La_Dolce_Vita

Not that uncommon on the Isle of Man? The impression I'm given from the use of personal mobile phone for anything to do with work is only that it is a cheap and sneaky way of saving an employer money and unfortunately there are too many people, especially younger people, who would think an employer is overstepping 'boundaries. The only benefit I can think of with using personal phones is just one of some convenience of by not bringing and using two phones. Over ten years ago. If employers placed an expectation on a new or existing employee to use their personal devices in any way for work then I think most people would have found that strange and hopefully refused.

It's a shame that Garwick Glen can't be turned into a public glen somehow, as it's supposed to have been one of the prettiest glens on the island.

But this is academic, I would hope. If the use of nuclear weapons, of whatever type, was even a serious consideration by any side in the context of this conflict then all good sense has completely been lost. It would be madness. The precedent (and risk of reciprocation) it would set is too dear a price for the world to pay for any nation's or alliance's war aims.

A peaceful takeover of the Donbas or the north of the country as well? What I was meaning is that if the Russians had gone in full force and tried wiping out Ukraine's infrastructure in the centre of the country then the shock and effects of that could really have put the Ukraine in a far more difficult position. If what Russia was after was annexation of the Donbas and punishment then it would have seemed the better option. It would have too late for the heavy NATO support. Unless I'm missing something, I'm sceptical of the view that they wanted to take over the WHOLE country. I can believe plans for Moldova but not so much the Ukraine. If that was planned then how could Russia have got it so wrong in their strategy. If they had wanted to conquer an intact land then doesn't marry up with making it more likely that an invasion is successful. And then how did Russia plan on holding the country once conquered, as the Ukrainians would continue to fight for years or decades. I am not sure what you saying about the nuclear weapons bit. It's possible that China was told about what Russia was planning. Maybe they werent. We don't know. But I am not sure what significance there is to this, as the US is just as duplicitous in its dealings. And the US and Britain are escalating the situation themselves by encouraging the Ukraine to disregard negotiating, as the military support continues and with the introduction of Finland to NATO at this time, and with Sweden next. I am not surprised that Russia is emboldened to rattle the sable by posturing with these nuclear weapons, as dangerous as that might become.

He may have been told porkies but miscalculated, without a doubt. The invasion campaign was limited. Russia didn't go straight in and wipe out Ukraine infrastructure. Why didn't Russia take down power stations, railways, bridges, water processing, etc. across the country? It must have thought that this was not necessary and possibly to avoid incurring too much disdain across the world. That was achieved. Only the west and Japan were up in arms about the invasion from the start. But clearly he didn't realise how much support Ukraine would get. You mention 'what ifs' but I'm assuming you mean a retreat closer to Russian borders but not the Ukraine pushing Russia out of the Donbas and Crimea entirely. I just don't think that's likely. If it did happen, then there is nothing to stop the conflict rumbling on. Russia is going to walk away from this with something. If it doesn't get something then it would only embolden them to fight on. Ukraine doesn't have the ability to entirely exhaust Russia. Failed 'special op' by the Ukrainians? Who is training people for doing something like that?

Oh god. I jumped ahead and thought you meant 'Roxanne'

I don't think enough is known here to assume that negotiations would just be treated a tool for buying time. The first thing that comes to mind when you mention forcing them retreat is what comes next? Does retreat means the end of war here? And what the risk of escalation in the use of tactical nuclear weapons? If you really think that Putin is so single-minded on invasion and holding territory then I would have thought the risks of escalation are more likely. And this is opposed to any view of the man that takes other considerations into account, such as the effects on Russian's geopolitical position, economic and military strength. With the failures of the Russian military (and the overt US support), it would have been apparent to him months into the conflict that it was a mistake to invade the Ukraine. Worth bearing in mind that Russia didn't throw everything it had into this conflict from the start to cripple the Ukraine. If he had then things might very well have been different. He miscalculated. Would you not think that with everything that has happened that he would be deterred from aggression again in this part of the world? I know you don't think this but I don't know why you think a retreat changes everything.

Which countries are those? I don't know how you think the other poster cares about anyone but himself but presuming that you say this because he is questioning the lack of unqualified support for Ukraine, it seems to betray that you think that military support for Ukraine is done out of caring for what happens to its people. I don't know where you get that idea from.

