I’d hazard that the absences can be pretty easily explained by the episodes of excessive drinking.

Did you see that ludicrous display last night?

Certainly agree that I’ve never asked or been asked about this before!

My original thing, though, was that it couldn’t be used interchangeably for fractions or percentages, but could for whole numbers. So your example with 50% clearly doesn’t work, but 3 times more and 3 times as much could more easily mean the same thing.

I can absolutely see where you and that article are coming from, but it takes me so much more brainpower to reach that conclusion, whereas it intuitively feels like they should mean the same thing. And maybe that is because the two are used interchangeably in everyday speak so I’ve never had to think about the difference.

That only works if X is a fraction or percentage though? Because 3 times more and 3 times as much do mean the same thing.

Accidental means you didn’t have consent. That’s why it’s rapey.

It really is incredible how much global influence both the US and UK have pissed away over the last decade or so.

Yo dawg. We heard you like cover-ups, so we covered up your cover-up with a cover-up covering a cover-up.

Probably regret diving into an argument, but you did literally say accidental was rapey. I can see where people may get confused.

Do you imagine this is a good way of addressing any addiction issues?

From that wikipedia article it does seem like neither side properly engaged with the ceasefire, although does seem to be written in quite a one-sided manner, which is interesting considering the thread we’re in.

Someone else has already mentioned the pager attacks to you, which, related to one of my earlier replies, would not seem to be a proportionate response to an imminent or actual threat. You seem very determined in your replies to paint Israel as only responding to unprovoked attacks from Hezbollah, but putting aside who ‘started it’, there has clearly been escalation on Israel’s side. I don’t think you can put everything down to Hezbollah being ‘religious fanatic terrorists’ whilst having no consideration for the fact that Israel could easily fit that same description.

Fighting back and occupying are not the same thing though. And where does self defence become aggression, as arguably Israel are not acting in a purely defensive manner. In terms of international law, there has to be an actual of imminent threat, and a response has to be proportionate, so again the argument could be made that Israel are not acting within that framework.

In terms of your point about Hezbollah promising to stop and that being an end to it, there have previously been ceasefires in place, agreed to by all sides, that immediately fall apart. So how does it work if you are occupying/annexing in self defence, but you are the one to break a ceasefire?

I mean, our entire exchange prior to this has been about annexation, so that’s quite the goalpost shift. But assuming you’re being sincere, what’s the functional difference? Who decides when it’s OK to stop ‘occupying’ and that things can just go back to how they were before? Or does if just continue indefinitely?

Annexation in international law, is the forcible acquisition and assertion of legal title over one state’s territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory. In current international law, it is generally held to be an illegal act.>

Granted, that is from Wikipedia, and I only did a cursory search, but I’d say as a jumping off point it doesn’t really support the idea of annexing being OK. And ethically, the concept of ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ is arguably at play here, just because someone might have wronged you, doesn’t give you free reign in terms of retaliation.

I’m not sure ‘but they hit me first’ is quite the justification for annexation you think it is.

Imagine an armpit. Then think of it fat.

Given the people involved, ‘all’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.

But part of the problem is that they’re not above the age rating, often things like Fifa are rated as suitable for children. And ultimately, the ratings are guidance, they’re not rules or law. There should definitely be a push for parents to actually look into it properly though, I do think that’s a big part of the issue, and leads to legislation such as age verification, which just makes things more difficult for everyone.

But how many children are playing those games and buying lootboxes without their parents’ knowledge?

I am absolutely in favour of less lootboxes in games though. They are an unfortunate natural progression of microtransactions, and the fact that they make so much money means they’re unlikely to go anywhere without any systemic measures being put in place.

I guess what I meant, but didn’t go as far as saying, is that lootboxes should be categorised as gambling, as they currently show up in games like Fifa, rated for children, which parents likely wouldn’t think twice about until they see their next credit card statement.

Ultimately parents need to do more to safeguard their kids, but the sneaky and insidious way lootboxes are used makes it significantly harder, and I would argue goes beyond what the average parent would reasonably be able to look out for.