had that used around me as a slur, almost like they dont really understand.
Attacking people just because they are cis- and AMAB (assigned male as birth) isn't bad. Its your actions that determine good or bad.
And, throwing men into a potential meat grinder of war is unethical. Frankly, it should all be actual volunteer, and not this doublespeak shit of voluntarily required.
Theres also this now public problem. Do trans-women count as men or women? And do trans-men count as men or women? The best answer is "volunteer". But governments are weird, especially the conservative/fascist adjacent ones.
Seems to be that whether it's mandatory or voluntary is based on one's sex, not on any sort of identity.
Which makes sense otherwise a lot of males would be able to opt out by claiming that they are women in their minds or souls or in enactment of gendered stereotypes or whatever it could possibly mean to identify as the opposite sex.
Men are the ones used as cannon fodder mostly because from a reproductive point of view they are more disposable. They also tend to be physically stronger so are more suited to many combat roles that require raw strength.
I'm not an expert, but does the Magna Carta guaranteed a right to a jury trial?
I assume you are referring to clause 39, but it says "or" indicating a jury trial is not necessary?
> No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
"Homeless" in that sense, however, are not rough sleepers (people who actually sleep outside), which would seem to be what is meant in this context.
It's by no means zero, but in autum 2024, rough sleepers were estimated at less than 4700 in the UK. That might well represent and undercount, but it is certainly nowhere remotely near the people counted as homeless, who would include anyone without a permanent address, such a people e.g. sleeping at friends places on a non-permnanet basis.
reply