How can you possibly think you are on the right side of things as you call in a bomb threat on a school?
I just don't understand how these people can think their tactics are morally justified.
They wanted the IP not the staff.
I don't know if I'm a millennial or generation x
And maybe this answer is kinda what I was thinking of. The justification your are supplying about the diminished influence of record labels makes sense and logically I can see that probably means the sound of the decades I listed was less organic and more manufactured. I also feel that there is probably less air for experimental genres to establish and become dominant like in the past.
Every decade has its musical style that generally makes it easy to place what decade a song was written in if you haven't heard it before.
40s big band
50s rock and roll
60s essentially has its genre named after the decade or at least I can't think of anything I'd call a genre.
70s punk and beginnings of heavy metal, disco
80s electro synth, rap
90s grunge, dance, R&B, trance
Etc etc. Obviously these don't entirely define the music of the decade but are highly recognisable genres that can more often than not pinned down to a decade.
So my question is, since the 2000s I don't see as much differentiation but that might be because I'm too old (44) and not as exposed to be music as I was in my teens, so help me pretend I'm "hip" and "with it" by giving me some clues. I'm curious to know what you think defines the music of the 2020s, what defines the 2010s and what defines the 2000s. I.e. When someone says they are going to listen to noughties music what do they put on? Etc. Or have we reached a point where music has been explored to the point new genres are much rarer to establish?
Only if you suck until the creamy goodness reaches your lips.
You forget that his conviction is unjust. He is being persecuted. However the in the entirety of criminal convictions he stands alone. Everyone else is clearly guilty because who would persecute anybody because of their race, or their beliefs, or because they look like someone else. That's just crazy talk. /s
Thank you but if the discussion does start going toxic, please do take it down.
P.s. I updated the title to make it clearer that I do not wish to conflate the two
I did not mean to imply that supporting Israel's right to exist as a state means you must support their actions or vice versa. It is not intended to be a loaded question.
Does one side disregarding the Geneva convention mean the other is free to do so?
I would argue that the Geneva convention is as much about protecting the humanity of adherants as it is about protecting the lives of the innocent.
If you sign up to it, you should not be considering the actions of your enemy in deciding whether to adhere to it or not. Yes the realities of war blur the lines, but as someone else said, if you become a monster to defeat the monster, you still lost.
This is the kind of response I was looking for.
I'm not seeking to pile on the anti Israel sentiment but to genuinely understand what the basis for the Israeli position and supporters of it might be.
No I'm genuinely interested in how people rationalise the actions of Israel against the articles of the Geneva convention. There have been some thoughtful answers already which I appreciate.
My question to the politicians...
Has praying been working so far?
School shootings in the USA occur so frequently now that there is very clear evidence that prayer does not prevent them. Therefore , at what point should the strategy be changed to try something else? The most powerful people in the USA claim they have no power to stop this, yet can very significantly curtail abortion access I under the guise of protecting lives.
The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
There have been 416 school shootings since Columbine. Every time prayer is offered by politicians. Every time another school shooting was just around the corner.
The Geneva convention was established to minimise atrocities in conflicts. Israeli settlements in Gaza are illegal and violate the Geneva convention. Legality of Israeli settlements Article 51 of the Geneva convention prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian population yet Israel attacked hospitals with children inside. Whether you agree or not that Hamas were present, children cannot be viewed as combatants.so when no care was taken to protect them, does this not constitute a violation? According to save the children, 1 in 50 children in Gaza had been killed or injured. This is a very high proportion and does not show care being taken to prevent such casualties and therefore constitutes a violation.
So my question is simply, do supporters of Israel no longer support our believe in the Geneva convention, did you never, or how do you reconcile Israeli breaches of the Geneva convention? For balance I should add "do you not believe such violations are occurring and if so how did you come to this position?"
Answers other than only "they have the right to go after Hamas " please. The issue is how they are going after Hamas, not whether they should or not.
EDIT: Title changed to remove ambiguity about supporting Israel vs supporting their actions
Just because you don't like her music doesn't mean it's mediocre or that you are somehow more evolved. When it comes to personal taste, how do you decide who's opinion is the right one - like you have taken it upon yourself to do and gate keep 'good' music. Her music is undeniably popular and all of those people who like it would disagree with you about it being mediocre. So what makes you right and them wrong? There is no objectivity when it comes to things like music, only subjectivity.
Before you jump on me and label be a Taylor Swift fan, the big reveal is, I'm not. I have no problem with you saying "I think her music is mediocre" but that is different to saying " her music is mediocre" the former is an opinion, the latter is trying to paint an opinion as a fact.
This comment will probably not be received well simply because so many people seem to dislike Taylor Swift on here and will miss my point. Taylor Swift is irrelevant to my point, sub in any band or artist if you need to understand that.
You know it doesn't seem like all that long ago that people were being sued or threatened for playing music in shops or in the back office of a hotel and stuff like that. It might have been urban legend at the time when the music industry was over reacting to Napster, KaZaA, Limewire, Bearshare, etc, etc. but it is true that those venues officially need a license for any music they play in public. So how come a nationwide advertising campaign can make use of music, without the permission of the artist, and not be sued into oblivion by the RIAA? Or does the artist not own the copyright to their own work? Or does the RIAA sympathise more with gentle, kind Billionaires than nasty greedy non billionaires??
Russian warfare is 90% cyber these days. They troll, hack, spy and attempt to influence elections using the internet. Are they really going to cut off their ability to engage in those activities? It's like saying they will blow up their own weapons factories if people don't start catching their bullets.
I always found the journal model to be one of the best scams there is. Buy our journal. Written by you. Edited by you. Referreed by you. Based on research paid for with public money. The journal contribution is to sell the paper back to the people who provide their content.
He did a follow up study in 1998 co-authored by some people he met at a bus stop which confirmed these results. hoo cha