There’s plenty of room for trees in new dense places, sure. But if you’re in the parts of London with old ass-narrow ass-streets, this may be less true.

If it were Trump, it would have said something more like:

You know the judges? Have you heard about these judges? Nasty people, these judges. You’ve never seen such judges before. I will put a stop to these judges.

Would you like to hear that in song form? https://youtu.be/RdpwWoWOyFk

As previous commenters have said, in the tragic cases where bully breeds have been involved in lethal attacks there are indications that the dogs were not handled/trained/socialized correctly.

Nevertheless, to account for the kind of disproportionality on display, it seems to me there’s only really two ways to explain it:

1. bullies are innately more likely to attack when poorly trained, or;
2. people who are unable to train dogs are more likely to own bullies.

throws the sandwich away

It’s treason, then.

Conversely, if you were to measure success by how long it takes for the whole thing to collapse into a dictatorship, then the US constitution still isn’t looking too bad, in comparison.

But then, who am I to judge? The closest thing we have to a constitution in the UK is a textbook written by Dicey in the late 1800s.

This case specifically can’t be appealed to the ECHR since the scotland act doesn’t allow the devolved government to do so (IIRC), so we’ll probably have a few years of this until another case works its way up the ladder.

In fairness, given that the French are currently on their fifth attempt at a republic, the other nations were arguably wrong.

What they really mean is that the US has the oldest still active Constitution in the world. The UK has existed in a continuous government for far longer, but they don’t have a written Constitution like the US does.

Even if that is what they meant, and even if the UK doesn’t count for whatever reason, this would still be incorrect. The constitution of San Marino dates from 1600.

There are like 6 definitions of species so biology has trouble answering “what is a human”

We don’t need biologists to define what a human is, though. We have known since the time of Plato that a human being is a featherless biped with broad flat nails.

My understanding was that current consensus was that humans with ovaries are born with all of the eggs already created - waiting to be released - and no more are created after that. So you’re either born holding eggs or you ain’t, and intention and capability don’t come into it.

Why does God need to test us? Doesn’t he already know whether or not we’d pass?

You might be thinking of the Council of Europe, of which the UK is still a member (for now).

Unfortunately, there is a sickness in heart of every British person that prevents us from creating anything better. Any attempt to do so will inevitably devolve into “It’s shit. It’s supposed to be shit. Don’t like it? There’s the door.”

Why not try a skyscraper? Perhaps wading into a cold ocean and never coming back? You could drive a car into a tree?

Two of those tend to leave a mess behind for other people to clear up, and the other seems like a fairly prolonged, unpleasant way to go.

An example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women.This is not an extreme or hateful idea.

It is also not in dispute.

What is in dispute is sometimes the extent of those differences, but is usually whether those differences are relevant at all.

Other issues like sports or bathrooms can still be nuanced discussions that acknowledge peoples concerns and work to educate rather then alienate.

Opposition to trans rights generally comes from three motivating factors:

1. The propensity to find trans people icky.
2. The desire to deny the existence of gender identity as something that is distinct from sex. (This comes in both pro- and anti- gender essentialist flavours and we could discuss it all day, but that is not relevant for now.)
3. Having a genuine concern about biological differences. The reason why we’re not having nuanced discussions is because people in categories 1 and 2 will masquerade as people in category 3 and not participate in any discussion in good faith.

Let’s take trans women in sports as an example. There is - for sure - a small number of people who will argue that that anyone who identifies as a woman should be able to compete as a woman in any circumstances, but this is not a mainstream position, even in the trans community. The mainstream position is that trans women should be generally be allowed to compete as women in competition after some suitable amount of time on hormone replacement therapy.

This is because strength is not stored in the balls or in the genes; the difference in strength between cis men and cis women is a result of the effect of testosterone on the muscles, and the presence of testosterone needs to be maintained in order to maintain those muscular differences. Such studies that there are seem to suggest that trans women tend not to have any advantage over cis women after a year or two on HRT when controlling for differences in height.

Some people who are hostile to trans women in sport are unaware of this and think that strength advantages are permanent, and when you explain the reasons that they aren’t then those people may become less hostile to the concept. Maybe they have doubts about the specific studies or want there to be more research for any given sport or whatever, but that is the region in which compromise is possible. But maybe they’ll just start pulling further justifications out of their arse.

• “Those height differences are significant enough to merit banning trans women!” If it were then the sport would have height categories, wouldn’t it?
• “What about muh bone density?” In what world does having heavier bones and weaker muscles to move them around with constitute an advantage?

However, the debate is mostly populated by people who pretend to care about biological differences, but in reality simply object to any concession that trans women are in any way women. Anyone who claims that men are biologically better than women at chess or darts is fundamentally unserious. The film Lady Ballers came about when someone at the Daily Wire suggested that they make a documentary about men identifying as women so they can compete against women. When they found out that actually, that’s not a thing that happens and there are requirements that you have to meet, did they let that stop them? No, they just wrote a fictional film about it instead because they object to trans women being treated as women for ideological reasons, and they want to poison the well by persuading people that it is a thing that happens.

How do you compromise with that? How do you compromise with someone who objects to a trans woman competing as a woman in a chess competition because they fundamentally object to the premise that a trans woman is in any way a woman?

Is this before or after they reach the spicy pillow stage?

What is there to compromise here? Every building with gendered facilities has to build a third set of toilets for trans people? The government has to build a third set of prisons for trans people?

What else they gonna add? dine in but order online?

Is this also sarcasm?

If not, I regret to inform you have I have been in places where this is currently happening.

Depends if Obinice is Irish.