They are not. When sanctions are in play, two countries that would otherwise want to trade will be prevented from doing so.
The usa refusing to trade themselves is entirely valid, but they go the extra mile and punish others for trading with their rivals.

You are correct. A sovereign country should be able to engage in bilateral trade.
Imposing sanctions, on the other hand, is a measure of coercion that prevents that.

They should not interfere unless there is a legitimare threat to their nation. What venezuela does in its internal politics is the concern of venezuelan people alone.

Sanctions should be recognized as a crime against humanity.

Xiaomi TV Stick 4k. I got an Amazon Fire TV stick, hated it very much, but luckily for me it malfunctioned after a month, and i managed to get a “refund” that was limited to the amazon store. I spent the money on the xiaomi alternative that came with android tv, as it was about the same price, but you can install (and keep installed) a custom loader without ads, and never have to update anything it if you don’t want it. But be careful, some newer models from xiaomi come with google tv instead, which is probably harder to have control over privacy/ads.

The environmental problems are critical, though. And it’s what ultimately will decide the fate of our species. There is room for optimism in some aspects of our society, but that is not an indication that in the end everything will be alright.

You should not dismiss the guy/gal that said liquor has been around for a long time. That is a valid observation and a counter example to your argument, so it positively contributes to the discussion. Try to think about what makes beer different in that it is also part of society but is proven to cause harm, and come out with a different, stronger argument. A person that points out the flaw of your argument is not necessarily your enemy, and may still agree with you after all. Yes. I’m like that in real life.

I agree with you, but we should not compromise logic just to confirm what we believe.

To say something is good merely because it has been consumed for a long period.
Very often people use a terrible argument and reach the right conclusion by chance.

I think the point was just that the argument was flawed.

What a convoluted mess you have written, and what about that habit of yours of putting things in other people’s mouths? But let me address the raised issues: Ukraine did sign the Minsk agreements, just like Russia signed the Budapest memorandum, which were not conflicting proposals. It doesn’t matter which one was signed first, but rather which one is broken first, and by which party. Russia only entered the territory of Ukraine officially in 2022, whereas the Minsk agreements have been proposed and revised since 2014 with no results, and it was confirmed that Ukraine never had intentions to fulfill any of its obligations and were using it as a cover to militarize the country further. You talk about propaganda, but it’s precisely propaganda that makes you so quick to dismiss all the undesirable information and shut down conversation that is not going your way. I’m afraid your “tankie” block list will continue to be expanded.

Since you are talking about unhonored agreements, you should know that if Ukraine followed the minsk agreement, there would not be any war right now. And no, I am not suggesting anything. I am just pointing out how the previous argument was fucking stupid. But since you are asking for a suggestion, I suggest Ukraine and Russia meet for peace talks mediated by a neutral country, and let both countries talk about their grievances and find a compromise. This is a historically proven method of solving conflicts. And since Ukraine is such a sovereign country, they should decide for themselves what to do, instead of letting the UK arbitrarily revert actions on a whim.

Would be equally fast if ukraine said “We’re done, keep the territory”
Edit: objectively true statement downvoted for being inconvenient to the reader

Then get yourself some better arguments. You are hurting your cause. More context does not hurt. If you are right, it will prove you right.

Sorry, but i hate this argument. Any conflict can end if one side accepts the terms of the other side. You can just pick the side you dont like and say “well. They can end it if they do this now”, implying all the destruction is their exclusive responsibility. To make a better assesment of who to blame, you need to get to know what their motives are and any and all context involved. This should be the first step for those seeking peace anyway.

Its not like burning the quran is part of everyday life in society. More like they deliberate do it because they know its offensive for muslims, so its an obvious provocation disguised as freedom of expression. Im atheist btw and i despise religion in general, but sad to see reason being downvoted. Sorry i can’t back you up on the comment sections, i cant afford to be judged right now.