You're busy calling people "worthless sack[s] of shit", but you don't even care about the atrocities that your country causes in the name of "democracy" and "human rights". Maybe it's because you think that Arabs deserve to die.
Maybe you should stop calling people sacks of shit, and realise that everyone has a right to live, and that America should stop denying that right just because people have the wrong sort of democracy.
Or maybe you could live in your fool's paradise where everything is ruled by liberals, and the evil right wingers are all gassed to death. All several hundred million of them.
It's funny how you call conservatives and Trump Nazis. The sad fact is, as far as your foreign policy is concerned, the Democrats are Nazis.
It's the democrats that have caused the current fractures in Libya and Syria. You are the ones that have lead to millions of refugees, and hundreds of thousands of deaths.
So call Trump a Nazi all you like; but he hasn't done that yet.
And if you think that your preferred party is any better, I wish you would just go away, hide, and shut up, because all America has done the last 10 years is cause a lot of pointless death.
The fact that you can't see that, and all you can do is look at Trump and call him a Nazi while forgetting the atrocities that your previous government has caused, is, well, disappointing.
I don't celebrate Christmas, and I don't give a damn if someone says "Merry Christmas" or anything else. I also don't care if people celebrate other religious holidays. It's not exclusionary - they're not excluding anyone.
What kind of self-righteous dickhead does someone have to be to be offended by someone saying "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Channukah", or spreading their joy of a Hindu holiday or whatever. Who honestly gives a fuck?
Hmm. Here's a correction that's prevents the irony in your statement:
"Ad-Hominem attacks are a concession of defeat. The more names they call you, the greater your victory"
Although I would argue that calling someone a name is not a concession of defeat. It is more the demonstration of an inability to make a reasoned argument and/or to contain ones emotions, or a clever way to demonise someone based on the target audience. Arrghgh - I guess it's quite hard to generalise what an ad-hominem attack says about someone.
Hatred of a group isn't bigotry - that's called hatred. Hating people of another race (including white people!) is called racism, not bigotry.
A more practical definition of bigotry is someone who will not tolerate others who have a different opinion. E.g. "You think women already have equal rights??? What!! You are a misogynist!". That statement is the statement of a bigot. An unbigoted statement would be "No, you're utterly wrong - actually they lack the right to [bla bla]".
For the record, I am a left leaning liberal who thinks everyone should have a good education for free, or reasonable fee, and free healthcare, and that everyone has the right to be fed, clothed, and sheltered. But I don't go around demonising those that disagree with me. It is those people, that go around demonising others, that I call bigots. And I am correct in my assertion.
In regards to your sig, "Ad-Hominem attacks are the liberals concession of defeat. The more names they call you, the greater your victory"
Is unfair to actual liberals. Do a quick look up of "liberal" in the dictionary. The regressive left are anything BUT liberal. They are in fact bigots, who, ironically, call anyone that disagrees with them a bigot.
Extortion is "the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats".
Snapchat was threatening to display pro-gun ads during an anti-gun livestream unless the owners paid up. Sounds like the literal definition of extortion to me.
If you read the actual article, you'll find that the person who did that was also being vindictive.
But it's a bit more complicated than that. Many people refuse to believe that their friends have done something "wrong" and will water it down in their own minds. Much like when parents refuse to believe than little darling Johnny could ever have done something like that.
I agree, the police force as an organisation (in each country) needs to put more focus on their members behaving property, and expelling those who don't, but at the same time, it's hard for people to punish their own friends (which are usually the people who are with them on the beat, and know they've done something wrong). Or they'll even believe that the act wasn't wrong.
Also, many police who would otherwise dob in their comrades do not for fear of repercussion.
There needs to be organisational change, but to call 97% of them bad is either mean-spirited or naive.
From Wikipedia:
"Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body to anyone who is willing to receive them."
Merriam Webster:
"the right to express facts and opinions subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to protect itself from a clear and present danger) guaranteed by the 1st and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution and similar provisions of some state constitutions"
Oxford Dictionaries:
"The right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint."
I am capable of communicating the entirety of my ideas and opinions without having to copy someone else's work.
So despite ACs rudeness, I don't consider him/her to be wrong about free speech.
But I could be wrong under the Oxford definition because it really depends what entails a "restraint", and being restrained by not being able to reproduce someone;s work could count. But by uploading torrents of the latest movies, I'm not really expressing any opinion to begin with. To actually express something, one would need to cut and add commentary about the movie expressing an actual opinion, which would then fall under "fair use" for most purposes.
The Merriam Webster entry seems to say that freedom of speech can be defined by the government, which I consider absurd.
The Wikipedia entry specifically says "using one's body", so under that definition, breaking movie copyright certainly doesn't count. Doing a rendition of "happy birthday" could count as free speech that is stopped by copyright law imo.
Yes they do. Which makes Chinese languages particularly interesting.
There are quite a few differences in grammar between Cantonese and "Mandarin" (Standard Chinese) as well, so even in the written form, it's not EASY for Mandarin speakers and Cantonese speakers to communicate.
I have also seen Japanese and Chinese communicate with each other using Chinese characters. Stunted, but it works.
Slashdot Mirror
How is avoiding purchasing products made in China going to help fix their egregious rights violations?
The statement is pointless, it applies to every country on earth.
Maybe you should stop calling people sacks of shit, and realise that everyone has a right to live, and that America should stop denying that right just because people have the wrong sort of democracy.
Or maybe you could live in your fool's paradise where everything is ruled by liberals, and the evil right wingers are all gassed to death. All several hundred million of them.
It's the democrats that have caused the current fractures in Libya and Syria. You are the ones that have lead to millions of refugees, and hundreds of thousands of deaths.
