Now you're building strawmen and arguing in bad faith. Discussion's over.

I'll also propose a counterargument: Mossad, the IDF, and Israeli gov't in general doesn't give two shits about collateral damage, how many innocent civilians they kill, and whether or not the intended target is a Hezbollah agent (or Hamas, for that matter). If they kill a thousand innocents for every genuine terrorist, that's a good day in their book. "Innocent before proven guilty" doesn't exist in their world view. Guilty by association is.

If that's not true, they've got a lot of work ahead of them to improve their public image. The whole lot of them are no better than the terrorists they claim to be fighting against

1. Bullshit, unless you're privy to the internal workings of alleged Hezbollah agents. Where's your documented proof?

2. So you claim that 10 year old girl who died was a Hezbollah agent? I'd sooner think you're spewing more bullshit.

3. See #2.

Alleged agent of Hezbollah receives the pager. Alleged agent places it on a table at home. Alleged agent's innocent daughter picks it off the table and uses it as a toy prop. Signal is sent, pager explodes, and kills the daughter.

There's an plethora of situations that could occur that result in an explosive pager being deployed while in the hands of someone not a Hezbollah agent, and that's if we take it at face value that Mossad can identify who is and isn't a Hezbollah agent. Wouldn't be the first time they've been overzealous and killed an innocent person. May they be judged accordingly by their Maker.

You and Oliver Cromwell would've gotten along well.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Gotta know your audience.

No, I wanted you to quote the article. Here, I'll do it for you: "The survival rate of patients with alcohol-related liver disease who receive a deceased donor liver transplant has steadily improved to reach 80–85 per cent at one year after a transplant.

Studies show that living liver transplants for alcohol liver disease have similar survival rates to other forms of liver disease.

But a study from the University Health Network showed that 86 per cent of those with alcohol-induced liver damage who were referred for transplants were rejected. Only 14 per cent of those who applied were accepted, and just six per cent received a liver transplant. There is a concern that patients with alcohol use disorder will relapse, damaging the new organ, though studies show the risk is around 15 per cent."

... Which refutes your opinions. Gee, can't imagine why you didn't want to quote that.

I don't have to imagine why that board wouldn't want to find every excuse in the book to deny the patient the transplant either... Seems like they have several hundred thousand of them: "Using the most recent data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information on hospital bed costs (2016), Huska’s time at the Oakville hospital likely cost over $450,000 - ($3,592 per day for ICU care) with an additional 61 days in a ward bed which likely cost about $1,200 a day

A liver transplant in Ontario is pegged at about $71,000 to $100,000 in Ontario based on data from 2019."

I'm not debating that she stopped drinking after diagnosis. I'm debating the rest of your opinion: "Stopping to drink for a few weeks after you realize you are about to die from drinking... doesn't really make a difference here. Unfortunately, she was an alcoholic for most of her life and, before diagnosis, did not show any capacity to quit

So, even if she did stopped drinking 100% after May... it was just too late"

So again, please back your statement up with a direct quote from the article. I'll wait, but excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

That's your opinion. Where does the article state that?

"This means she kept drinking while out of the hospital", which directly contradicts the statement by the boyfriend saying she stopped drinking.

Everything else is like, your opinion, man.

Please quote the article where it states her prognosis was not good enough for him to donate. All I'm seeing is a statement that her prior alcohol consumption was a factor in that decision.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm just daft this week, but I missed the concept "the doctors believed her liver is so far gone, a partial would lot [sic] work" in that.

I quote: "Huska, he said, stopped drinking as soon as she was diagnosed with Alcohol Liver Disease on March 3 and had also registered for an alcohol cessation program to begin once she was discharged." So where does the article state she kept drinking while waiting for the transplant?

Second paragraph in: 'However, documents show the Alcohol Liver Disease (ALD) team at UHN rejected her in part because of "minimal abstinence outside of hospital." '

The article quotes Dr. Jayakumar making a general statement regarding alcohol diseased livers, but the University Health Network declined to comment on Amanda's specific case outside offering their (patronizing) condolences.

Feel free to quote the article and back up your statement.

Did you bother to read the article? Her partner was a match, and could have donated a portion of their liver to her, if approved, as opposed to a donated liver.

Judge someone all you want for their previous life choices, but the decision referenced in this case should have been between the two of them and their doctor.

You state that animals are expressing wants and needs, not emotions, then ask questions that can only be answered by "we don't know".

I'd sooner think you do not know the former, either.

When the farmer says: "I'm here, ain't I?"...

After reading through your post history, all I can say is "Bullshit."

It has everything to do with him being a hypocrite.

What possible reason would literally millions of people have for disliking Elon?