The environmental problems are critical, though. And it's what ultimately will decide the fate of our species. There is room for optimism in some aspects of our society, but that is not an indication that in the end everything will be alright.

To say something is good merely because it has been consumed for a long period.
Very often people use a terrible argument and reach the right conclusion by chance.

Sorry, but i hate this argument. Any conflict can end if one side accepts the terms of the other side. You can just pick the side you dont like and say "well. They can end it if they do this now", implying all the destruction is their exclusive responsibility. To make a better assesment of who to blame, you need to get to know what their motives are and any and all context involved. This should be the first step for those seeking peace anyway.

Xiaomi TV Stick 4k. I got an Amazon Fire TV stick, hated it very much, but luckily for me it malfunctioned after a month, and i managed to get a "refund" that was limited to the amazon store. I spent the money on the xiaomi alternative that came with android tv, as it was about the same price, but you can install (and keep installed) a custom loader without ads, and never have to update anything it if you don't want it. But be careful, some newer models from xiaomi come with google tv instead, which is probably harder to have control over privacy/ads.

Then get yourself some better arguments. You are hurting your cause. More context does not hurt. If you are right, it will prove you right.

Its not like burning the quran is part of everyday life in society. More like they deliberate do it because they know its offensive for muslims, so its an obvious provocation disguised as freedom of expression. Im atheist btw and i despise religion in general, but sad to see reason being downvoted. Sorry i can't back you up on the comment sections, i cant afford to be judged right now.

I agree with you, but we should not compromise logic just to confirm what we believe.

You should not dismiss the guy/gal that said liquor has been around for a long time. That is a valid observation and a counter example to your argument, so it positively contributes to the discussion. Try to think about what makes beer different in that it is also part of society but is proven to cause harm, and come out with a different, stronger argument. A person that points out the flaw of your argument is not necessarily your enemy, and may still agree with you after all. Yes. I'm like that in real life.

I think the point was just that the argument was flawed.

Sanctions should be recognized as a crime against humanity.