It's not really about the amount of collateral damage, it's about the justification and the checks put in place and the relative benefit of the military action.
For example, a missile strike on a weapons depot that ends up killing four civilians isn't "less justified" than, say, throwing a...
I suspect allowing you to respond selectively to what I write allows you too much wiggle-room to evade the actual point, which I clearly laid out and you omitted from this quote.
Respond to my whole argument, or don't bother.
Personally, I think it's easy to justify legal abortions even if I completely accept, for the sake of argument, that a foetus is equal to a fully developed human life.
She showed a death certificate with a different name, a different year of death, a different husband, different children, and a different cause and circumstance of death, and just assumed they were the same person as Kamala's grandmother...
How is that convincing?
I've explained this multiple...
Technically true. It's called ethnic cleansing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
You can say it's definitely an element in a genocide, but it requires broader surrounding context.
Well, that depends on where those people are being located, under what circumstances, and what the...
You keep saying this despite the fact that I have provided you with a throrough debunk of the claim. Here:
The claim's done. Stop saying nobody has refuted it.
There's a difference between "questioning an election result" and "outright stating the election was rigged/false/undemocratic" without any kind of evidence and contrary to all available evidence, telling millions of people this, and then taking steps to try and overturn a democratic election...
No, it's neither. You need to explain how and why.
Clearly not. He's providing an example of a reasonable way in which we do limit speech. He wasn't given a chance to explain his position on free speech in a specific way because it wasn't his question, nor his time.
I find it odd that you...
No, it isn't. It's also moving east to west.
Yes, which means it's movement is no longer in a straight line up one metre and down one metre, it is now travelling east to west in a diagonal fashion in a box that is 1m high, meaning it is travelling MORE than one m, because to get from the top to...
Okay, I'm going to try and use a useful analogy used by Professor Brian Cox as I remember it. Hopefully it will explain the issue.
First, I want you to imagine a ball of light. No matter what, this ball of light travels at a constant speed of exactly 1 metre per second, which it can do in any...
Yes, it can. That's the error you need to get over. It CAN be both ways. That's the whole point and exactly what relativity explains.
Because both are true. Where's the issue?
@PureX gives a good explanation above.
There is nothing wrong with the theory. The problem is your comprehension of...
Because of time dilation. The closer something is to the speed of light, the slower time is and the shorter the distances between all points along its path become.
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/photon-experience-light-speed/
No. It was based on one Facebook post from someone who was saying that somebody else was told it happened by a third person.
There have been no actual cases of it happening.
Do you think blurting out rumours as facts, despite all evidence to the contrary and there being absolutely zero...