No. Simply no. You don't get to compromise on human rights. People in privilege don't get to tell people who are being oppressed that they just have to compromise on existing. That's ridiculous. They're absolutely aiding and abetting. Rowling and her fascist bigot friends wanted to report pulled and they pulled it. They did everything the enemy wanted.
As for what I know, I know that the Amnesty of today is not the same as the Amnesty of 20 years ago. Maybe you need to learn that too because I don't have as much faith in them as you have. This is not a one-off this is another black mark in a disturbing trend. I do not trust them at all.
Can you focus on villains and ignore institutions that aid and abet them? This is hardly Amnesty's only shameful failure in recent years.
Would the better option not be to pressure them into removing the current leadership and culture that is causing them to betray their purpose? To let them know this is unacceptable instead if endorsing it as you suggest?
I'm not entirely sure you meant to respond to me since none of your comment really seems to match up with mine. Particularly that second half.
However if you did mean to respond to me, I find your first sentence incredibly telling. Look how you worded that. He wants to spare them. He wants. You've betrayed the exact mindset I'm talking about. The idea that he owns them. That he gets to take make decisions on behalf of them because he owns them. That's exactly what I'm talking about. A pervasive mindset that family is property to the father. That children are property of their parents in general.
It's a disturbingly prevalent mindset really. The idea that the patriarch, the pater familias, literally owns the family. That his wife and children are possessions to do with as he pleases. In ancient Rome it was litteral. He could kill them if he wished. Not even unique to Rome. Its still around today. A sick aspect of conservative ideology that persists and infects society the world over.
Its the sickening undercurrent to conservative "parents rights" arguments.
150 years ago was 1870s, little bit after the French Revolution. The Mountain referred to Robespierre and his compatriots who sat at the top of the assembly. Hence the mountain, up high. As opposed to valley whe the the Girondists sat.
That is a hell of a phrase.
The hell it can with these hamburger meat prices.
No. Simply no. You don't get to compromise on human rights. People in privilege don't get to tell people who are being oppressed that they just have to compromise on existing. That's ridiculous. They're absolutely aiding and abetting. Rowling and her fascist bigot friends wanted to report pulled and they pulled it. They did everything the enemy wanted.
As for what I know, I know that the Amnesty of today is not the same as the Amnesty of 20 years ago. Maybe you need to learn that too because I don't have as much faith in them as you have. This is not a one-off this is another black mark in a disturbing trend. I do not trust them at all.
Can you focus on villains and ignore institutions that aid and abet them? This is hardly Amnesty's only shameful failure in recent years.
Would the better option not be to pressure them into removing the current leadership and culture that is causing them to betray their purpose? To let them know this is unacceptable instead if endorsing it as you suggest?
Did you just call human rights a pet cause?
They already divided the house by betraying the people they are supposed to speak for in an effort to appease bigots.
Aren't there some pretty strict laws about taking control of an airplane like that?
Not very well if Kingdom Come Deliverance has taught me anything.
Everything is so stupid.
Its not as universal as you are suggesting here. I've seen it before but there are certainly no cards like this in the boxes I've inherited.
Because it fits on a little card. Which everyone used to keep recipes on for a long time. Little boxes full of recipe cards.
I'm not entirely sure you meant to respond to me since none of your comment really seems to match up with mine. Particularly that second half.
However if you did mean to respond to me, I find your first sentence incredibly telling. Look how you worded that. He wants to spare them. He wants. You've betrayed the exact mindset I'm talking about. The idea that he owns them. That he gets to take make decisions on behalf of them because he owns them. That's exactly what I'm talking about. A pervasive mindset that family is property to the father. That children are property of their parents in general.
No they weren't.
Seems like a missed opportunity on your part.
Why haven't you?
It's a disturbingly prevalent mindset really. The idea that the patriarch, the pater familias, literally owns the family. That his wife and children are possessions to do with as he pleases. In ancient Rome it was litteral. He could kill them if he wished. Not even unique to Rome. Its still around today. A sick aspect of conservative ideology that persists and infects society the world over.
Its the sickening undercurrent to conservative "parents rights" arguments.
150 years ago was 1870s, little bit after the French Revolution. The Mountain referred to Robespierre and his compatriots who sat at the top of the assembly. Hence the mountain, up high. As opposed to valley whe the the Girondists sat.
Seems like a silly reason not to bother trying to get paid more though.
It being risky would justify low upfront pay with more on the backend. Not low pay period.
Schools, bridges, hospitals, power plants, water facilities, etc... You know war crimes.