Israel’s security doctrine, it’s that Israel will defend itself, by itself—and rely on no other country to fight its battles

Huh. Their track record of having US assistance in every conflict kinda flies in the face of that.

Unless by “to fight its battles” is taken quite literally to mean boots on the ground.

Prevents poisoning only insomuch as other people won’t bother adding more poison to your food.

Can’t make it much worse for you.

For projects like this (longish and a product of several sessions) including levity for the sake of your own motivation is fine.

What isn’t fine is missing proofreading steps before sending.

Eh, major metro areas are always terrible.

Partly because they grew too quick and infrastructure/logistics have a hard time being as dynamic as the populations they serve, and partly because they have diverse driving cultures.

Everywhere has slightly different interpretations of “good driving” and that’s all well and good until they all meet in Atlanta and have to contend with all the other interpretations.

That said, I am a bad driver anywhere I go.

This is remarkable! BMW drivers are definitely the sponsors od this article.

Then which is the littlest roaring cat?

the tactic, first seen on a large scale in the battle for the city of Bakhmut in 2023,

Hasn’t throwing masses of ill-trained and ill-equipped people at the enemy been Russia’s default tactic since the time of the Romanovs?

2. return to society with the harm being neutralized - any alterations must 100% be the choice of the individual (e.g. a serial rapist could elect to be castrated, a kleptomaniac or stalker could elect for permanent tracking via microchip, etc)

We kinda do this already with ankle monitors, not that I think subdermal tracking would be any less fallible.

As long as murder is unacceptable in society, it’s the price you pay for the privilege of stripping someone else’s rights from them.

Therein’s the rub, see. That’s the price to be paid for one person. If the murder of one enriches the many, maybe it was worth it. And since not everyone values lives equally, not everyone can have a unanimous take.

IMO, the only valid use of lethal force is if there’s no valid alternative option to protect innocent lives. I would kill if it directly spared innocent lives, but not if there’s any possibility of protecting innocent lives another way.

I laud you for having and knowing your heirarchy of values, I am still (and quite possibly forever will be) determining my own red lines.

It’s generally understood that anything that couldn’t get sold on its own merits gets ground up with spices to be made into sausage. Whether that be because it’s an inferior cut or offal is kinda moot.

As I understand it, that is a large part of Trump’s success with certain groups.

Admittedly, that turns off people who don’t agree with what you’re saying…

Discreetly open it and replace the contents with x-large.

If they open it, it’ll make them feel even littler.

I skipped incarceration because you’d already expressed it as preferable to capital punishment.

It’s only inhumane if they’re no longer a danger to society.

I cannot agree there. Unless you’re arguing that “everything is legitimate” in the case of dangerous individuals, I imagine you don’t really believe that either.

Rehabilitation is always the goal, but in instances where it is unachievable and the perpetrator is reasonably expected to remain unrepentant, is keeping them alive and imprisoned for life at the expense of law-abiding citizens the way forward? Would they not grow resentful of having to support those who do not follow the social contract?

When you say “least amount of force”, what do you mean?

Intimidation? Lobotomies? Brainwashing?

At what point does keeping someone alive but “neutralized” become inhumane?

I heard it was a tragic stroke. An act of God if ever there was one.

It always is amusing when British people accuse Roma of being thieves when they can’t even have the English language without stealing widely from others.

Next thing you know, ol’ Jed heads a cartel

It is our just desserts for spurning Hydrox.

Per wikipedia:

In England, the rowel spur is shown upon the first seal of Henry III and on monuments of the 13th century, but it did not come into general use until the 14th century.

Rowel spurs being the spinning wheel kind. Most spurs were more like bird talons on the back of your boot.

I.e. shit for throwing.

Really, I’m more appalled at Yoon on this one. What kind of ignorant chump fails to gain the unquestionable support of the military before going all in on a military coup?

I adore this back-and-forth, but is the metaphor here doing anything any more?