if we were friends I might call them the way they want
You specifically said you would actively misgender them, unless they're your friend, in which case you "might" not actively go out of your way to do so. That's a dick move, simple as.
And no, you can't pretend that answer isn't real by adding "I would never interact with or see a trans person" because that's not how life works.
Honestly, nothing much of value in that comment, just a long winded version of "labour=Tories=republicans=MAGA so Labour bad"
Despite how a lot of articles about this are worded, this isn't just another tory-esque NHS cut. NHS England is an independent governing body for the NHS created by the Tories about a decade ago. It's job was effectively to delegate responsibility for NHS management decisions away from the government.
So whether this ends up helping or harming the NHS will basically come down to how smoothly the important roles from NHS England can be covered by the civil service, and how well the health secretary is able to utilise the more direct control over the NHS that he'll inherit.
Indeed, I've seen a lot of people thinking this is doctors/nurses/other hospital staff getting cut, rather than an arms-length administrative/bureaucratic body
So what you're saying is that if you don't know the particular person, you will actively go out of way to be an asshole to them, but if they're someone you care about, then you'd pretend to respect trans people enough not to intentionally fuck with them.
They're pointing out the stupidity of your argument, since it depends on ignoring the fact that the remaining 5% exist, in the same way that classifying everything as those two elements requires ignoring the fact that the other 1% of matter exists
Well yeah, there was a deal on nuclear disarmament until Trump tore it up. Not surprising they're not interested in going through all that again just so he can back out of it for a second time as soon as he wants to look tough.
In the British monarchy, the monarch ("the Crown") and the person who is the current monarch are considered distinct "people" with their own separate possessions (i.e. King Charles as the Crown owns property separately to Charles Windsor the private citizen).
So these oaths are meant to be pledging loyalty to the Crown, in its role as the embodiment of the British state, as opposed to the king personally.
The commons library is a treasure trove of information about the UK's fascinating and complex constitution, I'd strongly recommend giving it a read if you're interested in this sort of stuff!
In particular, I'd recommend checking out The United Kingdom constitution – a mapping exercise, which is a document intended to be a reasonably thorough summary of the UK's constitution and where it comes from. It's ~300 pages so I wouldn't recommend reading the whole thing, but it's great as a reference for the parts you find interesting.
66% of wars end in some form of compromise (source), and it's highly unlikely there's a scenario where Ukraine causes the total collapse of the Russian government, or that the fighting just naturally dies down.
It's all well and good to say "no peace with the bad guys" but that's a position you're taking because you don't want to negotiate with Russia, not because doing so necessarily achieves the best outcome for Ukraine. "They're mean so I won't do any form of diplomacy" is, frankly, dogshit statecraft.
If you want to actually understand how wars do, and specifically the Ukraine war could actually end, I strongly recommend reading that CSIS report I referenced.
Well because every war ends with a peace treaty. Ignoring that fact now and making it harder to do so in the future just because a peace treaty isn't viable now.
All I'm arguing for is making decisions while aware of all the factors? I don't understand what you're disagreeing with, really
Well yes, I am aware that Russia has violated numerous treaties. But I'm not arguing for the treaties to be the same, not even for a peace treaty to happen now. Nor am I saying we shouldn't give some portion of that money to Ukraine.
Are you of the opinion that trump can bring peace to Ukraine quickly?
I feel like I'm being pretty clear that I don't think anything close to this, no? But your questions seem to be on the basis that I do.
The point I am actually making is that at some point in the future there will be some form of peace negotiations to end the war. That's not coming from a Trump-esque "peace now because I say so" angle, but from a "every conflict ends in some form of settlement eventually" angle. The fact that this money would act as significant leverage in that scenario means that this isn't just magic free money, but a tradeoff to be made.
That doesn't mean it's the wrong tradeoff, necessarily, just that to actually decide whether or not that's the case, you do need to consider that it is one.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here, are you arguing that we should aim to keep the war going indefinitely? Because the only way a war ends without a negotiated settlement is with the total dissolution of one of the sides in the war. I don't see Ukraine fully annexing Russia any time soon, frankly.
The war does need to end sometime, even if that time isn't now, and creating a peace treaty that's self-enforcing is the only way that works. If using that money as leverage (e.g. the funds are gradually unlocked as the treaty phases progress) makes a lasting peace viable that otherwise wouldn't be, then it's an option worth considering.
I'm flattered 😆