My bad.

No joke, didn’t Nero marry a trans woman?

deleted by creator

Age of consent is 18 in the United Kingdom, when the older individual has a duty of care for the younger.

Thanks :)

Hi, I’ve installed KISS after reading this comment and there’s one thing I don’t understand. Is one supposed to manually select their ‘Favourites’ or are they populated by KISS with use? I couldn’t find an answer to this anywhere else.

Absolutely. Just a warning that one’ll drive themselves mad if they dig into every error produced in any Reach publication with the sheer amount of content they publish so quickly.

IIRC the Mirror and the MEN are owned by the same company (alongside most other ‘local’ papers including the Birmingham Mail and the Bristol Post).

If he was an ethnically Bangladeshi teenage girl, we in the UK could definitely find a way to render him stateless.

The problem is that, this helps Putin. If we assume he has no regard for human life, then this is a massive opportunity for him. He’s made the most out of opportunities like this one in the past.

This attack on innocent lives is a profound tragedy as it is. I wish I could spend more time dwelling on the plight of the victims but my brain won’t stop panicking about all the ways Putin can exploit this situation to ruin even more lives.

It’s why I couldn’t shake the idea that this might be a false flag operation. It’s why I can’t deny the prospect that perhaps Russian security services didn’t do all they could to stop this before it occurred.

My thoughts to the victims and those close to them.

I’m not expecting people to know. I’m expecting the AP to educate their readers.

deleted by creator

Thanks for your input. Maybe non-Brits won’t understand that I’m not trying to be elitist. It’s just that, as far as I can remember, even in our shit-tier tabloids, he’s called the Taoiseach. Sure, it’s confusing the first time but I don’t think it’s the hardest thing to pick up from context. Prime Minister immediately smacks like a mistake or a lack of care.

I think the best thing would be maybe refer to him as PM in the headline (if there’s no better alternative) but then as Taoiseach in the article.

I understand their justification and I assume both the author and their editors are aware of the real term. However, before I noticed that this was from the AP, I assumed this story was from a less-prestigious source because referring to Varadkar as a PM felt like a mistake akin to if someone referred to Rishi Sunak as a ‘President’ (as the Spanish use it) or ‘Chancellor’ (as the Germans use it). I wouldn’t have even commented upon it if this was the Daily Mail or such but I’d have assumed the Associated Press would respect their audience enough to understand the word with context and perhaps a short disclaimer.

I’m honestly curious as to what sort of evidence you’d like to see? By the standards of ancient history, Jesus of Nazareth is a reasonably well-attested figure.

I mean correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think I said any different? All we are reasonably sure of is:

1. He existed.
2. He was baptised by John the Baptist.
3. He was crucified.

However, any non-Christian who claims that Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical figure, as the original commenter did, discredits all of us non-Christians who find it ridiculous to believe that this man was the Messiah.

It’s less of a grey area because Ireland is a predominantly English-speaking country. The official name for his office in both English and Irish is Taoiseach. This is in contrast to the President of Ireland, whose official title in English is ‘President’.

I’m British and we never refer to Varadkar as the prime minister. Any news coverage here refers to him, correctly, as the Taoiseach.

EDIT: And this is coming from the country who, regrettably, are the reason why Ireland now has to be so careful to maintain their ancient language after centuries of us trying to eradicate their native culture.

Ireland doesn’t have a prime minister. Leo Varadkar is the Taoiseach. Sure it’d be less clear if the AP used the correct term but I don’t think that’s any reason to not use the actual term for his office.

Sorry for my delayed reply but this was exactly the explanation I needed and I’m grateful for the effort you put into writing it.

The Wikipedia article has a pretty good summary.

Essentially, we have non-Christian sources claiming he existed from only a few decades after he died. Furthermore, no ancient critics of Christianity argue that Jesus didn’t exist. Then there are aspects of the story that you’d assume early Christians wouldn’t want to make up. This includes him being baptised by John the Baptist. It’s a little embarrassing for the alleged Messiah to be baptised by someone considered to be a normal dude. Sure Christians have kinda retconned its significance but if you were making it up whole-cloth why would you make that part of the story?

Similarly, the crucifixion. Try and take your mind back 1900 years. Crucifixion is a humiliating punishment, designed to shame criminals. If you were creating a mythical figure, in that time, why on Earth would you have him die that way? It doesn’t make much sense. To suppose Jesus is a wholly mythical figure is necessarily to suppose he’s an invention. Sure, maybe you could make a compelling anti-hero from the crucifixion story but you want to be fabricating the world’s first universal religion. Why make your job harder by so closely associating your so-called Messiah with a method of execution often associated with petty thieves and brigands?