This isn't necessarily a message to transgender people as individuals, but more a message to their followers that they cannot use their religion as an excuse for their bigotry and ignorant hatred.
Just because it may not make a difference overnight it doesn't mean that it isn't a step in the right direction.
Yes. This is a inflammatory headline purely to try and push an agenda.
There was literally a poll a couple of months ago that showed something like 80% of Ukrainians were in favour of not having elections.
Not to even mention that Ukraine is under Marshall Law, and per their laws disallows elections. And don't even get me started on the entire premise of running elections in a country where a quarter of the landmass is under enemy occupation and the logistics of getting votes from 100s of thousands of deployed troops and the serious security concerns of the election itself from Russian attacks.
In my opinion Newsweek have just outed themselves here and the question is for who?
Autism is where I think that this get difficult, and where I think a lot of the responses might miss.
Gaming is really seems to be a 'specisl interest', especially if it's one game in particular. And taking that away without any replacement isn't good, since it's what your brain needs to self regulate. It's not so much an addiction as nicotine or alcohol can be, but more like food, or hydration. You need a method of regulation.
If you're worried about the effects of gaming specifically, then the only thing is to find another special interest that grips you in the way that games/that game does. It sounds like you have an idea already on what that might be. All I can say is that you should try and throw yourself into it head first!
It says they wanted to protect the unborn baby. Not the born one.
Duh.
It's about time. The 'Right' has been well ahead of the game in the way they've been able to weaponise social media for a long time.
Don't be disengenuous. It's more than that and you know it.
I would like to think I would be some kind of PMC trying to survive in a quarantined zone after mass evacuation. The Russian government has cordoned off the area as a result of some kind of conspiracy by a secretive 'Umbrella Corp' style mega corp and has stranded the Russian and Western PMCs that were caught in the area when it closed.
But in reality I would be a Scav and almost immediately killed by some lvl70 Kappa chad.
Man, Putin sure showed everyone by refusing to renew the Black Sea Grain Deal, eh.
It would really put pressure on the world and Ukraine if they no longer 'ensured security' of Ukrainian shipping out of the Back Sea.
Oh wait. Seems that the Black Sea fleet has been shown up to be the wet armpit it always was by checks notes a bunch of remote controlled speed boats and flying explosives.
The discussion is about the pointlessness of the magazine restrictions. I'm aware of ballistics and the ease of different systems to shoot, but since it's not about that, it wasn't mentioned.
And in regards to the final point, yes. That is literally what is being said.
Cigarettes are consumable. And ICE cars are naturally being phased out for EV examples, not being banned with no alternative.
The examples are non sequitur.
Those of all castes are fighting on the Ukrainian side.
The FBI say the median number of shots to end a citizen involved shooting is 6 rounds. That's a person v person shooting.
Would you still feel comfortable with a revolver knowing that there was a chance you would need to use it?
Personally I don't agree with the concept of weapons for citizen self defence (vs people), it getting to that point is a total and systematic failure of every system in place that lead to that point; from mental healthcare, to education. Law enforcement to the media broadcast. However the topic is the US, and they are what they are at present. And it's a legally legitimate option.
The fact that I am arguing is that magazine size is so completely irrelevant. It's a quick fix easy sticky plaster political knee jerk, just like every other stupid and shitty ban or regulation.
The fact is that you can't ban gun in the US. It's just impossible. There's too many of them that any change in law in that regard would take generations to see effect and there are too many people that live in circumstances where there is a genuine reason for ownership and use (as you know living in Australia. Drop Bears).
People in the US need to admit that the solution is from the bottom. Improving education, mental healthcare, reducing extremism, eradicating the constant divisiveness in everything, etc etc. These things have only really become real in the last 15 years against 100s of years of ingrained firearm 'rights'. But that's too hard. So just make a piece of plastic that's a bit smaller than what it once was.
But there is no chance. Lavrov has done nothing but talk complete and utter shit from day one. It's his job as Putin's lap dog. To create sound bites that Russian supporters can latch on to.
He knows he's talking pure shit, everyone with an actual brain knows he is. He doesn't care that the world laughs at him when he moves his mouth. Because that's not who he's speaking to.
He's speaking to the Tucker Carlson/Fox News/GB News/other nation's equivalent type troglodytes who think that Russia are doing the right thing and blah blah blah.
It's all propaganda.
Imagine if Goebbels told you, as a Jew that if you wanted your kids back all you had to do was travel to Berlin. Pinky promise! Of course you wouldn't even give it a second to consider. You would know it was complete bullshit.
Going into this reply with the understanding that we both know that a perfectly legal reason for firearm ownership and use in the USA is self defence.
So with that in mind, shooting isn't easy. And people don't just stop because you shot them once, or twice. Just take a look at the infinite examples where actually trained professionals have had to fire multiple accurate rounds to stop a threat.
The issue isn't with the weapons themselves (and contrary to your comment, belt fed weapons are no less legal to own than any other semi auto weapon) it's with the restrictions to the individuals that can own them. The checks aren't stern or thorough enough.
If you take a step out of your US centric view for a moment you'll realise that many countries in Europe have civilian gun ownership laws permitting all the same types of rifles and pistols and shotguns as the US. With all the same standard capacity magazines/optics/accessories. And yet very little to no firearm related deaths outside of organised/gang crime.
It's important to maintain perspective. You become extreme to the opposite then all it does is increase extremism and you achieve nothing.
Edit: downvotes. Cool. Where am I factually incorrect or haven't added to the conversation?
That is exactly what makes this 'invite' from Lavrov so fucking insidious.
Because it makes it look like you don't care about your children if you don't. It's a yet another weapon deployed by a side that are constantly firing all kinds of weapons.
An act of war is only such if the other side recognises it as such.
So if Mexico decide to see this has an isolated incident that can sorted out with some phone calls and hand wringing then it ‘quite literally’ isn’t.
And of course that’s what going to happen. To the point where it’s not even worth mentioning that war will happen. In short, a rediculous comment.
Is that it?
That can be said about any app.
Didn't happen in a vacuum though, did it.
Do not confuse me saying that with sympathising with Hamas. It is possible to recognise that both sides have bloody hands, and have done for decades.