zapatos

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/28/ukrainian-sailor-arrested-for-trying-to-sink-oligarchs-superyacht

Would you please leave me the fuck alone?

I'm glad the "point police" are still alive and well. I gave the downvote back because I don't think calling someone a "Mega twat" is an appropriate description of a person's behavior.

Feel better after getting all that off your chest?

Har! 😆

How do you know this? Seems to me that a civilian being killed might not feel as if they were treated "extremely correctly".

There is not different DNA for Russians, Chinese, Brits, etc.. So the answer to your question is NO.

In a political science class I took in college we were told that courts DID make laws. Whether or not you accept that depends on how you define 'making laws'. Courts don't write the legislation, but they may find, for example, that the Constitution limits the extent of the law, in effect changing the law so that it is different from the way it was presented by Congress. It is almost as if making the law was a team effort between legislators and courts.

I guess I did something to piss you off some time. My apologies for whatever it was.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/abortion-central-history-reproductive-health-care-america

Wow. Swing and a miss.

Yes you are. No. It's a recognition that we didn't choose to follow your model and have the ability to make SCOTUS representative of the country.

Here is a major flaw in your understanding of how SCOTUS works. Justices are under no obligation to make decisions based on what the law was designed to do. Justices often make decisions based on the text of the law, and if the text does not match what the law was designed to do, they expect Congress to remedy their poor writing skills. No. Presidents are appointing judges for their judicial philosophy, previous rulings, race, gender, thoughts on Roe v. Wade, thoughts on the Second Amendment, what state they come from, what they promised voters, whether or not they will get past the Senate, and a host of other reasons too long to list, that changes on a regular basis. Presidents really don't care if the appointees are voting for Democrats or Republicans. This is a much more nuanced process than you seem to think it is.

Got it. Thanks. I called it a straw man because you characterized my list as "one that lists every single part of a human body on which one can inflict pain.'" In fact my list represented an escalating set of actions, starting with an action that most anyone would do and ending with clear, violent torture. I was simply trying to get a feel for how far people will go short of "medieval".

I don't understand. Am I clutching at straws? Am I not thinking rationally?

Is that a giant straw man?

Even if you believe the rules to be wrong? Certainly we have enough examples of governments imposing rules that were not good for the people the rules applied to.

Sorry, I'm not clear what you mean by this. Can you elaborate please?

I wonder where the cutoff is for those who are opposed to torture under any circumstances. To protect yourself or others would you: 1. Hit someone? 2. Beat someone? 3. Kill someone? 4. Put someone in stress positions or cause sleep deprivation? 5. Break fingers? 6. Cut off fingers? 7. Go medieval? I assume the "no-torture" group would not do #7. But what about the others? How far would you go to attempt to save the lives of your children or a subway system full of strangers?

So why do you want the sanctions to be done immediately if not for some particular benefit?

I'm not sure that sanctioning Russia now instead of later is going to have the effect you think it will.

A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini. The best novel I've read in several years. He also wrote Kite Runner which I also very much enjoyed.

Maybe I'm somewhat unusual but I don't think I've ever had a spooky experience. No strange thoughts, visions, feelings.

Because when I said the following: You responded with: As I said. I'm relieved to hear you are not part of the 'we' that has to face extreme situations. Neither do WE, despite your rather insulting insinuation otherwise. But WE DO have to face extreme situations. And when those extreme situations affect more than one person, the appropriate pronoun is "we".

Okay. I'm relieved to hear that extreme situations don't affect you. For the rest of us as WE face the consequences an extreme situation we'll be wondering how you manage to avoid being impacted by the radioactivity/poison gas/smallpox.