... the justices said the court’s rules and principles are, for the most part, “not new.” However, “codification” of existing principles is meant to clear up concerns about the justices operating without oversight.
Sooooo the same failed guidelines that are not enforced and carry zero consequences for selling their judgements? That's what they think will restore trust in their court instead of deepening the image of rampant corruption and politicking?
If I'm really not ready to sleepy, I find the content interesting. If I am ready to sleep but my brain won't shut down then I ignore the words and I find the voices very soothing and relaxing.
Whaaaaaat? Corporate leaders don't care about honoring costly changes that will fundamentally change their industry when making those changes isn't tied to their compensation and the deadline for achieving them isn't until after they retire or are even dead?
Whaaaaaat? Years of saying he was right about everything, acting like he could do no wrong, protecting him from the consequences of his words and actions, and encouraging his narcissism has lasting consequences?
If only they had one or two opportunities to stop him from running for president a second time.
I think that there is something wrong with the "not my job" approach. I believe in the saying "The only thing evil needs to thrive is for good people to do nothing."
Assuming that everyone has shared in your socioeconomic upbringing and therefore has the same access to diverse ideas is flawed.
I am personally inspired by Daryl Davis, a black musician who, through simple conversation, has convinced grown adult Ku Klux Klan members to change their ways and renounce the KKK.
I believe that people should work towards the changes they want to see manifest in the world.
I understand the frustration and seeming futility in trying to change the minds of those with opposing views. It takes constant work and vigilance, but it is important challenge their ideas. Even if you make zero impact on them, you can reach other people. Especially if you have the discussion in a public venue, like an internet firum. Even if you don't change any minds, if you truly believe in something then you should continue to work towards it.
As for the "they should already know better" argument, I wonder if you are familiar with Daryl Davis, a black musician who would sit with members of the KKK and talk to them about their beliefs. He has well over 20 robes from former klansmen who have given him their robes after he changed their views with those conversations. Turns out that most of them have never had anybody calmly listen to and then dispute the racist claims that they grew up with and have heard repeated their whole lives.
Notice how I am talking about confronting and challenging ideas, not tolerating them.
The only thing evil needs to thrive is for good people to do nothing.
This sounds like you are promoting an "I'm right, your wrong, and I have no responsibility to correct or educate." mentality. I'm not sure if trusting the people with opposing views to change on their own is the best approach. I think only deepens divides and entrenches opposition.
People with opposing ideas do exist in a vacuum and will have no problem putting the time in to recruiting others to their way of thinking and promoting similar thinkers to positions of power and influence. Ostracizing those you disagree can just as easily put you in a bubble of isolation, or an echo chamber, as them.
Not to mention that discussing opposing ideas improves understanding both by defending your views and by better understanding the why and origins of their ideas.
Supporters say it ensures every driver pays their fair share. But the fee is nearly double what an average driver would pay in taxes at the pump, according to consumer advocates.
Sounds like the foundation for legal challenges from EV manufacturers.
I am happy to take your word for most of it, but it does not change my view. I am completely in favor of identifying and taking steps to remediate the underlining cause of all forms of crime rather than simply punishing violators. That being said, the hubris that an individual, or group of individuals supercedes the survival of an entire species is repugnant to me. I have no sympathy for anybody that actively contributes to the the extinction of another species (except mosquitos).
The one point of your argument that I do question is the "kill a rhino and get enough money to last a few years" claim. While I have not looked into the details in India, as I understand it, poachers in Africa can make roughly the equivalent of an average 1 month salary for killing 1 rhino. If, in India, they make enough money to last a few years than either poachers are almost exclusively first timers, which seems highly unlikely to me, or they are doing it for greed rather than survival, which would negate your argument of the restrictive hunting laws.
You are using 2 different analogies that contradict each other. The poachers are cultivating a product, similar to poppy and coca plants, not the street dealers, and the wealthy are the buyers / "users".
Daenerys met several former khaleesi's when she was brought before the Doth Khaleen. While at this point, their husbands had been killed and they had given up the title of Khaleesi and adopted the new title of Khaleen, they were at one point each a khaleesi.
The only one I can remember by name is, Ornela, the one that befriended Daenerys.
Sooooo the same failed guidelines that are not enforced and carry zero consequences for selling their judgements? That's what they think will restore trust in their court instead of deepening the image of rampant corruption and politicking?