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?
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.
And would you not agree that the easiest way to do that is to run away without fighting?
Can you elaborate on what you mean please?
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinese-communist-party
CCP stands for Chinese Communist Party
Enjoy my “shitposting” then. I won’t be engaging with someone that refuses to actually address the points that I raise. Again, this is not a post stating “yesterday was the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre” so your claim this time that “if the world would start shit posting every day would be memorial day to remember atrocities committed by your own government on your own people, and there is plenty.” makes no sense.
“You don’t need to say the literal words to mean something.” - By criticizing the CCP I am not in any way implying that America is good. It’s true that you CAN imply things without actually saying them, but it is disingenuous at best to assume that me criticizing the CCP is the same as me “actively contributing to the image of the US and its lapdogs as good guys”. I am very much able to hold the belief that the CCP is in the wrong and that USA isn’t perfect at the same time.
Goodbye.
No thanks. I don’t give a fuck about getting ratio’d. Let the people decide. Assuming this platform ever gets more traction, which it seems to be doing, the vast majority of the people that come here won’t be tankies so… no, no I don’t think I will go somewhere else.
Nice job trying to justify the Tiananmen Square massacre. Now can you justify the detention of 32 people and the restriction of the square itself which took place yesterday?
Okay, let’s go through this slowly and rationally.
First of all, this community is self described as being “News from around the world!” China is a part of the world and this is news from China. This is news from around the world. If you are trying to insinuate that any post involving news from China does not belong in this community then why did you not seem to take issue with this post that was also about China and was posted in this community?
Clearly you take issue with the fact that this news paints China in a bad light, not with the fact that it is about China to begin with. So your claim of “I really don’t care about what you believe, but what I do think is reasonable is that this is not world news.” VERY CLEARLY does not hold water.
Let’s move onto the next issue that I have with your thought process. You just spent quite some time defending the Tiananmen Square massacre and didn’t even respond in any way to the actual news article that I posted which is about restricting access to the physical location and detaining 32 people. This isn’t just a post saying “it’s the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre” which you seem to be defending.
You also state “It’s always what about, what about with you liberals. What about China, what about North Korea, what about Cuba, but why don’t you try and look a little bit under your own rug?”
I never said “what about” a single time. In fact, this post is not a response to anyone telling me anything so it wouldn’t make any sense for me to say “what about, what about”. Furthermore, I never claimed in this post or anywhere else for that matter that America is perfect. I even take issue with many of the things going on in America too. However, that is in NO WAY relevant to the news that I posted or the Tiananmen Square massacre.
So lets review, your claim that this post doesn’t belong in this community is absolutely ridiculous. You refuse to address the actual article that I posted about and instead just tried to justify the Tiananmen Square massacre instead. And finally, your last point was “well what about under YOUR rug” while claiming that I was the one saying “what about, what about”.
I gave reputable sources for my information. Please enlighten me as to how spreading this news and reminding everyone of the very real Tiananmen Square massacre that occurred on June 4th, 1989 is misinformation.
“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.”