Confirmed. At first I was confused about the comments. Good idea, an obvious opportunity!

It seems most people get it, but I don’t - Care to explain?

Glorious.

The question is wether there was sexual violence.

The claim from your screenshot answers that with a ‘no’: “It was all fabricated”.

Though what you provide to support that claim (I did not open the link) does not support it. On the contrary, it even provides accounts of sexual violence.

There is a 2nd, different claim muddled within: Wether sexual violence can be proven in court.

Of course, that can be difficult for a number of reasons related to sexual violence (“victims were murdered”, “not prepared to reveal”). But failure to prove an offense does by no means conclude that the accusations were “all fabricated”.

Maybe this is related to people confusing proof and evidence. Evidence (even numerous and strong) can exist although a proof is not possible.

Feel free to clear things up if I missed your point. At the moment, it is not understandable how that guy jumps from “there is evidence, but we will have trouble proving in court” to “it was all fabricated”. If you can add something which closes this gap, that would help your point.

Quality comment, well said.

I’m not sure (take that literally, please) wether both causes deserve to be treated as equals, but I can very much vibe with the general spirit of your comment. That’s what I had in mind when writing the last paragraph of my previous comment.

This is like if Hezbollah bombed Yoav Gallant in Tel Aviv. And then Hezbollah starts bombing israeli airports “pre-emptively” because “an israeli attack” (retaliation) is coming.

Yes, exactly. They had good reasons to assume the other side is angry and might do something violent, because they themselves just did something very violent to them! So to protect themselves, they deprive their opponents of means of retaliation. Pre-empting the retaliation.

Hitting someone and then hitting them again because you expect them to hit back does not seem very " self defensy" or “pre-emptive” te me.

I get you. I would totally agree if this was about a school dispute. However in war, there are a number of things which can be done in self defense or to pre-empt an enemy attack which might seem counterintuitive at first, like for example destroying your own infrastructure, or investing in weapons with the intent to never use them.

In war, an attacker can very well attack again to defend themselves and/or to pre-empt the enemy reaction.

If you could hire one of two generals to protect your country; one which considers pre-emptive follow-up attacks and one who would rather let the other side strike back because it seems fair, who would you hire?

You expect a military force to sit tight, not move, not shoot, while they know the enemy is about to attack?

Because, the enemy “is defending itself”?

I’d love to hear that rally speech with which you would motivate your soldiers to just eat incoming rockets without using the tools they have to prevent being attacked.

The strikes are only pre-emptive if we put on white-nationalism glasses and take away Lebanon’s right to defend itself. Israel attacked Beirut first.

I guess as always with language, there are many possible interpretations. Yours is one, that’s right.

To me, it came somewhat surprising to see you connected “pre-emptive” to moral judgements, or to the question who attacked “first” (which is a controversial and potentially infinite topic to track the actual honest true ‘first’ origin).

Another interpretation is just military doctrine. The best defense is a good offense. Who cares who started the fight.

In this interpretation, the IDF felt there might be an attack incoming, and prevented it’s adversary from doing so by striking first.

Much like Hezbollah (or any other military force) would gladly pre-emptively strike their foe to protect their own troops. Doesn’t say anything about who started the overall conflict or even who’s right.

You still have a point; by highlighting the reasons behind the strike, and painting it as a protective measure, it probably makes it easier for the reader to sympathize.

Nice summary. Yes, turnout. It will probably increase for Republicans. But since everybody can guess that, it will just as likely increase Democrats turnout. We should expect many effects to affect both sides, like Democrats voters now also have a higher attention that there is an election coming up. I think the effect on swing voters, if there are any left, is marginal.

In contrast to a monarchy, where people cannot choose their leader, in capitalism people can choose from which company they buy, or even create their own.

As another person already pointed out, these are obviously two different categories.

The question then is, why do people choose the way they do, both when buying and when running a company? To me it seems, they don’t because of some external pressure (like monarchy requires).

The point can be summed up as a question: Why don’t people run (more) non-capitalist services and productions, and why don’t they prefer them when looking to satisfy their demand?

These non-capitalist things exist, it’s certainly possible. But as far as I know, they are all very niche. Like a communal kitchen, some solidary agriculture or housing project. Heck, entire villages of this kind exist.

So the alternative is there, but it requires actual commitment and work. I don’t see how capitalism could be abolished in an armed uprising (in contrast to monarchy). But it can be replaced by alternative projects. Partially. Why are they so small and few?

Gotta know your whales.

a retired poor bloke who dedicated the vast majority of his life to a company that could only compensate him with a piece of worthless paper and a BBQ.

What, is this actually possible or legal? I think in other countries, it would be impossible to work, and if it’s only ten or twenty years, and get no monthly payments at retirement. They might be too low to survive, but exist. I mean, at least the payments would exist.

Can someone explain for an obviously confused non -US?

If it has the information, why not?

Naive altruistic reply: To prevent harm.

Cynic reply: To prevent liabilities.

If the restaurant refuses to put your fries into your coffee, because that’s not on the menu, then that’s their call. Can be for many reasons, but it’s literally their business, not yours.

If we replace fries with fuse, and coffee with gun powder, I hope there are more regulations in place. What they sell and to whom and in which form affects more people than just buyer and seller.

Although I find it pretty surprising corporations self-regulate faster than lawmakers can say ‘AI’ in this case. That’s odd.