They are whether you like that or not.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
-Matthew 7:21
Pretty sure your savior had a lot to say about judging others.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
-Matthew 7:15
Just a few comments up you said
He stopped using it for that very reason, and took accountability. People are allowed to self correct, if he understands the problem with what he did and course corrected
Now that you were pushed on it a bit you're saying
It really was not problematic, even at the time of it being used.
Something about this interaction feels really dishonest.
Was there a problem he needed to take accountability for or not?
If someone sends me a one word reply of "yes" to "what is the purpose of this meeting and is my presence beneficial" then it wouldn't matter what I asked lol.
lol
But just to reiterate the point I was making earlier, the idea is to avoid someone responding to "what is the purpose of this meeting and is my presence beneficial" with something along the lines of "the purpose is to discuss X, Y, and Z. Yes your input would be a big help thanks."
Curious on your thoughts on the suggestion I made and whether it improves communication or not?
I guess reading comprehension is that bad. Here was the rest of the comment:
The justification for attacking them is that they need to be stopped before they cross the line.
I'm not saying I agree with this line of reasoning, but the clear idea is that Iran doesn't currently have nuclear weapons.
Murry Wilson
I thought it was a Supreme Court thing? What did Obama do?
Are people in denial? It just seems like a commonly understood thing. I've talked to straight CNN consuming boomers and even they see it for what it is.
For the record I'm in Canada so maybe it's just hard to see from the inside.
If you ask the person who invited you to a meeting "is my presence beneficial" they're going to answer "yes". That's why they invited you.
The purpose is to figure out whether your presence is actually needed, not whether they think it is.
I do like a lot of your ideas though, I might suggest:
"What is this meeting about? I'm trying to figure out if my presence would be beneficial."
That way you are the determinant of whether your presence is necessary, and the other person has to articulate what the actual benefit would be as opposed to just saying "yes".
I'm not allowed to be concerned with Israel fucking around with nuclear reactors and potentially creating a cherbobyl level meltdown illegally bombing them because Iran is a "bad guy"?
What is this "good guy" "bad guy" politics you're talking about?
I'm not 3 you can use a bigger word.
I think the better way to analyze this situation is as "attacker" and "defender".
Someone is starting a war, violating an international border, and instigating the first attacks. Who is it?
Oh we're quoting the IAEA?
Speaking on the final day of the IAEA Board of Governors meeting, Grossi warned that attacks on nuclear sites are in direct violation of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the Agency’s Statute.
“I have repeatedly stated that nuclear facilities should not be targeted under any circumstances, as this could harm people and the environment. Such attacks have serious consequences for nuclear safety, security and safeguards, as well as regional and international peace and security,” Grossi stressed.
-Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
If you're just here to throw a tantrum and call people mean names I don't think you will be missed.