Was it truly deliberate, as in "I want to poison this dog, so that it dies"? If yes, then there is hard to forgive, maybe not possible. The only way would be if they reported themself to the police and offered a sincere apology, and then I would not let them near my dog as long as it lives. But could maybe forgive in time if they did all that.
Deliberate is also not black and white. Were they negligent?
As in knew that dogs can't really have onions, but did fed them food with just a little bit of onion in it, thinking it would be fine? Negligence can be forgiven, but only with a sincere apology.
I would forgive them if it was not deliberate at all. Even with a pretty bad apology.
If this person is important in your life, or are closely related, I would explain to them that the apology did not feel sincere, and that you consider it hard to forgive. Ask that they try again.
Also, do forgive them for your own sake, no reason to be angry in the long term, but you don't have to trust them. Edit: you don't have to tell them that you forgive them.
If it was a child that did this everything is very different. The answer assumed a person 18-20+
This is one of the things that bother me with people being anti-trans. Why the hell do they care? There is nothing, NOTHING that trans people are asking for that bother me, because it does not affect my life. I don't see how it affects theirs either.
There are two things I know little about when it comes to trans.
How to make it fair in sports, but I really don't care for sports. So I haven't researched it. Don't really care if they participate, but I don't take sports seriously anyways.
How to protect vulnerable people from themselves. This is probably contraversial, but I am for giving trans people the treatment they need to transition, or at least make sure it is possible at a later stage by giving hormones / blockers. So that they can transition a bit older.
However (the controversial part) many trans people are vulnerable and also struggle with other issues and operations is often permanent. This is something that I don't believe is easy to decide, I am ignorant here, I trust medical professionals, psychologists, psychiatrists and the trans community to come up with guidelines / practice here. It is however not something that I think politicians should decide, or is competent in deciding.
The only reason I care about point 2 is to protect people from mistakes, not to stop trans people from transitioning!
It's a compromise for sure, and not entirely consistent with the values of a vegan / vegetarian.
I wanted to reduce my meat and animal product consumption and it removed most of the social friction. The constant need to tell hosts of social gatherings of my preferences. I did not have to constantly hear whining from my grandmother about how they ate in the old days, and how we "city-folk" are.
I am currently a meat eater, but try to not eat meat too often. I would not consider myself a flexitarian, but eat way less than before.
I have attempted being ovo lacto vegetarian in the past, flexitarian and pescitarian, but never vegan.
My experience is that your motivation for not eating meat is why people care. If you do it for ethical or environmental reasons and not health ones. Then people will feel that you are thinking that you are superior to them.
Health one is the most accepted reason, because it is not an "attack" on someones values. Yes, it is ridiculous that people feel this way.
However it is more work having guests that have special dietary needs, and vegans and vegetarians are choosing it. People with allergies or religious reasons are not.
My experience is that the easiest way to get the most results with the least friction socially is to be a flexitarian. Eat vegetarian / vegan when you are cooking or buying food, and eat the meat and animal products you are served. That reduces your consumption of animal meat and products by 80-95% without the hassle.
I managed to be a flexitarian for 2-3 years, but gave up. Vegetarian I only managed like a month or two.
They make a lot of high quality shows in my opinion, and have made a lot of great ones in the past. Max is a better service than Netflix in my opinion.
HBO make shows that feel closer to the "human condition" than most other companies.
Max has the following great shows:
Game of Thrones
House of the Dragon
The Sopranos
Oz
What We Do In The Shadows
The Wire
Silicon Valley
Rick and Morty
True Detective Season 1
Rome
+++
I think LMG / LTT paid for it, but the issue still remains what do you do as a manager or boss in a company when these things happen?
If the authorities is not involved then there only is one thing to do, hire someone yourself. Doing the audit internally by yourself is worse. So they did what they can do in a situation like that.
Unfortunately we have to trust them in the very end. If they say that the audit found X and not Y, we have no other choice but to trust it, or have zero tolerance. By not forgiving or allowing people and companies to improve we only make them repress and hide issues more. Zero tolerance could also leads to innocent people and companies being harshly and unfairly punished.
Thanks, I see that this was somewhat contradictory.
My point is that the issue with SA and sexual harassment is so prevalent in society that it happens everywhere. A company of a 100 employees or more would probably have someone acting badly. As long as it is handled and the parties face some sort of consequences that prevents it in the future I don't see how disregarding an entire company is productive or helpful. If there is proof of them not taking the harassment seriously, then I think boycotting is productive. I have not seen evidence of this in regards of LTT.
The statistics on SA and sexual harassment in society pretty much points in the direction that it is a huge problem and happens everywhere, and therefore should be expected to happen at LTT as well. Not that it is OK.
Not that I condone or want to minimize the experience.
But isn't that something that happens at pretty much all companies given a certain size? The more people work somewhere the higher the likelihood that some form of sexual harassment would happen? LTT has >100 employees I believe. LTT seems to be a place that takes good care of their employees compared to most companies.
I kinda feel that disregarding the entire company because of a sexual harassment incident is heavy handed. Note that I do not know of the extent that this has happened.
Haha, thanks!