Also just doctrine being subject to rapid change to suit changing realities during times of war. As an example, we can look to WW1 to see rapidly changing doctrines as it became understood to be necessary, like when the maneuver warfare of the Napoleonic Era quickly shifted to trench warfare.
I think it’d be much smarter to simply use the piece of equipment when its capabilities suit your needs, than treat it like a weirdly-shaped ICBM.
You think they just sit on the runway until someone needs to drop a nuke? So, when Trump redeployed our B-2s to the Indian Ocean, he must’ve been preparing to nuke the Houthis?
Despite all the fearmongering, it’s so far proved unnecessary. Ji is going to look at it in terms of cost/benefit, and as things sit, the costs are high and the benefit of getting a leveled Taiwan is minimal. The diplomatic costs in particular are fairly prohibitive, with China investing so much recently in trying to be a predictable, stable and peaceful world power that other countries can feel good partnering with.
It would be vastly preferable for all parties involved to maintain the status quo and continue to work towards peaceful reunification in the future. Assuming Taiwan doesn’t do anything stupid, this patient approach has no real drawbacks. It did work several times in the past, after all.
Not off the top of my head. Cooking is frequently a recreational hobby though, it’s essentially an art form. So I think it’s about equally likely that dancing, painting or making music fade away.
Worth noting that it is illegal in Russia to criticize the war, so saying you don’t support it is probably a good way to get yourself sent to the front lines in an infantry uniform. So, it’s difficult to gauge how many people actually genuinely support it or not.
Is there thinking among the locals that a big war might break out? Or do more people think it will just be small border skirmishes?
tbf, “manipulating time and space” is a pretty low bar to clear. You’re manipulating time and space sitting in your chair, given that under general relativit,y spacetime warps around any mass present.
I fully support reasonable restrictions on the therapy, no question. What I do not support is lumping every instance of it all together into one perceived abusive framework, when that is not the full story. There’s both bathwater and a baby here, in that there are legitimate uses for the therapy that are not abusive or enabling further abuse. These are fine.
Yeah I agree. There’s something fishy about this whole article though.
How is the mother even in jail when a year ago Colorado put restrictions on the therapy in just these sorts of cases? I feel like either some facts are being misrepresented, or we’re not being told everything, or this is some strange outlier and judicial malfeasance.
I am not arguing about this case. I definitely see problems here, and I find it odd that the therapy is being performed by some christian group as well.
My issue is the article’s portrayal of the therapy. The question I responded to was about the therapy, not this specific case, so I’m talking about the therapy more broadly, and not this specific case. This specific case is either grossly exaggerated or some extreme fluke. Like I said, in cases of severe abuse, reunification therapy is inappropriate.
I also don’t trust the publication, important details can be left out or exaggerated to make something more rage-baity, and I could not find any corroborating news. Regarding being horrified by it, it’s very hard to horrify me with anything on the internet that isn’t old and established, I stay very suspicious of the entire thing.
Sure.
The deal is it’s not really about reunification with your abuser, in cases of severe abuse you wouldn’t be reunified with someone who wasn’t fit, you’d remain in the foster system. In cases of milder abuse, a judge has to weigh whether the parent might be rehabilitated or you’ll be better off staying in the foster system, which is always itself a risk, remember. Foster families are not always the best.
Reunification therapy is also for divorce cases though, where one parent has essentially poisoned the well against another with no real abuse being present.
So, uh, sorry for whatever happened to you, it can be a very difficult situation when a child has nowhere else to go. Depending on availability of foster families, a judge may be forced to sometimes make a difficult decision, it just depends on the circumstances.
edit: Oh, and do keep in mind, this publication is owned by the same people that run the Washington Examiner. It’s NY Post or Daily Mail-tier when it comes to accuracy.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapy-types/reunification-therapy
It’s a little more complicated than this conservative rag makes it out to be.
Bet you could’ve stopped that if you had some highly trained guard dolphins posted up around the area.