Senokir

"Why it matters: Xi's erosion of established guidelines for succession creates uncertainty and puts China at risk for high-level power struggles in the future."

My speculation as to why they would do such a horrible thing is because they know they can't hold the position and want to cause as much damage as possible before they leave. Why would they bomb civilian targets like apartment buildings?

We do a little bit of shameless self promoting without disclosing it I see

It's disgusting what Russia is willing to do just to spite the rest of the world.

Here is an article that isn't blocked behind a paywall and that accurately attributes the damage to Russian forces.

Evacuations begin after a major dam in southern Ukraine is heavily damaged https://www.npr.org/2023/06/06/1180345954/kakhovka-dam-southern-ukraine-damaged-russia

"The botched launch triggered false alarms in South Korea and Japan. Cell phones in Seoul blared out warnings to prepare to seek shelter, while alerts in Japan advised residents on the island of Okinawa to take cover. Both were later canceled when it became clear that the projectile posed no threat."

"South Korea's military released pictures of what appear to be pieces of the rocket, which it salvaged from sea, possibly allowing the South to analyze the North's rocket technology."

These quotes from the article would suggest that the more trustworthy sources of Japan and South Korea feel confident that it did in fact fail. Apparently the second stage of the rocket which was supposed to take the satellite much higher into the atmosphere failed. That isn't the type of thing that you can easily hide.

I appreciate the heads up. I just applied to slrpnk.net which also blocks lemmygrad.ml so I should be good for now hopefully.

First of all, if you didn't mean to imply it that's one thing, but it is clear to me that "Depends on if the invaders plan to genocide the people or not. The threat of genocide should influence a leader to fight. The cost of genocide outweighs lives lost in conflict." implies that whether or not you should fight an invading force "depends" on the threat of genocide. The word depends in this context means that the outcome will be different if there is or is not genocide. So let's not say that you DIDN'T imply it because you did. Misspeaking is fine, misrepresenting what you said after the fact is disingenuous and reduces your credibility in my eyes which makes it harder for me to engage in a meaningful way with you.

Now that we've established that you believe that fighting back against a hostile invading force is a reasonable course of action you have moved the goal posts back to claim that while fighting back (which Ukraine is doing) is fine, the fact that you view them as dependent on foreign countries to support their ability to fight means that they shouldn't fight back? Clearly it isn't a gamble since Ukraine has been successfully defending for nearly a year and a half. Of course they are also losing lives in the war, but not only are they losing lives at a FAR lower rate than Russia, but even in your perfect hypothetical where a country is invaded by a hostile force and can successfully defend without receiving any aid from any outside sources, they will still lose lives in that successful defense.

Well again, the definition of veganism specifically states "as far as is possible and practicable" (typed before your edit) which is meant to cover cases in which someone is literally unable to maintain a life without animal products. In that case they should aim to reduce their consumption of animal products as much as they can even if it isn't down to zero. That being said, I don't think that that situation applies to essentially anyone living in a modern society. There are plenty of vegan options in grocery stores that don't require any more time to make than you would otherwise spend driving to a fast food restaurant, waiting in line, and then driving back to your original route/home. In fact, I would argue that if I stay home and throw together a vegan meal consisting of things that are able to be quickly heated up/eaten raw that I will be able to finish preparing that meal before my friend who goes out at the same time to buy fast food. And even if you have to spend an extra 3 minutes to make vegan food that is hardly an insurmountable inconvenience. Claiming that a few extra minutes of food preparation is worth more than the lives of all of the animals that you would have to sacrifice in order to avoid that inconvenience isn't a reasonable take in my opinion.

ETA: additionally, there are tons of meals that you can make with essentially zero prep time. For example, I eat rice based dishes all the time by just throwing some rice and veggies in a rice cooker, turning it on and walking away until it beeps. Sure it takes some time to actually cook, but the actual time that I am required to spend making it is essentially non-existent.

You said that if the invader intends to commit genocide that that should influence the leader of the country being invaded to fight, right? That implies that if the invader does NOT intend to commit genocide that you shouldn't fight, you should instead flee, correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth here so correct me if I'm wrong please. Do you think they should fight in either case or am I understanding you correctly in that they should run if there is no threat of genocide?

So if Ukraine invades Russia and threatens to commit genocide then Russia should just flee and give them as much territory as they want right?

Edit: excuse me, I misread your comment. That's my fault. Let me rephrase. If Ukraine invades Russia without intending to commit genocide then Russia should flee and give them as much land as they want right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that what you're trying to say when you use the word "classist" is that eating vegan is more expensive and that the person who is struggling to make ends ~~meat~~ (edit: "meet" not "meat" lol. Slip of the tongue) and has to work two jobs cannot afford to be vegan, therefore by saying that they have a moral obligation to be vegan I am being classist right?

Again, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you but assuming that's your argument, here are some studies which have come to the opposite conclusion, finding instead that vegan consumers spend less money on average than omnivores. Furthermore, fast food in general is significantly more expensive regardless of dietary makeup of the meal so it isn't reasonable in my opinion to claim that someone struggling to make ends meet can only realistically feed themselves with fast food.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800915301488?via%3Dihub https://agrifoodecon.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40100-022-00224-9 https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2022/07/26/plant-based-now-cheaper-than-meat-in-the-netherlands-vegan-burgers-are-on-average-78-cents-cheaper-per-kg

To reiterate, if someone truly does have no other options than to eat meat then eating meat does not go against the idea of being vegan. I simply believe that if you live in our modern society and have the ability to purchase your own food then you are inherently making decisions everyday about whether or not you want to be vegan. If you are so poor that you have to go to a food bank or beg for food then that's a different story, but even then my understanding is that places like food banks will do their best to accommodate you still. It is very easy to let our brains play tricks on us which they absolutely do in order to protect us from the feeling of cognitive dissonance. If you have evidence to suggest that a vegan lifestyle is more expensive than that of a non-vegan I would be happy to look it over, but the information that I found did not support that claim.