I mean, possibly, but yeah "heresy" isn't really a big deal in the modern sense. Like, Protestants are heretics. Nobody really cares at this point.
This guy hasn't been defrocked, just removed from the bishop's seat. He's still a priest. If he goes and starts a different (non-Catholic) church, he'd be dismissed, probably excommunicated, but that's pretty rare I think. And regardless of what he thinks of his boss, his whole life is basically being a Catholic priest. I doubt he'll leave.
You have roughly equal amounts of people pulling the lever in the "kill one person" direction and the "kill many people" direction.
The only people interested in pulling a lever that adds a third rail are the "kill one person" crowd. The moment enough of them let go, the lever goes in the "kill many people" direction because that crowd has no interest in a third rail, they quite like the "kill many people" option. You'll never get enough people to join the third option from both crowds simultaneously. No third party has seen any real form of success in nearly 200 years within the current system. Changing the system is necessary but taking out hands off the lever is a disaster.
If you're in the US, with a two party system, not voting for the less evil is actively enabling the greater evil.
You think Trump or any GOP candidate wouldn't do the same? Or worse? They're certainly not going to do anything better than Biden.
Voting on principles is for the Primaries. Try and get the best candidate possible that you actively believe in into the race. Election Day however is when it's time to put your adult pants on, accept the world is messy, and vote for the least worse option possible, because otherwise you're just abetting the worst option.
Many just won't vote.
Which is still absolutely absurd, because any Democrat who doesn't vote for Biden is implicitly granting his Republican opponent a vote. This opponent may be Trump, but even if it isn't, it's still a Republican whose position on Israel and the conflict will make Biden's response look measured.
Many people are angered by Biden's response, but for pro-Palestinian supporters it's cutting off your nose to spite your face to not vote this cycle for Biden. You're actively allowing an even worse option.
There's a theory that Taiwan could achieve mass destruction with just regular cruise missiles, no need for actual WMDs.
The destruction of Three Gorges Dam would kill millions of people from the resulting flood. Be a tough target and air defense would be a nightmare, but it is still within Taiwan's cruise missile range.
There's been no acknowledgement ever of this plan, but it's pretty obvious.
If China invades Taiwan our entire economy will come to a screeching halt. Hence why America is interested.
If China wanted to invade, idk, Thailand, we'd just kind of shrug and say "Hey, don't do that."
That's fine! We should not invade Panama. I don't think the US is currently planning on it, but after the last 20 years I'm pretty sure most citizens would be fucking glad for any excuse for our military to think twice before invading a foreign country.
Presumably people who bought NFTs. If you're going to trick yourself into thinking your dumb, AI-generated piece of shitty "art" was a worthwhile investment, you might as well enjoy the perks of being in such an exclusive, stupid club.
There's a power discrepancy now, but there wasn't always.
By this analogy, Palestine is a drunk 17 year old, who along with a bunch of 20-something friends jumped one another kid when he just turned 18. Except the 18 year old won the fight and the older pals of the original drunk kid have backed off. Beaten to shit, the 17 year old keeps trying to swing at the 18 year old, who continues just kicking him while he's down and everyone is looking on in horror but unwilling to jump back in the fight.
The fact they went 1 v 8 probably contributes a lot to Israel's absolute unwillingness to not put themselves in a position where they are less powerful.
It only took me a day to learn just that, so why more people don't bother to understand the conflict more before commenting is shameful, especially because it's nothing really new.
But it also doesn't really matter because the people who do know more and are in a position to create (inter)national policy haven't seemed to be able to find a solution, so I doubt armchair internet historians will either. 🫤
You mean the canal that is entirely within Egypt? That argument seems like a stretch to me, and clearly wasn't the argument the above was trying to make either.
They're a democracy and have historically been opposed to many counties the West was already opposed to. Their strategic importance is military, not oil.
No, it's not a terrible argument. Anyone can have a pitch or idea. That does not mean it's automatically a viable product/service or a viable business.
It's a valid question, how do we define "founder"? To play devil's advocate, I'm curious if the people who think Musk didn't co-found Tesla also agree Aaron Schwartz didn't co-found Reddit. He joined later, after reddit was already incorporated by Hoffman and Ohanian.
In business, "founder" is already an honorary title. It has no inherent power. Co-founders often ensure they get C-suite positions as a company grows, have stock/shares, or other legal powers, but none of those are guaranteed just by being a "founder". So practically, there's no difference between calling Musk a "co-founder" versus "honorary co-founder." Let's just focus on calling him a piece of shit for the very definitive and obvious things we can point to.