I’ll just use Firefox mobile with uBlock Origin then, literally anything is better than ads

Ha ha very funny. Except this is grammatically correct and not ambiguous. It would work with your joke interpretation if it said “who shot dead, unarmed, black man”

Or you don’t actually have an argument and are posturing.

Most countries around the world have a population smaller than California. The US is just really big. Even then, California alone has about 12% of the entire population of the US, the third most populated country.

If planes are safer than cars, why can’t I fly a Boeing 797-9 Dreamliner?

Chew on that for a while.

I love how this person made a good argument about energy storage and you just responded with speculation and an insult, not actually addressing the point. If it’s the same 3 points, you should be able to perfectly counter their argument without resorting to an ad hominem attack.

Why would golfscript be more verbose than some others? Isn’t it made for golfing?

Putin Learns Putin Behind Plot To Assassinate Putin

Wagner was Dmitry Utkin’s pseudonym. But I’m sure the guy was talking about Prigozhin.

Compared to what? Trump? DeSantis? I don’t think so.

Never say never, but I don’t think it matters all that much, with Trump in jail. But to answer your question, incumbent changing their running mate seems tantamount to admitting failure and you want people to view your administration as successful.

“You” doesn’t mean I’m talking to the bot, I’m using it as a general descriptor for a person. I could have said “I understand being cautious with one’s statements”, but that’s very formal and unnecessary in a comment on a social media website. I can easily imagine you reading a sentence like “You need to study really hard to get to Harvard” and think someone is talking to you personally instead of making a general statement.

Communication is a cooperative process, interpreting what others say maliciously and automatically assuming they made a mistake is the definition of “bad faith engagement”.

Edit: to clarify even further: since I commented on the text of the article, I’m replying to the summary. Maybe that’s the part you’re confused by.

Ukrainian officials also claimed their Air Force claimed it had destroyed fifteen Russian-made drones and carried out ten group attacks, the outlet reports.

That’s way too many qualifiers. I understand being cautious with your statements, but this is almost unreadable.

Who’d’ve thunk it?

Armenia is the weaker side. Azerbaijan has to deal with refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh because of Armenia but they have been overstepping their previous claims in recent years. I don’t see a good side to this, but currently Armenia is the least bad side.

So? Does that proof him wrong?

No. It makes him an absolute minority and not representative of the general demographic of Holocaust survivors. Which was my point.

You can find black people who are white supremacists, women who say universal suffrage was a mistake, any group can have people who have fringe positions, even ones that denigrate them. Finding a guy who believes what you believe but belongs to a discussed demographic is tokenism and has no place in any serious discussion.

“What I’m asking them to do is change their lifestyle three times a day,” he explained. “It’s not like supporting gay, women’s or civil rights, where all they have to do is stop discriminating.”

“There aren’t that many people willing to listen to this kind of presentation because it doesn’t leave them indifferent,” he said. “It’s not something you just do casually, like your typical TED talk.”

Even in his own view of himself he isn’t well received and his views are controversial and difficult to accept.

That their suffering matters as much as that of farm animals? That’s a disgusting preposition. If you compare those two things in the scale of harm, that’s an obvious conclusion.

You can find any representative of any group with any belief. It proves nothing - it’s just one guy, and plenty of Jews eat meat everyday and would consider his words insulting, the majority of Holocaust survivors included.

I don’t care about arguing about veganism. Just stop bringing up stuff like this. Also, do you think calling something a “modern holocaust” is not a comparison in terms of scale of harm? As opposed to every other time those words are used?

Edit: If you want to argue for veganism, stop bringing up Shoah. It’s disgusting, downplaying the severity of the genocide, and earns you no favors with the general population. It has negative convincing power.