Could they not “just” use FPV drones with nades to take those flimsy radars out anyway? Instead of expensive ammunition. If it’s possible then it slashes down the price to take out these radars to a few thousands at most

lol, I thought they loved to use this symbol for political opponents?

I don’t know, I think it’s good to somewhat push people to confront their contradictions, and they won’t if they think the claim cannot be trusted. If the claim is made by some lib source they trust though? At least they would have to confront the facts and couldn’t dismiss them outright.

That is if they’re discussing (or just reading) in good faith

I think it’s important in public spaces especially, where the person you’re discussing with is not the only one reading the messages & people of varying political stances are around. In that context, a NYT article that is pro-china (could happen in some instances I’m sure, lol) will be far more impactful than an official statement from the PRC

Apologies accepted, and to be honest I’d rather have a tense argument than to be ignored, especially when it’s a good opportunity to learn 😁

Wishing you all the best

It’s the same fucking reason Michael Scott isn’t bankrupt when he says, “I declare bankruptcy”

Which is funny to the audience because everyone knows that’s not how banking works. It took me a while to find out what exactly was missing because the definition - which is a translation of the original - is full of “term of art” hidden jargon. Easy traps for outsiders. I’m not trying to get out of being wrong btw, just saying that there is probably a reason this is a common misunderstanding and not a matter of being dumb.

I’m not sure people who want to shit on China will trust a gov.cn website, regardless of the content

After digging I’ll concede the point.

My misunderstanding was on the “he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church”, specifically “defines”, which is not simply, as I understood it, “makes a statement concerning X”

Edit: I was wrong

Speaking infallibly can be done a number of ways, including the one which I literally quoted, from the Vatican council. This is not external information, this is catholic doctrine. You can find it on the official Vatican website, though only in Latin: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/i-vatican-council/documents/vat-i_const_18700718_pastor-aeternus_la.html

It is possible to establish doctrines a number of ways, including through long collegial processes as you describe. Those are simply not the only ways, and an ex-cathedra declaration is the prerogative of the pontiff alone.

What specific point are you disagreeing on with me here? How is the declaration from Pope Leo not ex-cathedra per Vatican I?

Well the pope just needs to not contradict their predecessors for this to hold. We’re (me included) snarking because Popes did materially support & call for wars, but (recorded) official statements have generally been anti-war.

Although funnily enough, unlike their roman counterpart, orthodox / coptic patriarchs always refused to call for holy wars, because:

• As a matter of principle it didn’t really fit
• Giving Christian support for wars made those wars (which were usually inevitable anyway) a Christian vs. non-Christian matter, meaning the church would die when it could survive under non-Christian management
• And Muslims invading the eastern roman empire tended to be pretty tolerant & the taxes imposed by Muslims (including the Jizya) sometimes were even lower than those they paid under byzantine rule
  • And they also really did not care about the canon of the catholic churches (coptic, orthodox, roman), meaning heretics who would be burned or need to reform in Christian lands could live normally under Muslim rule

Edit: I was wrong

How is the Pope making official statements (“defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals” pretty much sums up all pontifical statements that aren’t a direct response to world events) concerning faith/morals which is destined to catholics anything “rare”?

BTW you paraphrased in a way that makes it less legible (IMO), here is the original:

[…] when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals

Source (Vatican 4th session, chapter 4)

We don’t have the official statements made by Urban II When he called for a crusade, I’d argue it’s a bit of a stretch to say that he didn’t bless that war to some degree, but if you someone wants to argue otherwise I guess we’d have to agree to disagree.

On the other hand, pope Leo made this statement:

God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs

• He is Is the Roman Pontiff, and there is no indication that he’s making this statement outside this role
• He has made a declaration which can be qualified as a doctrine
  • “a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief” Merriam Webster
  • That point can be argued though, “doctrine” is a weird word.
• Which is applicable to the whole church (“Anyone who is a disciple of Christ”)

deleted by creator

Yeah I wish lol. She’s just a crook, check her wikipedia out

America isn’t a democracy

Hopefully the People get a say in the government soon

If it’s not a democracy, and you don’t plan on overthrowing D.C, how is that supposed to happen?

Pardon the snark but it kind of sounds like you want your cake and eat it too; either it is a democracy, and the people will get a say, and thus USians are collectively responsible for their government action, or it’s not a democracy and the people won’t have a say in the government

from my (perhaps limited) perspective, it does seem that the people are indeed getting a say, and a lot of people are very happy with the current US admin (and a lot also are not, but not enough to have any decent policy, and keep in mind that I’m not singling out Trump from his predecessors who also were warmongers)

Well duh, the 10 points included control of hormuz, and they have schools and power plants to rebuild.

Lol her wikipedia article lists a history of corruption from oil companies

Unless the US comes out and denies it, there is no reason to doubt it. They’re boastful enough not to let Iran claim total victory

Huge W.

Anything that puts the US farther away from being able to terrorize the world (like they did with Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan and so many more) is a win for Humanity.

These kinds of situations are inevitable in capitalism

The ceasefire is between the US and Iran no? There is no reason for Israel to stop

Damn, maybe Germany would benefit not to align itself with the empire then huh