Funny stuff.
Its unknown lawfulness quanta, hence nowhere near proven unlawful ergo criminal and actionable if sufficiently recent.
Disregarding the legal statue of the breach of regulation discussed, which may be criminal itself but will never be prove positive of guilt regarding different unlawful acts to it....until proven guilty.
"I'm pretty sure just being of Jewish descent is enough for a prosecution in Iran."
Judaism is an officially recognized religious minority in Iran. Jews are guaranteed representation in the Iranian legislature. Jews are also protected by a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini.
So I guess we know how much your state of "pretty sure" is worth. At best it is 90 years out of date, since even Reza Shah Pahlavi was favorable to the Jews, despite his association with the Nazis.
Upstanding man, that Pahlavi. Letting Iranian Jews live as second rate citizens for the time being while supporting the shit-comet of a rising global power that, had it not been eradicated, was as likely to spare them after winning the war as I am to respect your intellectual integrity.
This is the first time I wish I could mod a comment down.
What kind of sick troll compares drunks being failed by a self appointed dick choir that lied it will have god magic their drinking away with people being afflicted with damn cancer through no choice of their own? Not fluffy condescending alcoholism is a disease not a choice jive but a truly uncontrollable shit storm willpower legitimately can not and does not control in any way?
Also, recidivism goes nice with phrenology.
Poppycock. Rock bottom is defined in retrospect. Poorly. Your friend probably had worse states than the so called rock bottom after which he or she started applying accountability. Confirmation bias is neat.
But if it's a different 5 percent than those projected to quit drinking unassisted math compels (as in forces, not suggests. Fact. No two ways about it) us to conclude alcies anon pushes some who should have stopped drinking on their own to keep drinking. Isn't getting some caught up in cult mentality while causing others to drink even more than they would otherwise a Bad Thing? Seems awful lot like it adversely affects as many as 10% which materialistic, narrow minded, nasty math maintain is twice badder than having 5% get gooder.
Acknowledging this at all merits actual debate broke my saneness a little. It's like teaching Shakespeare to disturbingly not adorable ferrets. My brain hurts.
A speaker must fall into one of three categories assuming the expressed notion both follows a system for logic and stands in relation to a reality to meet the basest criteria for speech.
Editing derp.
Should we truly apply the concept of free speech as naively as some believe they do, would tutelage of any language to any infant not be necessarily a crime most heinous?
No, since speech by definition must convey a message. Ergo, a speaker, being a generator of speech, must belong to one of three categories:
A confabulator of fiction, a proclaimer of supposed fact or a deceiver.
Pandering sans a (usually moralistic) narrative framework is blather - not even nonsense. It fails to be complete fiction. In this case the publication merely echoes an immensely bestial action (a murder), the agent to such an act is removed from veritable debate by classical western tradition.
What do I fail to understand? Slightest analysis appears to crush the notion this article has anything to do with free speech whatsoever.
I lack an opinion on it's legality and lack necessity to form, let alone share, my moral standing regarding this type of vapid publication.
(Be it that the video and persumably it's vehicle site fail to meet the basic criteria to count as articles of actual speech, I propose we could equally and perhaps more fruitfully and better serving us individual members of the readers collective "how acrid must flatulence be that we are in the right removing it's progenitor from civilized society?")
Slashdot Mirror
Funny stuff. Its unknown lawfulness quanta, hence nowhere near proven unlawful ergo criminal and actionable if sufficiently recent. Disregarding the legal statue of the breach of regulation discussed, which may be criminal itself but will never be prove positive of guilt regarding different unlawful acts to it. ...until proven guilty.
"I'm pretty sure just being of Jewish descent is enough for a prosecution in Iran."
Judaism is an officially recognized religious minority in Iran. Jews are guaranteed representation in the Iranian legislature. Jews are also protected by a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini.
So I guess we know how much your state of "pretty sure" is worth. At best it is 90 years out of date, since even Reza Shah Pahlavi was favorable to the Jews, despite his association with the Nazis.
Upstanding man, that Pahlavi. Letting Iranian Jews live as second rate citizens for the time being while supporting the shit-comet of a rising global power that, had it not been eradicated, was as likely to spare them after winning the war as I am to respect your intellectual integrity. This is the first time I wish I could mod a comment down.
What kind of sick troll compares drunks being failed by a self appointed dick choir that lied it will have god magic their drinking away with people being afflicted with damn cancer through no choice of their own? Not fluffy condescending alcoholism is a disease not a choice jive but a truly uncontrollable shit storm willpower legitimately can not and does not control in any way? Also, recidivism goes nice with phrenology.
Poppycock. Rock bottom is defined in retrospect. Poorly. Your friend probably had worse states than the so called rock bottom after which he or she started applying accountability. Confirmation bias is neat.
Excuse my apparent ignorance of punctuation. The higher power that is posting from the mobile site from an Android smartphone is to blame.
But if it's a different 5 percent than those projected to quit drinking unassisted math compels (as in forces, not suggests. Fact. No two ways about it) us to conclude alcies anon pushes some who should have stopped drinking on their own to keep drinking. Isn't getting some caught up in cult mentality while causing others to drink even more than they would otherwise a Bad Thing? Seems awful lot like it adversely affects as many as 10% which materialistic, narrow minded, nasty math maintain is twice badder than having 5% get gooder. Acknowledging this at all merits actual debate broke my saneness a little. It's like teaching Shakespeare to disturbingly not adorable ferrets. My brain hurts.
"People are weak" Citation needed
Are you psychotic?
It's free as in "free spiked beer then steal his wallet, jewelry and kidneys when he's out cold".
Differentiating between reality and fiction? How quaint.
Lack of context, I suppose. Is why.
A speaker must fall into one of three categories assuming the expressed notion both follows a system for logic and stands in relation to a reality to meet the basest criteria for speech. Editing derp.
Should we truly apply the concept of free speech as naively as some believe they do, would tutelage of any language to any infant not be necessarily a crime most heinous? No, since speech by definition must convey a message. Ergo, a speaker, being a generator of speech, must belong to one of three categories: A confabulator of fiction, a proclaimer of supposed fact or a deceiver. Pandering sans a (usually moralistic) narrative framework is blather - not even nonsense. It fails to be complete fiction. In this case the publication merely echoes an immensely bestial action (a murder), the agent to such an act is removed from veritable debate by classical western tradition. What do I fail to understand? Slightest analysis appears to crush the notion this article has anything to do with free speech whatsoever. I lack an opinion on it's legality and lack necessity to form, let alone share, my moral standing regarding this type of vapid publication. (Be it that the video and persumably it's vehicle site fail to meet the basic criteria to count as articles of actual speech, I propose we could equally and perhaps more fruitfully and better serving us individual members of the readers collective "how acrid must flatulence be that we are in the right removing it's progenitor from civilized society?")
Bump
Reasonable people? Game theory begs to differ
ehrm... bitching about politics is a prerogative of the upper classes. compare Orwell's 1984 with "the compilation of facts formerly known as Truth"
DIAEF Die in an electrolytical fire
Infinity of universe is debatable
Or am I laying too much faith in math?