I assume you're joking. If you seriously think that my argument hints at (Russian?) indoctrination because I use the older or outdated terms for referring to the region the that's a really stupid thing to coke out with.

Excerpt from the news: '...and they did not ask a pupil to leave the room during a discussion on gender identities. Within the conversation around gender identities, a pupil asked a guest speaker how many genders there were. They replied that there 'could be as many as 72' gender identities.'

Yes, a bomb threat about degenerates and drag queen is a lie from a bigot or just someone who is crackers and any sex ed lies are from bigoted people but the former get punished severely because of the threats. This lie has a threat of killing people. Where do you draw the line with speech? I wouldn't be including deluded religious people making up shit about sex ed classes. I would include bomb threat hoaxes. People do face the consequences of lies. They look like liars and get a lot of criticism and disrespect. I don't know it about it setting the island back. I don't think any of the drag queen drama has set the island back. It's a lot of fuss over something that turned out to not be true. If anything, some of the things that have been discussed as part of this drama have brought more visibility and education to adults than they would have had otherwise. The certain setback is the hold placed on sex education.

I'm not sure I'd agree. It's not even certain where Russia would want to permanently occupy Ukraine, nevermind advance on to Moldova. Any occupation of the entirety of Ukraine will lead to neverending conflict against that occupation that will drain the life out of its economy. Moldova would worsen that. And then what's to say that the lessen hasn't been learned by Putin? The invasion was a terrible mistake for Russia given all that it has cost Russia. Why does removal of Putin make that necessary to prevent occupation of all of the Ukraine and Moldova? No. I think you do need to ask the Ukrainian population. I think the need to be asked how much they're willing to sacrifice for the Donbas and Crimes. How many lives and the devastation of their country. How long are they willing to go on sacrificing? Though, of course, I am bearing in mind that what seems acceptable now might not be when people are picking themselves up years later and re-evaluate.

Why? I'm assuming you don't mean that if you tell a lie then you should get gaoled. Do you never lie? There are certain things that we have in society that deal with speech. For LGBT people that includes dealing with how speech is used to oppress. Some of that is law and some is education.

Inciting violence seems understandable. Inciting hatred is another thing. Yet in the context of all of this whole drama, the most that might be said is that a lie is being used to suppress recognition of LGBT people and practices. That's a really bad thing but it wouldn't be a direct action to incite hatred. That would only be incidental if it arose. If you went on the news and lied about a company and their share prices dropped, would that be a crime? Maybe you're right. What's the law there? I'm inclined to think that shouldn't be a crime.

Yet it is supporting Ukraine. Do you think it is worth fighting for my chicken, car, house and garden if a couple of family members get killed in the crossfire? And in addition, the fighting means my neighbours end poorer, the whole neighbourhood struggles harder for food and water supplies, and everyone becomes more financially dependent on the richest fella in the community. What if the whole neighbouring went up in flames with everyone dead? I don't think your analogy is a good one but I'm giving you suitable scenario to go along with it

That bit about putting Putin back in his box is a nice notion but it isn't why NATO is supporting the Ukraine. It's something incidental. Same with Saddam Hussain. British people can justify to themselves that it was ok because it's good to get rid of these tyrants but that's not why the British were there and it isn't in keeping with the UN Charter. If countries went around getting rid of bad statesmen and malign regimes then plenty of US Presidents and UK Prime Ministers would have been in trouble for war crimes or because of the threat they pose to people in their own country and other countries. Most not as bad as Saddam in personality but how are we evaluating these things? War is a nasty business and in some circumstances there is a imperative to fight back but that something nothing about how long you will fight and to what cost. If a large part of Ukraine is devastated, is that worth it for the goal or worth it for the lives lost? Yes, it would be best to ask the population what price they want to pay. That's hasn't happened. And it's the US and Britain principally pushing the Ukraine to continue whilst devaluing negotiations. And then given the costs for the rest of the world, such as from Europe's population, much is ignored.

That's a strange misreading of my post. How have you inferred this? You're missing the point. How much is this war going to cost the Ukraine, Europe and the rest of the world in lives, general welfare, and in economic and environmental damage and a worsened geopolitical arena? Is another year's fighting acceptable if Russia somehow gives up? Two years? Five or ten? And making a fuss over the Ukraine (territorial) sovereignty is right, it's just a matter of how much it matters. For countries like Britain and the US, it more often doesn't matter much at all when we or the Americans deciding to embark on military action. NATO isn't supporting Ukraine and to the extent that it is doing so for moral reasons. Moral reasons may embolden but they do not direct things here.

