In Germany's case, it's the centre-right (as Merkel's party is) telling people that hate is dangerous (demonstrable fact), that spreading it hurts society (demonstrable fact), and that companies who wish to make money from peoples' speech need to be able to discern dangerous speech from not.
You kind of missed the entire discussion in your summary.
If she was doing it because she was part of some octogenarian group which stands for killing others, yes, the group should get criticised. Or do you think his political stance had nothing to do with the attack and was purely accidental?
Most acts of terrorism in Germany are perpetrated by the right wing, usually in the form of firebomb attacks on refugee homes. As for Antifa, they fight fascists. Fascists want to fight everyone else. If you can't see the difference, I don't think I can help you.
You frequently ask questions which have been answered. You might want to argue from fact and not ignorance - it will yield real arguments and not result in you proudly stating your ignorance for all to see:)
I like how you ignored the parts of your argument blown out of the water, and then tried to use what's left to appear to have a point. That is really classy, and definitely shows a good argument.
It provided a very easy method of seeing what was important to the users of the site, and to allow people to share and discuss these issues. Even if nothing ever happened because of the petitions, the record of the petitions and the level of support for each is useful information, surely. I don't know how anyone would be against such information if they think the government should be at all aware of how the people it is supposed to represent think.
Hint: basing assumptions of a complicated system on a few acquaintances isn't going to yield useful results. The statistics are known, and you're incorrect. Outcomes in Canada are comparable to the US, and it costs far less.
Healthcare scales. The US already spends more tax money per capita on healthcare than countries with universal systems. Your argument needs a lot of work.
The US already spends more tax money per capita on healthcare than most developed countries with universal healthcare/single payer systems. The money is already there - it's being squandered on insurance middlemen and businesses operating where no business has any reason to do so. You are perpetuating a falsehood which only serves to condemn successive generations to developing-country-level healthcare. I know you think you're helping, but you're doing exactly the opposite.
I don't see how ISPs being able to prioritise traffic from some services over others is going to help new entrants to the market. If you want more local control, running infrastructure as a public service is precisely what you want, not to repeal net neutrality.
It can't be argued against because it's nonsensical. There is literally no benefit to people, just to large companies people seem to already dislike massively.
So you're blaming systemd for something you admit might not even be systemd's fault, and to such an extent you are saying it's worthless. That's not very logical... I'm not saying you're wrong, you just haven't demonstrated (even to yourself) what you're saying is true.
If you realise it's not because someone's favourite politician didn't win, but because the one that did win is an absolute joke, you might start to understand the world you live in a bit more.
Slashdot Mirror
Please stop spamming.
If society can justify punching out people who are nazis
you mean. Clumsily equating nazis with people who fight nazis isn't very wise or honest...
It's a representative democracy, like most in the world.
In Germany's case, it's the centre-right (as Merkel's party is) telling people that hate is dangerous (demonstrable fact), that spreading it hurts society (demonstrable fact), and that companies who wish to make money from peoples' speech need to be able to discern dangerous speech from not.
You kind of missed the entire discussion in your summary.
If she was doing it because she was part of some octogenarian group which stands for killing others, yes, the group should get criticised. Or do you think his political stance had nothing to do with the attack and was purely accidental?
Most acts of terrorism in Germany are perpetrated by the right wing, usually in the form of firebomb attacks on refugee homes. As for Antifa, they fight fascists. Fascists want to fight everyone else. If you can't see the difference, I don't think I can help you.
You can't prove all systems devolve into Venezuela by only citing Venzuela. Logic doesn't work that way.
Muh SJWs! Muh SJWs! Your "Do-gooder derogation" is painfully obvious.
Then why do uncivilised countries use the death penalty and civilised ones don't?
You frequently ask questions which have been answered. You might want to argue from fact and not ignorance - it will yield real arguments and not result in you proudly stating your ignorance for all to see :)
I like how you ignored the parts of your argument blown out of the water, and then tried to use what's left to appear to have a point. That is really classy, and definitely shows a good argument.
But by then it's too late. Preventing this sort of abuse is better than relying on a court case.
It provided a very easy method of seeing what was important to the users of the site, and to allow people to share and discuss these issues. Even if nothing ever happened because of the petitions, the record of the petitions and the level of support for each is useful information, surely. I don't know how anyone would be against such information if they think the government should be at all aware of how the people it is supposed to represent think.
You should check the official rankings as opposed to what you read from randoms on the internet...
Hint: basing assumptions of a complicated system on a few acquaintances isn't going to yield useful results. The statistics are known, and you're incorrect. Outcomes in Canada are comparable to the US, and it costs far less.
Healthcare scales. The US already spends more tax money per capita on healthcare than countries with universal systems. Your argument needs a lot of work.
The US already spends more tax money per capita on healthcare than most developed countries with universal healthcare/single payer systems. The money is already there - it's being squandered on insurance middlemen and businesses operating where no business has any reason to do so. You are perpetuating a falsehood which only serves to condemn successive generations to developing-country-level healthcare. I know you think you're helping, but you're doing exactly the opposite.
I 'member!
I don't see how ISPs being able to prioritise traffic from some services over others is going to help new entrants to the market. If you want more local control, running infrastructure as a public service is precisely what you want, not to repeal net neutrality.
It can't be argued against because it's nonsensical. There is literally no benefit to people, just to large companies people seem to already dislike massively.
Engaging in whataboutery only serves to admit your argument is defenseless.
Because there's no evidence there are aliens, so it's pointless conjecture? We might as well discuss Bigfoot's favourite flavour of ice cream.
So you're blaming systemd for something you admit might not even be systemd's fault, and to such an extent you are saying it's worthless. That's not very logical... I'm not saying you're wrong, you just haven't demonstrated (even to yourself) what you're saying is true.
Noisy? "journalctl -u service" will show you the output for a specific service. Add -f and it will follow it. It's not noisy at all.
If you realise it's not because someone's favourite politician didn't win, but because the one that did win is an absolute joke, you might start to understand the world you live in a bit more.
Coal kills more birds than wind.