So call Trump a Nazi all you like; but he hasn't done that yet.
And if you think that your preferred party is any better, I wish you would just go away, hide, and shut up, because all America has done the last 10 years is cause a lot of pointless death.
The fact that you can't see that, and all you can do is look at Trump and call him a Nazi while forgetting the atrocities that your previous government has caused, is, well, disappointing.
You can replace "China" in those two sentences with "the United States", and they would be just as true.
I just trawled through a bunch of news about Wil Wheaton, and couldn't find anything related to the left throwing out Wil Wheaton. Evidence please?
EVERY LANGUAGE ON EARTH is nothing more than a conglomeration and bastardizations of words from all the other languages around.
FTFY
It's both. But Hitler was after those of the Jewish race.
Farenheit 451 didn't come from the right
I'm not sure what this statement means, but the man that wrote that book was conservative leaning Ray Bradbury.
https://www.nationalreview.com...
I don't celebrate Christmas, and I don't give a damn if someone says "Merry Christmas" or anything else. I also don't care if people celebrate other religious holidays. It's not exclusionary - they're not excluding anyone. What kind of self-righteous dickhead does someone have to be to be offended by someone saying "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Channukah", or spreading their joy of a Hindu holiday or whatever. Who honestly gives a fuck?
Last time I checked, directional quotes were part of the English language.
If government is paying $2000 per coin, then coins are worth $2000, because if you have one you can sell it to the government for $2000.
Almost funny, except it's pronounced "wei-chi"
First Google result for "windows hardlink":
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-...
It's got horrendous design. But, how does it look like malware? And it already is "one of the publicly available host files".
Hmm. Here's a correction that's prevents the irony in your statement:
"Ad-Hominem attacks are a concession of defeat. The more names they call you, the greater your victory"
Although I would argue that calling someone a name is not a concession of defeat. It is more the demonstration of an inability to make a reasoned argument and/or to contain ones emotions, or a clever way to demonise someone based on the target audience. Arrghgh - I guess it's quite hard to generalise what an ad-hominem attack says about someone.
Hatred of a group isn't bigotry - that's called hatred. Hating people of another race (including white people!) is called racism, not bigotry.
A more practical definition of bigotry is someone who will not tolerate others who have a different opinion. E.g. "You think women already have equal rights??? What!! You are a misogynist!". That statement is the statement of a bigot. An unbigoted statement would be "No, you're utterly wrong - actually they lack the right to [bla bla]".
For the record, I am a left leaning liberal who thinks everyone should have a good education for free, or reasonable fee, and free healthcare, and that everyone has the right to be fed, clothed, and sheltered. But I don't go around demonising those that disagree with me. It is those people, that go around demonising others, that I call bigots. And I am correct in my assertion.
In regards to your sig, "Ad-Hominem attacks are the liberals concession of defeat. The more names they call you, the greater your victory"
Is unfair to actual liberals. Do a quick look up of "liberal" in the dictionary. The regressive left are anything BUT liberal. They are in fact bigots, who, ironically, call anyone that disagrees with them a bigot.
Extortion is "the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats".
Snapchat was threatening to display pro-gun ads during an anti-gun livestream unless the owners paid up. Sounds like the literal definition of extortion to me.
If you read the actual article, you'll find that the person who did that was also being vindictive.
Yes, he's saying that the researcher is being judged. He himself is not making a judgment.
Good point.
But it's a bit more complicated than that. Many people refuse to believe that their friends have done something "wrong" and will water it down in their own minds. Much like when parents refuse to believe than little darling Johnny could ever have done something like that.
I agree, the police force as an organisation (in each country) needs to put more focus on their members behaving property, and expelling those who don't, but at the same time, it's hard for people to punish their own friends (which are usually the people who are with them on the beat, and know they've done something wrong). Or they'll even believe that the act wasn't wrong.
Also, many police who would otherwise dob in their comrades do not for fear of repercussion.
There needs to be organisational change, but to call 97% of them bad is either mean-spirited or naive.
All humans who let bad humans stay (in society) are themselves bad humans. Which includes you.
From Wikipedia: "Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body to anyone who is willing to receive them."
Merriam Webster: "the right to express facts and opinions subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to protect itself from a clear and present danger) guaranteed by the 1st and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution and similar provisions of some state constitutions"
Oxford Dictionaries: "The right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint."
I am capable of communicating the entirety of my ideas and opinions without having to copy someone else's work. So despite ACs rudeness, I don't consider him/her to be wrong about free speech.
But I could be wrong under the Oxford definition because it really depends what entails a "restraint", and being restrained by not being able to reproduce someone;s work could count. But by uploading torrents of the latest movies, I'm not really expressing any opinion to begin with. To actually express something, one would need to cut and add commentary about the movie expressing an actual opinion, which would then fall under "fair use" for most purposes.
The Merriam Webster entry seems to say that freedom of speech can be defined by the government, which I consider absurd.
The Wikipedia entry specifically says "using one's body", so under that definition, breaking movie copyright certainly doesn't count. Doing a rendition of "happy birthday" could count as free speech that is stopped by copyright law imo.
"Hao bu hao" means "good or bad". "Hao bu hao ma?" means "good or bad?", and could be translated as "Is that good for you?"
Yes they do. Which makes Chinese languages particularly interesting. There are quite a few differences in grammar between Cantonese and "Mandarin" (Standard Chinese) as well, so even in the written form, it's not EASY for Mandarin speakers and Cantonese speakers to communicate. I have also seen Japanese and Chinese communicate with each other using Chinese characters. Stunted, but it works.