OK, so nothing to do with the massive data breach. But hey, you just really want to make a point about how upset you are that Europeans having decent work/life balance, so there's not point continuing to expose your little agenda.
The USA has shown, over the last 12 months, what a security-conscious country it is. The Defense Secretary's almost fanantical regard for messaging security should be held up as an object lesson for all future generations.
What specifically do you disagree with? I’ve explained it three different times now and can’t delete my original comment so please let me know
This research shows physicians harmed kids recommending they avoid allergens like peanuts, is that something we should ignore because all the benefits of science are “worth it”?
Science is amazing not because it’s always right, but because it (should) strive to always do better next time
All you're fucking doing is saying "Don't save a million people of 1 person is going to be harmed" OR the utterly trite point of "wouldn't it be great if everything was magical and no one was harmed by anything ever".
What you’re describing is called utilitarian ethics, the exact tradeoff is called the trolly problem. Ethics is much more complicated than a single comment thread
“it’s worth it” is a horrible argument when people’s health is on the line.
They were advised against because of the allergy risk, not because of choking hazard. Are you a parent? No shit you don't give hard nuts to a baby with no teeth.
It means I debated very often with weird people and the proof that I did, is that I don't feel the need to make the poster above believe, that I actually did that.
(Otherwise I would have shared links where you can find me debating the topic at length with various people)
Because indeed, most flat earthers are immune to reason as they are in the realm of irrationality.
So at some point someone needs to accept that and that helped my attitude towards my need to correct wrong information in people in general.
And if you believe now, I am a flat earther, because I said I discovered some flat earthers that act somewhat scientific sometimes and are open for arguments, well, so be it.
Whether or not you believe the earth is flat is a yes or no question, but you responded with a paragraph that wasn't a real answer. This reads as defensive, which leads a reasonable person to believe that you are in fact a flat earther.
I was defensive about the accusation of never having engaged with a real flat earther, despite saying so. And this part of the debate actually reminds me of engaging with them, so I rather stop that.
Have you ever watched a we-have-never-been-on-the-moon conspiracy freak engage a flat earther?
With both trying to top each other who has the most superior knowledge and who is the real sheep?
But yes. All that borderlines on the dangerous mental crazy side, so I cannot really recommend it, unless you have a fascination with the abyss of the human mind.
> If it did, my post above wouldn't be at -4, while the inflammatory answer above is still in the black.
Ah ok, so only your right to free speech is important and no one is allowed to react negatively to it and have their own free speech. Thanks for making that clear.
Yes of course. Netanyahu in a narcissistic and tyrannical move tried to seize control of the judicial system as part of his ongoing attempts to subvert democracy and justice. He's corrupt and if he's found guilty he'll go to prison so he's trying to control the process. But the brave protestors are speaking out and not allowing him and his far right government from destroying Israeli democracy and society. It's an old, tired narrative and most of the country can see through it which is why he keeps getting elected.
>Netanyahu in a narcissistic and tyrannical move tried to seize control of the judicial system as part of his ongoing attempts to subvert democracy and justice. He's corrupt and if he's found guilty he'll go to prison so he's trying to control the process. But the brave protestors are speaking out and not allowing him and his far right government from destroying Israeli democracy and society.
Well yes this, but unironically.
Of course, add commission of genocide to that list.
It's genocide to defend your country these days. It's amazing how good pr and a concerted media campaign can shift a narrative so far that it's taken for granted, even by pro Israel people that they have to defend against charges of genocide. It's the sort of thing put out by people who want zero accountability and are looking to deflect blame (the UN, Qatar and every other Arab state who helped create this crisis). Yeah I know you're going to say that's netanyahu, but it's obviously not because he would deal in good faith with anyone who would reciprocate. On the very rare occasions that happens he does. He's so far honoured the ceasfires and politically he's offered many concessions to which are usually rejected, because most of the time people are dealing with him and his government in bad faith.
reply