But there are no hate crimes though. Is inciting hate a thing? I hope not. Sounds like dodgy and arbitrary stuff to have a view on. But even if there were, would we really want to criminalise this sort of thing? I wouldn't. Someone makes a claim like this and the natural and common sense thing is to provide the truth.

Yeah, I'm serious. The propaganda in the west about this war has territorial integrity made out as some sacred thing. Although it is very important, it isn't worth a long war for Ukraine and for the world. It certainly isn't why NATO is so invested in it, so yeah, the sooner it ends the better whether that means Russia holds on to territory or not.

I hope everything is done to make sure that happens but so little is happening to achieve it. This seems to be going down the line of one side trying to destroy the other and that's not something will happen soon and it's incredibly dangerous. If it goes on for years and the Ukraine somehow gets the Crimes and Donbas then what would already be a pyrrhic victory for Europe if it finishes tomorrow would be a disaster for the world and the Ukraine. The Donbas and Crimea aren't worth the mounting casualties and deaths, the overturning of progress on climate change, a Russian that moves closer to China, the changed scope of the America military club (NATO), a weakening of European economic power and a return to dependence on the US. And then the winners will certainly be the energy and defence companies. Earlier I would have supported Ukraine yet believed that negotiations needed to happen as soon as possible to end the war. Now I'm not bothered who is defeated, as long as the war is over as soon as possible.

I'm not. All should be treated with no respect.

1. Tough one. It's an irrational belief that does bring a lot of joy. Yet it has unique qualities such as very limited scope in its bearing on reality. It's singularly about one night and presents. And has the rule where children are taught or will learn that such belief is false. Is it ok to lie to children to bring them much joy knowing that they will accept the truth in the future and understand why the lie was told? I think so. But I can see the argument of it being to lie as little as possible. 2. It's irrational if there is no good evidence for it. It's better to be rational here, if unnecessary disappointment is better to be avoided. 3. The view of the painting is a reaction and description of personal experience. That's quite different to a claim made on a shared reality. The person is not describing how things are for others. The painting is something that exists that others can see, feel, and touch.

Religion isn't something wholly intrinsic to the person. Religious claims are a set of claims about the external world. Almost all Gods are not purely personal Gods. And they're fair game because more people have less to fear about being open about how they are irrational. Fewer people are likely to be ostracised and criticised by family and society. Unfortunately, possibly because most people with some sort of belief in Britain have very fluffy cherry-picked views of their God, which cause less obvious harm, a lot of people think they're fine.

It's not about 'gods are bad', it's about believing things without good evidence is bad. The fact that there is no good evidence and therefore no good reason to believe in the Christian God means that belief in this God is a bad thing. The same with other gods where evidence is lacking. Why shouldn't all beliefs be critiqued or evaluated to see whether they are true or not? That's what we normally do, otherwise we wouldn't know what is true. The thing about genders is still about truth and evidence but it's the evidence needed is very different. And the problem is defining what gender actually is and what it means to be certain genders. (Completely outside of this conversation,this 73 genders shouldn't be treated with a pinch of salt. There is no evidence that there are. It can be instantly dismissed. Nobody has done any study to get to that number. It might be that there are many genders and those who disagree with there being just man and woman can at most say that there more than two and that these genders shift and change over time. Claiming some fixed numbers like 73 is just nonsense.)

You're not understanding what I mean, as maybe I haven't explained it well. I am not talking about people being stopped from choosing a church. I am talking about how we as a society should deal better with these bullshit beliefs, maybe in a similar way that we do with horoscopes or, better, hearing about the fallacies of thought that lead people to gamble money or get wrapped up in conspiracy theories. We treat Christianity with a respect that it isn't due and that sort of thinking only helps to get people wrapped up in these beliefs. If a friend came up to you and said they believed in manx fairies, you'd hopefully pick at that to work out what's going on there. How do they have evidence for this? And we might find ourselves still a bit creeped out that this is serious, unless you have good evidence. We just don't do that much in Christianity. It's ignorance largely. We think that tradition and popularity gives these things some credence and we don't realise the profound effect they have on people's lives. All I am saying is that we as a society should be more adult and compassionate about we treat others.