You keep using all the classic rhetorical terms reserved for people who have argued themselves into a corner. You’re not very good at this. cIaO CiAo

Bad arguments like “the president of the United States tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.” Man the gaslighting from you is wild.

I don’t dislike nuclear, I dislike bad arguments and bad decision making. The president wields enormous power over the stability and infrastructure required for nuclear to be safe and sustainable. You cannot have watched the debate last night, or the events of Jan 6, and feel confidence that anyone involved can be trusted with a goldfish, much less consistently providing a stable nation capable of securing nuclear plants.

If your argument is “don’t worry a sitting president may have staged an insurrection, but it was incompetent so it’s totally ok to leave him in charge of nuclear plants” then yeah, I think that’s a bad argument. And embarrassing

The sitting president did it…the commander in chief. I get you like nuclear but this is embarrassing

That bunch of idiots are the ones who control the tanks, artillery, planes, and funding for infrastructure that is required to keep nuclear plants from melting down

We just had a failed insurrection four years ago, wtf are you doing pretending like this can’t happen

Nuclear power relies on stable, safe, and advanced nations not like, I dunno, starting a land war in Europe that threatens to flood the continent with fallout.

If they are checking data brokers or aggregators it’s not really a background check. Carefully read any consent you give for a potential employer to perform a background check. Look for the records they are accessing and make a determination based on that language.

It is possible that some vendor is the space incorporates data brokers into their service, and that’s hard to tell. But they still should ask for your consent, I believe.

I wouldn’t argue “old people suffer from cognitive impairment” is a valid criticism of a politician without clinical evidence that that politician is suffering from cognitive impairment. This just smacks of ageism.

I don’t think there are online multiplayer games like CoD or CS that don’t require a platform like steam or good old games to buy, download, and run. I’m not actually sure what you’re trying to do, but if avoiding marketing is your goal I recommend you run steam and change the default page it opens to to be the library where your games are and not the store

My daughter’s daycare had to close yesterday because it was too hot in the building. They have air conditioning but only from window units

Then you will have software that doesn’t work. This is not a Firefox problem, or a problem of extensions, or anything but a user problem.

If your 1998 Toyota Camry is struggling to haul a cargo container up a hill it’s not the car’s fault. You’re doing it wrong. Whatever tasks you’re trying to do with 1000 tabs, a web browser is the wrong tool for the job.

Maybe don’t have a THOUSAND tabs

What? I thought everyone knew they were the mouthpiece for that weird Chinese shen yun cult, falun gong

Ooh sorry this is a weird one it’s actually “wugopodes”

Well the Geneva convention didn’t exist during WW2 so that’s a moot point and “the US did it” is not a defense of war crimes. The US wantonly commits war crimes. An indiscriminate attack is not what you described. It is an attack that makes no effort (or insufficient effort) to target only military objectives and protect civilians.

This conversation has reached an end. You don’t understand the issue, and worse don’t seem to want to.

You didn’t link those because those are the ones Israel singed, you linked them because you didn’t know the difference.

The protocol I provisions on indiscriminate attacks define what and which civilian deaths are acceptable. Indiscriminate bombings - like blowing up a car in front of a completely unrelated building full of civilians - are unacceptable under protocol I. If your argument is that those attacks are moral because Israel is not a signatory of that protocol I’d argue they’re still committing war crimes, they just don’t admit it.

Again, same tired arguments. You are claiming the same thing bigots have claimed for time immemorial.

When women were fighting for the vote the argument made against them was that they would make poor choices. You arguing differently about women now doesn’t matter - you are making the same type of argument against Palestinians that were made against discriminated against groups at every turn.

White enslavers argued that black slave revolts justified continued enslavement, and this is precisely the argument you’re making.

Killing an enemy combatant is a military objective, so attacking a building containing an enemy combatant does not meet any of those criteria.

You seem to think that the presence of a military objective justifies any amount of civilian damage and death. A plain text reading of Protocol I - which you have clearly read for the first time, considering you linked the wrong articles earlier - says exactly the inverse of that. You are interpreting Article 51 of Protocol I to mean what you want, not what it says.

No, explicitly wrong:

Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or © those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

What you are describing is unequivocally a war crime. the ICC didn’t charge Netanyahu with war crimes just for the fun of it.