No point lying. If you check the modlog plenty of his comments get removed. You can check for yourself.

So you ignore the actual argument I made, how your logic, evenly applied, would apply to killing medics as well. And you ignore the fact that your opinion here is against the Geneva Convention. You conveniently ignore the part where you don't have to target them to have killing them be a problem; killing them is the problem. And your only retort is whataboutism: "yeah but Russia does bad".

Take a look back at my comment. Apply the reasoning, and tell me: do you think we should allow killing enemy medics? If not, explain to me your contradictory stance.

But nothing is falling, all of the temperature records are rising.

I see what you're saying. I had taken the use to mean the situation is tumbling, not the temperatures. But upon a closer reading (of the title specifically) it seems a more reasonable interpretation of the word tumble is:

Climate records tumble,

The object of the verb 'tumble' is "climate records". That is, the climate records are tumbling. A tumbling record is one which has fallen over and been surpassed. So what they're saying by using the word "tumble" is: previous climate records have fallen over and been surpassed.

I do agree it's a weird word choice, but I don't think it's wrong or even playing on a potential uncommon secondary definition. It's not saying temperatures have tumbled, but rather records have tumbled.

Yeah, it's not out of character unfortunately. It's just an extension of the "strikers/unionizers are greedy bastards" rhetoric that's common in the USA. They've done a good job of painting advocating for your rights as a laborer as being "greedy".

Seems a bit silly to decide that “capitalism” is the majority contributor to climate change when the country that produces the most greenhouse gases is only “pretty capitalist” doesn’t it? If capitalism is the major contributor, why don’t more capitalist country produce more greenhouse gases?

That's not necessarily the case. The pollution comes from where manufacturing is, not necessarily where consumption is. The demand is coming from capitalist countries.

Edit: To account for this, we can look at per-capita consumption-based emissions (thanks to @boonhet@lemm.ee for the data link).

There's a new propaganda department at the Pentagon that's just been re-formed, the "Perception Management" office,

“Perception management” came to prominence during the Reagan administration[^1], which used the term to describe its propaganda efforts. [...] On March 1, 2022, the Pentagon established a new office with similar goals to the one once deemed too controversial to remain open. [...] its responsibilities include overseeing and coordinating the various counter-disinformation efforts being conducted by the military, which can include the U.S.’s own propaganda abroad.

In case you think the name is of no import, the Department of Defense's own official dictionary defines "perception management" as

[a]ctions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning.

Let's look at a definition of "propaganda",

A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people.

That looks about 100% on the nose, doesn't it?

They have a history of producing propaganda and misinformation (with the excuse being "to counter enemy disinformation"[^2]), and they weren't shy talking about it,

The question is whether the Pentagon and military should undertake an official program that uses disinformation to shape perceptions abroad. [...] The military has faced these tough issues before. Nearly three years ago, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, under intense criticism, closed the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence, a short-lived operation to provide news items, possibly including false ones, to foreign journalists in an effort to influence overseas opinion. [...] Pentagon and military officials directly involved in the debate say that such a secret propaganda program, for example, could include planting news stories in the foreign press or creating false documents and Web sites translated into Arabic as an effort to discredit and undermine the influence of mosques and religious schools that preach anti-American principles. [...] However, a senior military officer said that without clear guidance from the Pentagon, the military's psychological operations, information operations and public affairs programs are "coming together on the battlefield like never before, and as such, the lines are blurred."

Mind you, I've only touched on some of their work in the very recent past. There's an even larger body of evidence of the USA's use of propaganda in the slightly more distant past. I only gave the Wikipedia page on propaganda in the United States a brief skim, but it at least touches on (and links out to) some of the big picture items; of note,

In the United States, propaganda is spread by both government and media entities.

[^1]: "In the battle of perception management, where the enemy is clearly using the media to help manage perceptions of the general public, our job is not perception management but to counter the enemy's perception management," said the chief Pentagon spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita. (Source) [^2]: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/28/the-victory-of-perception-management/

Additionally, Ukraine has NOT used their stockpile of cluster munitions, out of respect for this western ignorance that could be used by Russia against them.

Do you mean they haven't used all of their stockpile? If that's the case, why are they asking for more?

We know they've used some, so combine the fact that they've used some, with the fact that they're asking for more, and how can you conclude anything other than that they've used (most of if not all of) their stockpile?

• To Push Back Russians, Ukrainians Hit a Village With Cluster Munitions
• Ukraine used cluster munitions — which many countries have banned — to force Russian troops out of a village, report says

Only your instance knows your IP and what links you visited. But everyone can see your votes.

Russia will kill half of them anyway after the war.

Why? What sense does that make? When has there ever been any reason to believe that the goal is to kill Ukranians? This isn't even the first time I've seen it said that if Russia wins (or even loses!) they'll just wipe out all Ukranians afterwards. And neither time has there been any reasoning for why such an absurd claim should be believed.

If you truly believe this drivel, you're doing everyone a disservice by not attempting to justify your claims. If you truly believe it and provide justification, you might just convince others to believe what you do.

Lead was used way past discovering it was dangerous, and is still used enough to cause problems in specific populations. Just like cigarettes. If there is a large moneymaking industry and it suddenly comes to light that what it is producing is dangerous, they have a lot of motivation to put money behind keeping that knowledge from getting out or, when it does, keep it from affecting law. They lobby/bribe, they abuse the legal system, whatever they can to avoid going under. As such, it's not safe to assume that something is not dangerous simply because it hasn't been banned.

Of course there's not. It's a reflex: China → malicious. It doesn't require evidence and, since it's not normally questioned in daily discourse, the person saying it seemingly never questions whether it makes any sense to make such a baseless claim.

It's used as an excuse. If people weren't armed, they'd find another excuse. That's what I mean by not addressing the underlying problem of police brutality and abuse of power. Also, they'll always say they thought someone had a gun even when they know almost for certain the person didn't, because they know you'll buy it.