Western intervention in regime change will kill far more Iranians than doing nothing. I could be wrong about that, but the West does not have a good track record.

I think it’s also important to note that the current Iranian regime took power from the brutal dictator that was installed by western powers who overthrew a democratic government.

I sympathise with the Iranian people who are suffering. I just don’t see a way to intervene that won’t make things worse.

It’s a reference to the “Always has been” meme.

When I said the law is selective in enforcement I meant the system of law. The courts, law enforcement, and political “tough on crime” attitudes. That is very much on me for the lack of clarity and I apologise for it.

The perpetuation and propagation of a fundamentally corrupt and unfair system does not require everyone that upholds it to be corrupt, it needs only for them to be willing to participate in it. Perhaps they don’t see the fundamental inequality, or maybe they believe they can reform it from the inside. I don’t think the system can be reformed enough to be truly just and fair. I think it needs to fundamentally rebuilt.

In the UK the system of law is the same one that oversaw the enforcement of serfdom and of slavery. It is a system where judges can enforce arbitrary rules of conduct and dress in ‘their’ courtroom. A system where judges are too often treated with deference instead of scrutiny, despite blatant bias towards upholding the status quo.

It’s distinctly possible that I’m being a naive idealist, and that this is as good and fair as the system can be. It’s entirely possible that my ideal system is entirely impossible. It’s just that I want to hope for a better world, and I have too much doubt in the capability of reforming things.

“The purpose of a system is what it does.”

You are right. Laws are universal and apply equally to everyone. The problem is the systems that exist to create and apply those laws. There are far too many cases of the law being selective in who it protects and who it punishes for me to believe that it upholds fairness. I also don’t believe it’s a fundamental human failing, I think it’s functioning exactly as its corrupt creators intended.

Yes but the payments are made to the child’s guardian. Meaning that a victim of rape will be forced to make payments to their abuser directly because of the rape, which I think is morally indefensible.

I want to violently disagree because I love onions… But I’ve never tried Shallots, so I can’t say you’re wrong.

I’m not rewording anything. I’m stating a disagreement with your wording which I think implies intent where there may be none.

I disagree. This is what protest-non-voters failed to vote against.

Saying that they voted for this is implying that it is what they wanted. It is not the same thing as not carefully considering the potential outcomes. I agree that they bear some responsibility for what’s happening because of their failure to engage in the best course of action to prevent it. I do also think it is very much an inaccurate statement to say that it is what they voted for.

Put simply, intent matters. It doesn’t matter if the material outcome is the same.

But then the dad gives him another condom and a wink.