• 0 Posts
  • 59 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle







  • No. They denied that a drone hit them. To deny that something is an attack, you have to first admit that something happened that could be interpreted as an attack. Like a drone hitting your soil. They denied that that happened.

    Do you just not understand what you’re reading? Is that the problem? You said: “keywords means of attack”, which makes me think that you think that “means of attack” is somehow a signifier for your point. Which, it’s not. You just don’t understand what that means.

    “Means of attack” in this case means a drone. If Ukraine had claimed that Russia accidentally hit Romanian territory with a missile, then “means of attack” would be a missile.

    The full sentence, then, with translation (since you apparently don’t understand what it means), is:

    “At no time did Russia’s means of attack [drone] generate direct military threats [cause damage, or impact, or explode] on Romanian national territory or waters. [within Romanian borders]”

    Which is saying the exact same thing that the pithy one line summary from the article said above this quote:

    The Romanian Defence Ministry said Romania was not hit.

    Romania denied that a drone hit them. End of story.



  • Incorrect. The position of the Romanian government was very much that the first drone didn’t hit them:

    The Romanian Defence Ministry said Romania was not hit.

    “The ministry of defence categorically denies information from the public space regarding a so-called overnight situation during which Russian drones would have fallen in Romania’s national territory,” it said.

    “At no time did Russia’s means of attack generate direct military threats on Romanian national territory or waters.”




  • It’s a fool’s errand to try to make sense of the US justice system. One of the main problems is that there are so many laws, each with their own individual sentencing guidelines or suggested financial penalties for breaking them. The police are in charge of enforcing the laws (and ruining random people’s lives as a little treat), the courts are occasionally in charge of making sure that the laws comport with the constitution, and the legislators in a given area make laws for their area. But nobody is in charge of sorting everything and making sure that all of the laws on the books make sense with each other. Or that the sentencing guidelines are sane and reflect a certain set of values. It’s a fucking mess.

    So, when you have a case like serial rapist Danny Masterson, you can’t really compare it with a case for anti-masturbation, brown white supremacist Enrique Tarrio. Different sets of people with different goals and beliefs wrote the laws against rape and sedition, and nobody has ever taken the time to make sure they are in the right places on the punishment scale.



  • I think that, in the moment, online arguments can feel extremely real and heated. But, then you go out and do other things, and it becomes less and less important over time.

    Of course, then you come back and find a notification from one of those morons you’ve been arguing with, and then you’re right back in it. So I guess just practice? Like, just keep reminding yourself that it doesn’t actually matter, even if it feels like it does.

    Also, shrooms help. I remember I got into a heated snit with some idiot online an hour or so before eating a bunch of caps. Then, when I was trying to explain what the argument was about to one of my friends, I couldn’t finish because hearing myself explain it became apparent just how ridiculous the entire thing was. I think psychedelics just give you perspective that you’re lacking in your normal day-to-day life.