Because CBC is using murder as a legal definition…

[citation needed]

But I get it, you don’t want technicalities.

I don’t want FUCKING LEGAL DEFINITIONS in a FUCKING NON-LEGAL CONTEXT you UTTER FUCKING IDIOT. For a pedant you FUCKING SUCK at words.

Stop digging. You don’t get out of a deep hole of idiocy that you’ve dug for yourself by digging harder. Just shut the fuck up you idiot.

You know what else is small brain thinking? INCORRECTLY being pedantic about word choices. That’s the part that pisses me off the most with these apologists. They are literally incorrecting people using words properly.

I cited the definitions of “murder” above. Explain to me, with reference to these definitions, how the term “murder” doesn’t apply. (Hint: this is not possible.)

“Legal” definitions are for “legal” actions and “legal” contexts. Like an international criminal court.

This is reportage for a general audience, not legal briefs. Fuck off with your legalistic shit.

I quoted the dictionary definition of murder above. Can you point to the part that says governments can’t murder?

Yes. Murder has very specific definitions. (Note the plural.) Let me help you out with this, Sparky:

murder

/ ˈmɜr dər /

noun

1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder, ormurder one ), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder, or murder two ).

2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!

verb

3. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.

4. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

5. to commit murder.

The slang definition doesn’t apply, so 2. A newspaper is not a court of law, so the legal definitions are gone: 1 and 3. That leaves 5 (which itself is just a reference to the legal definition, so 5) and 4.

I think 4 applies fully here. What’s happening in Gaza is definitely a slaughter, definitely inhuman, and definitely barbarous. This is also the correct register for informal reportage not related to legal actions.

So perhaps if you want to argue based on definitions you should fucking read the dictionary first, Sparky. Or get used to people pointing and laughing at you in your clown pants.

Where, precisely (and be detailed, with a map) do you think Hamas should be locating itself in Gaza that doesn’t have civilians all around them?

You go get a map of Gaza and point it out. I’ll wait.

You’d think that it would be considered more brutal given that the people committing the killings aren’t even exposing themselves to a threat.

Cowards, in a word.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I arrived in China 2001.

I experienced the harshest and largest lockdown in all of history: Wuhan, January 23rd, 2020. A real lockdown, not the cosplay bullshit you experienced outside of China. (Yes, this is me saying you’ve never fucking set foot in the country.)

The rest you’re just flat-out lying about. Sorry, Sparky. Did pet killings happen? Yes. They were not the mass shit that the press you’re so obviously reciting acts like they were. Did some doors get welded? Yes. But nowhere near you and, again, nowhere near in the masses the press you’re basing your lies on made it seem like. The local salaries are garbage iff you’re a fuckwit sitting in the west applying western prices to Chinese salaries. (Which, naturally, you are, good little fuckwit liar that you are.) And you’ve changed your tune from 14 hours to 12 hours really fucking quickly there, Sparky, not to mention using the proper slang only after I gave it to you.

So yeah, you’re just a west-dwelling fuckwit lying about being here. Go toddle off in your China Watcher corners and play with the rest of the intellectual children you belong with. There’s a good boy.

Removed by mod

Oh well. I can’t cater to the stupid and the insane. I’ll live where I don’t need a car to get basic amenities of life and use the money I save to live grandly. They can spend the money, time, and health on living with unnecessary vehicles until they die out.

Build fifteen minute cities, in short. I live in one, for all practical purposes, and it’s GRAND!

I’m sorry you’re so fragile.

And yet under the law that was just declared unconstitutional, it was not carved out, screwing my son over.

You’ll get no argument from me, here, but WOW would the rank and file whine loudly!

My father was a German emigrant. He became a Canadian citizen. He joined the Canadian Armed Forces. He was stationed in Germany, where I was born.

Take note of that: I was born abroad because my father was stationed abroad at the behest of the Canadian government in whose service he was.

Because of sheer luck in timing, my son, born in China, is an automatic Canadian citizen. But my son’s children would not be because I was born abroad … and again I was born abroad because my father was following the orders of the Canadian Armed Forces while serving his adoptive country.

The world is a metric fuckload more complicated than the simplistic view you’re seeing here. Perhaps you should, you know, listen instead of speaking.

Thankfully it sounds like this ruling will correct things for my son.

And the foodstuffs were still catered (unless you were fed only MRIs or the like, and if you were, you have my condolences!). They contract out the foods and when that happens they also ask for X% kosher, Y% halal, Z% vegan, etc. based on the make-up of their crews. Or, rather, they should.

Because stored food can have labels. “Vegetarian meal” being a very common label on the side of catered, stored food.

How much do you want to bet that if they have Jewish firefighters there’s kosher food available? Same thing. Same logistics. If they can cater to Jews (or Muslims (or Hindus (or Buddhists (or …)))) they can cater to vegans. They chose not to cater to the vegan because there was no fantasy sky figure involved. And that makes them assholes.

And? The people who don’t live there need cars. It’s the people (a.k.a. vast majority) who live in cities that should have the public transit infrastructure.

I’m baffled why this needs to be explained to you.