unicorn

I agree. As with other religions, Buddhism is rooted in faith and a belief system, rather than on facts and science. While not monotheistic, it involves prayer, a religious caste, devotion, and so on. Although quite different from the Abrahamic religions, it certainly requires buying into a certain mindset. And, as with other religions, there have been wars and murders in its name (look at Myanmar).

https://attachments.f95zone.to/2022/07/1950709_Thebestkindofweaponistheoneyouonly_113539a9b1183c52c9599bf8a66e7746.gif

I guess you thought I wouldn't click on the link and actually read the article. For the several people who "liked" your post, and therefore didn't bother to click on the link, I will tell them that that article has ZERO to do with the current situation, and in particular NOTHING to do with taking down the sites with which Hamas is using to volley missiles into Israeli civilian areas. All it does is suggest that negotiating with hostage-takers is a good idea. Nice try, but again devoid of integrity. Obviously, even if one were to buy into the idea that negotiating with hostage-takers is a good idea, that argument does nothing to address the immediate issue of stopping the Hamas missile launches. To address your aside, which has nothing to do with the situation we were supposed to be discussing, I personally think it's a bad idea to negotiate with hostage-takers, as this only encourages further hostage-taking. Nothing wrong with pretending to negotiate while planning a rescue mission, but I would oppose any concessions. Otherwise, one will end up in an endless cycle in which one gives up more and more as more and more hostages get taken. That being said, I strongly oppose Israel's recent policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians, especially the settlements in the West Bank, which are simply obvious provocations. One could also argue that placing a kibbutz, such as Nahal Oz, right on the border wall with Gaza, might also be construed as a provocation and/or asking for trouble--not that this would excuse slaughtering unarmed civilians or hostage-taking. I very much understand the Palestinians' frustrations, especially at the arrogant and offensive policies of Netenyahu. However, the insurgents would have had my sympathy had they limited to targeting IDF troops, and lost my sympathy by shooting and kidnapping women, children, and the elderly.

You may have missed the part in which he was being entirely sarcastic.

There you go again with the false narrative that the Israelis are bombing Palestinians, or, even more ridiculously, that the goal of the Israelis is to "shock and awe." As my father wisely used to say, there's only been one war which has ever been won with bombing, and that's WWII--and we certainly never want to go there again. Only a fool would believe that a war can be won by bombing. Anyone who looks at the facts rationally and impartially understands that the goal of the Israeli bombing is plain and simple: to take out the Hamas missile sites which are volleying the rockets Hamas sends towards Israeli civilian areas. What you're saying is the complete opposite of the truth. It's Hamas which is (unsuccessfully, of course) trying to "shock and awe" the Israelis by targeting civilian areas. This sharply contrasts Israeli bombing, which targets only military objectives. If Hamas puts these military objectives in areas heavily populated by civilians, that's entirely on them.

Since you can't even name one alternative (as I already knew couldn't), after falsely stating you knew several, perhaps you'd do better to keep quiet rather than extol your lack of integrity. And, of course, you know full-well that the Israelis don't bomb civilians. They bomb missile launching sites. Hamas has zero need to put them in areas heavily populated by civilians, of course. The civilian deaths are 100% Hamas' responsibility. Hamas kills Palestinian civilians for propaganda purposes. Bear in mind, that I very much support Palestinian civilians, and have donated thousands of dollars over the years to help them. It pains me to see Hamas slaughter them.

Now there's a preposterous "alternative." Lots wrong with it. First of all, planning and arranging for a ground invasion takes a lot of time. It's absurd to imagine that Israel would just let Hamas continue to simply spew missiles towards their territory day after day, while planning a dangerous invasion (oh, and of course ignoring that if the missile sites are left intact, Hamas could easily target the potentially invading forces). Secondly, such an invasion would be extremely dangerous as Hamas is entrenched in cities they know well, and they have tons of tunnels, booby-traps, and so on. Thirdly, and most obviously, who in his right mind would imagine that a ground invasion in and of itself wouldn't result in ample civilian deaths? And, even if Hamas were to somehow wait around and just leave those missiles lying there, the missiles are still in highly populated areas. Missiles are, to put it mildly, explosive. Or do you imagine that Hamas is going to simply hand over the missiles to the ground troops, saying "Here you go!"?????

