Let’s set the sentence for executing an innocent man to, death.

The first barrier to the death penalty is to make sure verdicts are right 100% of the time.

After that you can begin the debate about **whether it’s moral at all.

Proportional representation does give a minority voice to these people.

It’s the cost of fairness and it is useful to demonstrate minority views are disregarded for no reason other than because they’re the minority.

How’s that FPTP election going? Nice and stable, no extremists likely to overthrow democracy or anything?

There’s a Russian Pravda and a Ukrainian Pravda.

Both extremely partisan. Neither what I’d call reliable sources of news but you’ve probably seen propaganda from both.

Of course the Ukrainian Pravda has literally been able to print facts, unguilded, and they’ve matched what they would say as propaganda anyway so it’s appeared like a reputable news source recently.

That’s what happens when Russia genuinely does things like use chemical weapons (cs gas) banned by the Geneva convention.

(For those wondering, even though cs gas is used in riots the convention bans all gas based weapons as they target indiscriminately and could easily be mistaken for nerve agents by either side. Leading to either accidental use of nerve agents or accidental retaliation with something similarly destructive)

Or when the Russians directly hit a nuclear reactor 3 times.

Meanwhile the Russian Pravda has to manufacture its propaganda, like claiming an Islamic State attack which Islamic State issued video evidence of and claimed was somehow Ukrainian.

It’s a problem I recognise but in my opinion those who have grown up in illegal settlements have to be the ones to move.

I do blame their parents. Their parents have knowingly broken international law and it is essentially their fault their children are legally homeless.

This is where I have sympathy for those who will genuinely experience displacement when illegal settlements are handed back, but there was a choice made by those children’s parents to put them in that situation.

Compare that with the families forcibly removed from the land in the first place with no agency or choice.

I can see that there are those who are the victim of the oppression and aggression of Zionists because they were forced to leave.

There are those who may end up facing trauma because they were forced to move there.

There are victims on both sides, the important thing is not allowing those who have perpetrated harm to continue to do so.

The illegal settlements must be returned, those who have invaded will have caused harm to their own community and will face the consequences for that.

I hope for some reciprocity from both sides like in Ireland where there is not a continuous seeking for justice and further consequences. But the initial acts of oppression and theft must be undone.

There was a war in 1967. The occupation since has been illegal.

The 1967 war itself was justified because of the actions of guerillas, not state actors. Israel was the aggressor and preemptively struck against other nations.

Israel defended itself against threats. That was justified.

But Israel then went on to punish ordinary people and civilians. It’s a pattern of behaviour that has continued since 1967. Highlight the actions of terrorists, take from the civilians. Blockade the civilians, starve the civilians. Limit food, water, medicine, other supplies.

There have been times where Israel has allowed some normalcy in the 90s. But they’ve maintained a blockade and occupation. They’ve maintained an oppression.

All justified mostly by the actions of terrorists and external states. Not the people they’ve been persecuting.

Hamas are just the latest group. Israel cannot continue to punish civilians because of the actions of terrorists.

Israel definitely want evacuated Palestinians to give up on returning home and integrate into other countries.

Forcing Palestinians to do this is one of the definitions of genocide.

If someone is suggesting that refugees become citizens of other countries of other countries automatically then that’s actually enabling a genocide.

This is the problem with looking at solutions on the small scale when the problem is large scale.

Every individual in those refugee camps would likely have a better life if they “integrated” into another country. It’s easy to say those people should get a better life.

But “integrating” into another country is also the language used to suggest the abandonment of culture and claim to their former home.

They are refugees because their homes have been under constant blockade or attack for decades. It’s time to give them their homes back.

Rights framed in a constitution are important.

The responsibility of the government is to uphold law and the rights that law protects.

But a legislator sets the law, so without rights being part of a constitution, the government gets no responsibility from a constitution.

The most important stuff is all pertaining to elections. How the government gets elected being in the constitution stops the government changing that before an election.

Then rights directly effecting elections. Speech, protest, anti-discrimination.

Can’t have those changed before the ballot.

Everything else can and should be part of a separate bill or constitution of rights.

They wish to disrupt trade. And disrupt the narrative of the war.

Evidence: they’re disrupting trade. We’re talking about this.

My entire point is that pollution and article is irrelevant.

No side is perfect but there’s one side who have ultimately orchestrated that part of the world to the place it’s in now.

The US put the extremists in charge in Iran because of the Red scare.

The US put the extremists in charge in Saudi Arabia for the oil supply.

The US has supported Israel’s stance against any non-jew in creating an apartheid state.

The US has given weapons to several sides.

The US has directly bombed several countries.

All while not supporting the Arab spring and grass roots push for democracy.

“Not perfect” doesn’t cut it. The US is aggressively colonialist, just as the British were before them.

You stating what I apparently believe is one of the red flags for someone not engaging in critical thinking.

I’ve told you I don’t believe that, if you still believe I do you’re trying to construct an argument against the evidence.

I don’t believe that at all.

I stated that as an absurdist position in comparison to the absurdist position of complaining about an oil slick in a war.

The Houthis are trying to stop moving polluting ships through those waters. Are you blaming the ship or the ones trying to stop the ship?

This isn’t about pollution or the environment, everyone knows that.

Trying to shoehorn environmentalism as a justification to keep bombing Yemen is a hilarious mental leap into the abyss.

Start by asking “the coalition” to clear up the depleted uranium they leave lying around the place in the middle east.

If you are generally morbidly curious about odds.

And assuming speculation is right that it’s bowel cancer

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/king-charles-brave-words-kind-32054314

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/bowel-cancer/survival

Depends on what stage, but odds are given the level of care Royals get they’ve probably caught it at stage 1.

That’s a 55% chance he’s got 9 or 10 years for something else to get there first.

His father lived to 99 and he’s currently 75.

A very old friend at 89 told me they had cancer a week before his 90th. They then laughed and said it was too late to the party.

They were right in the end, it was his heart a few years later. Thankfully he was still pretty active and living life until the last couple of weeks. Great guy, genuinely kind and wise. The phrase he gave for his memorial was “It’s only sad to die if you haven’t lived. I’ve lived.”

The US should definitely have sanctions applied to it when they break international law.

At the moment there isn’t much consideration of “will doing this come back to bite me in the ass at a later date” when a country commits violence or funds a foreign coup.

That’s because there’s too much consideration of “will doing this come back to bite me in the ass at a later date.” When applying sanctions.

If the sanctions were virtually guaranteed to get triggered, the difficult decision would be for the regime doing the wrong thing in the first place.

Honestly, a regime should have to factor in the risk of losing all their money abroad if they start an illegal war or attempt genocide.

The theory of Europe relying on Russian gas as they joined the world economy was that mutual reliance prevents war because the consequences harm both sides.

Losing assets to the victims of the war you start would be a useful precedent to set and keep. The logic is the same.

The problem is that because sanctions hurt both sides we’re still reluctant to use them.

We should have activated sanctions over the war in Georgia, or the first invasion of Crimea. Eventually we did as Russia marched on another Nation’s capital.

Banks are never going to take an action that harms them. If we want to redirect the seized assets of Russia it will have to be governments which force them.