Sure, but if you're trying to accuse someone of hypocrisy, both things need to be of a similar magnitude.
I'm neither pro-murder, nor pro-kicking-in-the-bollocks, but I still think "You used to be against murder, but now you're in favour of kicking people in the bollocks, you're such a hypocrite" is a nonsensical argument.
Yeah, I know who they are, I just don't think that even the most horrible football fan behaviour is remotely on a par with arms dealers selling weapons to Israel.
I reckon there's probably a middle ground which both supports allowing people to watch football, and does not support selling weapons to a genocidal state.
Everyone is always banging on about how we need more affordable housing in this country, but I never hear anyone making the case for building more unaffordable housing. Thank goodness for these maverick developers, doing what needs to be done. Not all heroes wear capes.
All the more reason to take the topic seriously and not publicise nonsense figures, if you ask me.
It's like if no one is seeding your torrent then the ETA is infinity, but as more seeds come online, the ETA reduces
Sure. But I wouldn't write an article with a headline saying that my torrent was going to take 1000 years to download, because I'd look like an idiot.
What does this even mean? No-one is waiting 224 years, unless a trans person from 1800 just got their first appointment. Why hide a real problem behind absolute bullshit headline figures?
One could argue that an adult in their 40s or 50s who chooses to date someone 21-23 or 22-24 deserves to die.
Cool, that sounds fun, I'm always up for an argument. Before we start though, can you clarify the terms? Are you saying that:
What about a 49 year old who is dating a 24 year old whose birthday is the day after hers? What happens when she turns 50 and is dating a 24 year old for a day? Does she deserve to die? Or is that only if she starts dating a 24 year (+364 day) old during that time? What if they break up for that day, presumably that's fine? What if she says "I'm breaking up with you, Kevin", and he says "No, Lou-Anne, I won't give up on us, I'm going to keep calling you, we are not over" and walks out, and so they're technically dating for that day but it's not her choice any more ("who chooses to date").
Also, what age are we using? Presumably we're just going by the birthday, rather than going down to the time as well? Like someone who turned 40 today dating someone who turns 24 tomorrow. Obviously she deserves to die because she's dating a 23 year old. But if she was born just before midnight and he was born just after, she might deserve to die, but two people whose age gap is even bigger (by a few hours) wouldn't deserve to die. That doesn't make sense, surely? So we need exact time of birth for some potential couples.
Also, why the lower limits? I'm assuming you're not advocating for paedophilia so let's keep the age of consent the same. Why is it fine for someone in their 40s to date someone aged 18-20? If it's not, why did you specify a lower limit?
Is this a moral absolute (for those who could argue it)? Could a 40 year old be a good enough person to be allowed to date a 23 year old? Could a 39 year old be bad enough to not be allowed to date a 23 year old?
It depends. Accidental drink driving is not as bad as deliberate illegal street racing. But deliberate drink driving is worse than accidental illegal street racing.
I'd love to see a "Get rid of the petitions system, its sole purpose is to make people feel they have been listened to while you continue to ignore them" petition get enough votes to be debated.
By "whatever reason" you mean Corbyn, right?