That’s fine, that just means the ethical question is now “is accessing it in one of those ways worth the consequences of doing so?” You might well say yes or, as others in these comments have, argue that the consequences are negligible. You might say no. It’s still a relevant debate in the topic OP is asking about even if we completely accept your position about which ways of getting access are ethical
I think the question includes a discussion of whether or not that access is worth sending money to the author, right? Like, even if OP completely agrees with your position about the author deserving money for access and also wants access, they may want to both avoid sending money to the author and to avoid stealing it more. Of course you mentioned the possibility of finding it in a library and someone else in the thread suggested finding it second hand, which are probably both preferable solutions here if they are practical
I don’t think people expect that you have to agree with everyone you give money to, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to try to avoid sending money to a Holocaust denier specifically for his Holocaust denial
If we take the ancient Greek example of calling anyone whose language you can’t understand a barbarian, the US and UK are probably tied for peak civilisation
It is unscientific, but let’s not pretend we here in Europe don’t sometimes do it anyway. Racism is still a thing in Europe, unfortunately. But also, it has been a thing in Europe for basically as long as humans have lived on a large enough scale to notice it. In the 19th century you had the “three great races” of “Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid”. Even way back in the time of the Roman Empire they were being weird about race, ascribing strength and aggression to the pale people to their north and intelligence and peacefulness to the darker people to their south and east.
We’re collectively getting a lot better about not doing it these days, but we’ve got to recognise that there’s still progress needing made
Right, well until someone has a real plan for actually doing that, I’m still going to suggest that we should ban the bottom trawling equipment in the meantime
China and Vietnam do the most and second-most bottom trawling in the world. We need to collectively ban the equipment, because the economic pressure exists regardless of which extant system the country uses
The part about the UI is probably substantially down to what you’re used to. I used Inkscape for a long time and recently-ish had to start on Affinity for work, and holy shit Affinity’s UI deserves to be made into a person solely so that we can execute it for its crimes. Because I’m used to Inkscape.
It’s the estate that makes the income though, not the family. In the UK most of that estate is owned by the position of the monarch itself rather than by the monarch; a perk of the job, not private property. In other words it’d probably still make just as much money in a republic, arguably more since we could let visitors in to see the buildings
Additionally, a figurehead monarch doesn’t address any of the issues with a successful Trump-like politician. Here in the UK I often hear people saying “would you want a President Boris Johnson?” No, I wouldn’t, but him being called Prime Minister instead of President removed literally none of his practical political power
My bad. I blame the thirty eight million times I heard people make the argument earnestly after the British queen died
It’s the country’s law, you can call the high commissioner “king” if you agree to. Ireland calls its prime minister and deputy PM “taoiseach” and “tánaiste” respectively, which are monarchic titles from the Gaelic clan system
Versailles gets fifteen million visitors a year
The simplest method in most cases would probably just be to change the law about succession. Keep the position of king, just make it an elected or appointed one. That way nothing else has to be touched unless you want to change it
The tourism argument is frequently bandied about, but I don’t think there’s much substance to it. The tourist attractions are the buildings (which obviously don’t disappear in the event of ending the monarchy) and ceremonies (which you can keep if you choose to, including the fancy costumes). It’s particularly unconvincing here in the UK when we are literally right next door to France, the world’s number one tourist destination. Versailles does not lack for visitors.
Edit: also, rock and stone
deleted by creator
This one does at least have the writer and director team of Days back, which Weeks did not
The article body repeatedly says 1,300
This is probably a lot heavier on the technical grammar than you need, but here is the relevant wikipedia page if you want it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun
Basically English (along with other Germanic languages and a whole bunch of others) doesn’t like having a verb by itself without something to do the verb, so we just put “it” in as a sort of placeholder. The “it” isn’t anything, but the grammar wants there to be something there