OK. So why can't you name ONE? I would be even more impressed if you can enumerate the SEVERAL you claimed to have immediately thought of.

Hamas is 100% responsible. Do you really expect Israel to simply allow Hamas to continue firing rockets at their civilians indefinitely? No you do not. There is NO alternative. Therefore, you know as well as I do that Hamas is 100% responsible. They absolutely know the consequences of firing missiles from their population centers. It's preposterous to suggest they don't.

Shameful deflection. I do not condone the action of Israeli forces in the West Bank, which has essentially nothing to do with the mass murder of innocent civilians on both sides by the Hamas in Gaza. Had Hamas merely killed Israeli soldiers, I would have no objection. It's the intentional targeting of civilians I abhor.

You seem to be ignoring that the massacre of Palestinian civilians is entirely the responsibility of Hamas. They place the missiles they use to bomb Israel in the midst of Palestinian civilians. Do you really expect Israel to sit there and do nothing while Hamas volleys missiles into their territory? Of course not. As is obvious to everyone, including all Arabs, Israel has zero option but to target the locations Hamas uses to send missiles. Then, of course, Hamas wails and cries "Look what the Israelis did!", when, in fact, of course, it is they who are entirely responsible.

The reason for this is that Hamas is intentionally launching missiles from densely-populated areas, knowing full-well that the Israelis have no choice but to target the areas of the missile launches. Essentially all of the civilian deaths on the Palestinian side are due to Hamas. Hamas is responsible for both Israeli and Palestinian civilian deaths. And when Palestinians die, they point their fingers at the Israelis. Hamas kills Palestinians for their own benefit.

I certainly do not condone the actions of the Israeli government vis-a-vis the Palestinian people. I donate generously to ANERA, a charitable group which helps Palestinians. I strongly condemn the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That being said, at least Israelis don't intentionally plow down innocent civilians, shoot women and children in the back while they're running away, nor take hostages. Hamas cares only about its narrow view of the world and sacrifices its own citizens towards that goal. I'd have had a lot more sympathy had they only killed Israeli soldiers. And that being said, I feel it was foolhardy to hold a music festival so close to the Gaza Strip, and on the 50th Anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, no less. To me, that came off as an insensitive provocation. As disgusting as Hamas's actions have been, the Israelis might also consider that Palestinians (other than Hamas) are humans, too.

Oooh. Name-calling. You must be right. The point, Einstein, is that it's the job of all defense lawyers to discredit accusers, whether the accusers are right or wrong (sometimes they're right, sometimes they're not). It's pretty ridiculous to disparage someone for doing his job. I don't know specifically about KS. I have seen evidence that in at least some cases, the activity was quite consensual and even bragged about later. He may, in general, be a sleazebag, but just being accused doesn't make one a sleazebag. So far those who've looked actually looked at the evidence (neither of us) have not been convinced.

Thank you, professor. To think that, all of this time I thought that to goal of a defense lawyer was to praise and support the accuser.

I feel a song coming on...

Yes, you did. You said Biden shut down the pipelines. One can't shut something down that isn't open to begin with. You did NOT say he shut down the construction. Even if it had been possible for those to be running by now, the impact, as you well know, would have been negligible.

That's preposterous, and I'm sure you know it. Obviously, the pipelines weren't operating under Trump, either, and even if they were (which they weren't), the effect would be tiny--certainly not 25%.

They were polling people on the news on what they had against Biden "He's responsible for the gas prices," the Trump supporter said. The one thing Biden has virtually no control over. The most he can do is encourage alternative energy sources, which is what he's done.

I usually book through hotel chain's individual sites. Most brands include mid-range properties, including Hilton (HHonors), the InterContinental Group (including Holiday Inn hotels), Marriott/Bonvoy (includes Fairfield Inn and Four Points, which are usually 3*), and Best Western. I only use the Hotels.com and similar sites for small towns which may not have any chain hotels. With the chains, one gets the lowest fees at their sites, and also accumulate points, which one can use at 5* places when one wants snazzier digs.

