![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/597821bd-39e4-457f-aea4-7d698c151763.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c47230a8-134c-4dc9-89e8-75c6ea875d36.png)
What part of “no matter who does it” did you not understand.
I’m embarassed for you.
What part of “no matter who does it” did you not understand.
I’m embarassed for you.
Killing civilians doesn’t avenge anything, no matter who does it.
That’s an interesting theory but there are many churches where women are supposed to put on a hat especially for church.
Probably it has more to do with this rather ridiculous passage from Corinthians:
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. Source 1 Corinthians 11: 2-16
This is the problem with the trolley problem.
If it were replaced with, say, being told to shoot one group or another by a sadistic guard, the possibility of refusing to choose would be more obvious in terms of what it means morally.
The trolley is an inanimate object. It isn’t making choices.
Political parties are more like the sadistic guard. They are making choices.
deleted by creator
Californians don’t live in Death Valley.
The countries with the hottest temperatures in inhabited areas are places like Kuwait.
I don’t think anyone is surprised. It was well known. It is surprising that the court made this ruling, though.
You may be right. It may have been an innocent attempt to turn the discussion away from this landmark decision and back onto the more well trampled ground of US politics.
I like hypotheticals myself, but not when they are used to mislead.
Chiquita was the entity calling the shots and the death squads were killing and intimidating anyone who went against their commercial interests, including politicians.
For that reason, the hypothetical above reads like an attempt to pretend Chiquita was somehow a passive participant.
I do see what you mean. I think when a dork engages in repeated personal attacks they cross the line for me regardless of their intent.
It’s a philosophical question akin to Baudrillard’s “simulate a robbery” idea.
Speechless that two people have come in here to defend United Fruit Company/Chiquita for its well known use of death squads.
Remind me not to post about Nestlé.
Israel have already said that they are not interested in the agreement.
She might be a TOFI.
To determine that, I will need two pieces of information:
do you stand to profit from the killing or intimidation of Palestinians?
are you one of the US Government’s main sources of money and weapons?
Of course you did, or I wouldn’t have commented on it.
Here is a wikipedia page that explains what a tankie is.
This article makes it clearer.
It’s a false analogy. Chiquita were paying the paramilitary to do its bidding.
No, it’s like if you owned a massive chain of Italian restaurants that notoriously exploited people, and you were actively paying the mafia to intimidate your workers and to bust unions.
The judge saw through Chiquita’s ridiculous fabrication, I’m disappointed to see you parroting it here.
After reviewing their modlog history, I think Masquenox displays a level of emotional incontinence that is effectively the same as trolling.
He wasn’t a combatant and he hadn’t killed anyone. He was an innocent bystander and even the IDF admit it.
Not sure why you put so much energy into making up a fake scenario.