Information flow can never go backwards. There’s plenty of examples of reporters or even social media compromising military operations. In at least a few cases, it has lead to the destruction of military assets. Once broadcast, the damage is done.

Trying to force reporters to think hard about what they are broadcasting is a good thing, from the point of view of national defence.

Is it normal to allow people to send military information to your enemy?

I’m not a huge fan of either of the two belligerent, but this is not exactly an unreasonable position to take. And they are at least putting reporters on notice.

And we provide Israel weapons to bomb Gaza.

We used to have an agreement, didn’t we? What happened to it?

Oh. Right.

Are they running out of people to murder in Gaza? Or do they just need someone to fight back, so they can look oppressed?

Such things have to be wire guided, or autonomous. Subs have really good wire deployment systems, so it’s not something out of the question, but water blocks radio signals quite effectively.

I mean, that’s like claiming that he lied repeatedly and vociferously that jumping in the pool will not lead to getting wet. There is no way to believe that lie aside from deep, deep ignorance.

That seems incredibly unlikely.

Once again, I long for precidented times.

Did any of the passengers on those 7,000 flights get any compensation? Or just a “so sorry, out of our control?”

Looks like delta tried to dismiss the passengers claims, but they are being sued for it.

This sort of thing is supposed to discourage the bots that reddit is plagued with.

Was there ever any doubt?

I myself like to argue things just to argue them. It’s a good way to find out if I’m right, or to learn thing I didn’t know, and correct my misunderstandings.

But I know that’s not everyone’s idea of a good time.

So you don’t want our opinions, do you? You just want people to agree with you.

His thoughts seem to be that they share almost no characteristics, no philosophical underpinnings, and that there seems to be no direct path from the one to the other.

What do you think a discussing of “proto-X” is going to look like, if not comparing it to other things looking for similarities and possible links?

On this, I think we can agree.

The one does not flow directly from the other. A better world requires some protecting from each other, which means giving up some freedoms. A system of complete and total freedom would not be good for most people.

However, as Franken said, it is important not to give up essential freedoms. What freedoms, exactly, count as “essential” ones? Hard to say. We should have a thread to discuss it.

No, it isn’t.

What does that have to do with my claim?

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but a lot of the trouble in the US was caused by people using their freedom to do terrible things to people, and to set the stage for more of the same.

Provided they don’t touch freedom to not breed, and we don’t put racist ducks in charge, I think that works be the easiest for me to bear.

But I don’t want kids, so it’s not much of a sacrifice.

I have specific interests.

I’m just there for the porn, these days. Any sort of meaningful interaction with people happens elsewhere.