They do the dance too though. Really weird.

I’m sure it must be more difficult for you :( just to try and keep you going though, it’s definitely a numbers game and those of us who don’t have any concerns sometimes misread too.

Tbh, the recovery is probably more important than the execution in this scenario.

I wish more effort was put in to gamifying education courses.

Your last point is pretty much the most likely way to excel in life too, unfortunately.

You’re lucky if you do actually like the person you have to suck up to.

He didn’t accomplish anything though did he?

Except the gunman was killed right? So he wouldn’t be able to try again.

How is this atheist?

Ask yourself, in 6 months time will you be able to find another contract job or employed job easily? If the answer is yes then I’d say go for it and get the extra experience.

No worries. I can see how it’d be interpreted like that. Especially given the amount of what aboutism we see in the comments.

I also struggle with Lemmy comments as I’m usually writing here tired in my ‘downtime’ between other responsibilities. You guys get the worst of me! Haha

I can’t work out your tone from this text. Are you suggesting I’m saying it’s okay that either of these things happening?

I’d say that if NATO are willing to point out China funding Russia, they should also be capable of the self reflection to admit their own faults too.

I get that this wouldn’t work politically though. It’s just really frustrating to see such an obvious scream at a mirror.

The only way they could enable Russia more is by directly sending them munitions.

It does seem rich for NATO to call China out on this when NATO members are sending Israel weapons and enabling a different genocide.

Maybe there’s some reason that’s different but I definitely don’t understand it off the top of my head.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I’ll reply on the basis of your latest comment.

I said I don’t see why I valid target would be made invalid just because it’s inside Russia

Is anybody saying a target would be made invalid just because it’s in Russia? My point was all targets inside Russia are open to increased scrutiny because of targeting inside Russia.

The children’s hospital example is because Russia likely does not have children’s hospitals (or other non-military assets) inside Ukraine, and therefore Russian targets inside Ukraine are almost certainly going to be valid. On the other hand, when some high up revenge obsessed Ukrainian military personnel decide they want to target Russian children’s hospitals, it’s useful for their targets to have increased scrutiny to prevent an additional civilian massacre.

Just to clarify, the children’s hospital example is being used to convey an obviously non military target which additional scrutiny can prevent from being attacked.

I’m going to stop replying to this thread now as I’m not sure I can make my point much clearer. I might re-read through the context though just in case I misunderstood something somewhere. I do Lemmy on mobile so sometimes it’s difficult to track a conversation.

Yes. I am bringing children’s hospitals in to this as an example for why additional scrutiny is required when attacking targets inside Russia.

I’m not sure you read my comment fully.

Yeah let all it quits. I’m really struggling to follow you.

I don’t think you’re honestly thinking this through.

If Ukraine starts bombing russian children’s hospitals, that’s clearly an invalid target. What Ukraine is bombing will be scrutinized.

There are, however, zero russian children’s hospitals inside Ukraine, so as long as Ukraine is bombing russian targets and not their own, their targets are not open to the same level of scrutiny.

I guess wanting them in, and feeling that it’s appropriate to bring them in right now are two different things.

As they’ve said. They want them in. That’s not the same as thinking they should be in now.

I want to retire, but retiring right now is not appropriate.

There must be a few thousand of them:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1202209/prisoners-for-cannabis-offences-england-and-wales/

I was thinking the other day that they may have made it illegal again so they can search someone when they smell it. Under a law where it’s only legal to have a certain amount, I wonder if they can assert the same control under suspicion that they have too much.

Can you imagine the marketing though?! Man they’d have some fun with that.

I’m imagining the PG tips monkey making an appearance.

Right. And if I say that I’m changing my diet to fit with my neighbours, that doesn’t make me part of neighbour’s family.

I get what you’re saying, they were aligning themselves to become NATO members. That’s not the same as what’s happening now though where NATO are saying “yes we want them in”, which is an outcome Russia has caused by this invasion.

Edit- just another note…both of these occurred since Russia annexed Crimea, which could definitely be construed as aggressive behaviour on Russia’s part. Again pointing towards Russia causing an outcome they’re claiming to have a problem with.

Funny how there was no reply to this comment. I wonder why they didn’t get back to you. Maybe they needed to cook dinner, or go to work, or rethink their entire life.

I hope it’s the last one but I’m not counting on it.