SolarMech

the problem is you can’t easily go get another job because all the other jobs require a stupid amount of qualifications that don’t really relate to what they are offering in anyway shape or form.

Job postings are a wishlist for an ideal candidate. Only some of the stuff is actually required, For the rest, it varies based on how scarce people able and willing to work in that field are.

To see through the fog, you have to try reaching out. Either apply at places or try to build yourself a network. Sadly I'm not great at it myself. Alternatively, if you have the time and inclination to learn new skills, that's a thing you can do.

He does not need to lose the next election. He needs to be behind bars.

This stuff depends on context.

If it's the first time someone is told this, sure. If someone is asking not to be constantly harassed for having done this once, then that person is right. Once they've been told once, it's plenty if education is the goal. If the person knows to tell you not to tell them that, they've been told once. If someone is asking that the guy who leaked the nudes be acted against, then that person is right. If someone is excusing shitting behavior because the victim should have protected themselves better, they are blaming the victim, shame on them.

Since you seem to be surprised people got offended or hurt, I will try to decode this interaction for you. Based on seeing essentially this discussion online over and over again.

I mean my take on this is the original post is essentially saying :

"Please be understanding of women turning you down in less than ideal ways (ie: Ghosting, etc.), they are afraid for their safety because they keep hearing stories of violence from men angry that women did not do what they wanted them to do. "

Then you essentially say :

"There are many good men too". It's also very easy to read into what you say "And we should be talking about how they don't get talked about or remembered" even if you didn't mean to say it that way

This is besides the point. It indicates that you either did not decode the original message right or lack empathy for the situation. I mean, it's very likely the first, but the second is why people can get angry at a reaction like this. If you want to start a discussion on a different topic, why does it need to be in this thread?

What we haven’t even mentioned

There are a LOT of things we haven't mentioned. I don't understand why you feel the need to change the topic a second time in a thread asking for empathy.

Where I live we have this huge river around our city that provides most of the province with freshwater (along with all of the rivers that feed into it, but the population concentrates around that one big river)

That one big river is also a place for ships to go through, and an ecosystem (despite all of the disruption).

More water in use by all kinds of facilities still manages to lower the level of the river significantly, to the point where there have been worries raised about the ecosystem and where shipping capacity was reduced.

No. People are tracking useable water supplies. If it gets out of that, we don't care what happens to it.

We're draining aquifers to give people and industry drinkable, useable water (no matter how we feel about that). The water "still existing" somewhere else is an entirely pedantic point, and a huge waste of everyone's time.

Now I want to become a scientist so I can name something after a pun.

You realize you only get told what to do by vegans because you hang out where they hang out. If you keep coming here and arguing with them, you probably are here because it serves your own needs somehow...

Exactly. Religions that survive and get promoted are the ones that can thrive in the society they are living in, and that generally requires fitting into the political world of that society.

Religions that criticize the powers that be either overthrow them then become complicit with the new leaders over time, or they get marginalized. Priests had to deal with kings, one way or another.

Arguments on purity bore me, one way or the other.

Less ecological impact is better than more ecological impact. Less suffering is better than more suffering. Cheaper food is better than more expensive food. Somewhat healthy diet is better than a diet Lancet is warning you about (ie: too much meat, especially red meat) Using less resources to feed more people is better than using more resources to feed fewer.

Every step from a modern western diet with way too much meat (the one Lancet warns about) to something more reasonable brings benefit basically in relation to how much meat you cut. You can argue that we can't reach the absolute, but it strictly does not matter. If you try to reduce meat and succeed as much as you reasonably can, things improve. You don't have to be a part of this, but surely you realize this is the case?

I find the idea that the idea that people from another country tricked into conscription would get this benefit. If they got to this point by trickery, what's to stop more trickery?