Well, especially Barrett Pall, who has always been a loud complainer. It's one thing to say "You have a modeling contract for Balenciaga. Go to the photographer's office at 1752 Madison Avenue." Under such circumstances (and with Bruce Weber fondling his men during photoshoots), any sexual activity would be harassment. But someone given $2000 cash to go to a private house while being told this is for a "sexual experience" certainly should know what's going on, and what the money's for. That being said, it should obviously be clear what the intent is if someone is being given cash and a plane ticket to go to a private party in Marrakesh as well. This is obviously not a photoshoot for GQ magazine. Those models who go along with this know damned well that these are not legitimate modeling gigs. I find it unsavory for them to take the money then complain about it years later. No means no, and yes means yes. Once the erotic activity ends, one stops having the ability to withdraw consent. Regrets any time later do not negate consent given at the time of the activity. I remember reading an autobiography by former model John Barrowman. In it, he recalls a story in which Valentino invited him onto his private yacht to discuss "employment opportunities." Early in the voyage, after having given him expensive gifts such as a Rolex watch, Valentino put his hand on Barrowman's shoulder. Barrowman flicked it off, and was let off at the next port. I'm sure JB had a good laugh, as I'm sure he understood why he was being invited on the yacht in the first place.

Dude, the model was told he was being hired for a "sexual experience," to use his own words. Nothing ambiguous about that. Had my gardener told me "I'm really hard up for cash this month," while he was at my place, while taking his shirt off, and I countered with "I can spot you for another $250 if you're willing to give me a sexual experience," that would not be shady either. If I added "And I've been thinking of having that tree in my back yard taken down," that wouldn't have made it even more shady.

I was unable to pull the full scientific article (not the lay press article), but in none of the portions I saw quoted an author say "the degree of risk was not modest." If the actual scientific article said that, I can only respond by saying that no reputable journal would allow such language in an observational/case-control study. That why there's something called peer review for reputable journals. With such a study, the only thing a real scientist would said was that the degree of association was not modest. If someone responds to this article by replacing artificially sweetened drinks with drinks that have NO sweeteners, including sugars (glucose, sucrose, or fructose), then no harm done. However, if someone were to react by replacing diet sodas with regular (sugar-filled) sodas, then there could be some real damage done. Sugars such as those found in sodas are known to put a stress on the pancreas's insulin-making cells (without even mentioning the empty calories sugars add). The lazy authors of this study picked a low-lying fruit, so to speak. Similar associations have been observed with all other artificial sweeteners, including the dipeptide aspartame, which simply consists of two amino acids (the building blocks of proteins). I cannot imagine a biological/physiological mechanism which would lead to a cardiovascular risk from a dipeptide. These authors simply appear to have picked the one artificial sweetener which hadn't been so associated yet. What needs to be done to ascertain any risk is to randomize assignment to drinks (or whatever) which are sweetened with sugar vs various artificial sweeteners, in which neither the patients nor the scientists know who gets what sweetening agent, then count the events over time. If one wishes to be extra-cautious before those studies are done, the wisest course is to simply avoid ALL sweeteners, including real sugars and artificial ones. I would certainly not conclude at this time that diabetics are better off consuming sugary drinks and pastries.

First of all, I don't consider my biological father my "father," and I doubt most people in my position would. My father was the person who brought me up and had legal custody. At first I though you were slighting my father. My purpose at bringing him (the bio dad) up was to use an example of how men pull off BS all of the time in order to get their sexual partners to say yes. I'd at least like to think that had my mother known the truth about him she wouldn't have consented. Were they alive, would she be in a position to say she was unduly coerced? I don't think so. You missed the point on the gardener example as well. My point there was that just because one pays someone to do something they wouldn't otherwise want to do doesn't equate with unethical coercion. By his own admission, the model BP above received ample financial compensation for what he was told would be a "sexual experience." Even after he'd received the money, if the experience went beyond what he was willing, he could have easily left and taken the LIRR (with that amount of money, he could even have hired a taxi for the whole trip if he felt the LIRR was below his dignity--but I just took the LIRR 3 months ago to Sayville/Fire Island, and I consider myself financially secure). Now that he's apparently financially secure himself, to express regret about this years later comes off as very phony. Do you truly believe his statement that he had to consent to additional sexual acts just because he didn't have a car???