> You also haven't answered why you feel this way.
My feelings are irrelevant - they make my points neither more nor less valid.
705 karma · joined November 26, 2016
My feelings are irrelevant - they make my points neither more nor less valid.
Why not wait till we're (more) certain? What's the worst that could happen? Catastrophic, runaway climate-change? I say we risk it - at least the science will have been settled...
FUD works both ways.
Most of the west has already drastically reduced the number of babies. All that happened is we were told we need immigration instead.
After all, the 'left-leaning' Google sure isn't pushing for unions, only for what will benefit them.
..I guess you're right. I understood orthogonal a bit too mathematically, and since the 'dot product' of both concepts with election results is non-zero... and concepts cannot have negative dot-products (???)... well, that's where I realized I was holding the analogy wrong.
As for why monopolies aren't getting broken up, I'd say a combination of increased corporate control of government, and global trade necessitating ever larger companies to compete, because tariffs are 'evil'.
Best case: NK government falls on its own. Least casualties.
Worst case: NK attacks (i.e. the missile had hit) or gets attacked, massive casualties on all sides.
How does your appeal to emotion change any of that?
Funny how the massively increased surveillance never prompted cops and spy agencies to ask for more limited powers, but the smallest hint of encryption has them crying for even more invasive powers.
Just not funny 'ha ha'.
> we live in a global market,
Treating local businesses preferentially does not mean abolishing international trade. Just look at China, or US agricultural subsidies, or tariffs, or countless other examples.
> Immigrants help Countries they move to
Countries, perhaps, but what about the local people? Don't they compete for the same jobs, driving down wages? Vote and take advantage of common resources (drinking water, arable land, existing infrastructure, etc.), reducing the political and economic capital of the locals? Encourage policies for more immigration, instead of policies that would encourage parenthood? Won't immigrants look out for their own interests more than for those of the local population?
Let me rephrase that last question - is racism real?
> Immigrants [...] are the only reason why the US does not have an aging population
It's a sick society indeed that can't even sustain its own population. And instead of improving itself, it makes up the shortfall with immigration. Do you really believe immigration is the only way to sustain population levels? Why can other countries manage without?
They are, and have historically been, the policy for the vast majority of countries, and are advantageous positions for a population to have - is that all it takes to be far right?
Literally illegal to call for less immigration.
They weren't raided for making true threats, but for letting the site become a "lawless realm" and/or for "sowing hate against different opinions and representatives of the country", charges so vague they could apply to almost any online forum or uppity news site.
I am shocked - shocked - that anti-hate animus would be used this way!
Such waivers limit this right. I struggle to imagine an ideology that thinks giving up a fundamental right is wrong, but limiting it is ok. Given how rarely arbitration courts rule against the one who selected them, the difference between limiting and forfeiting the right entirely is slim to none.
And it does not follow that a decision made by an entity inside the society, was made by the society as a whole, or that it has any sort of majority support, even if it is law. By that logic, you could argue that we, as a society, decided that one-click shopping is worthy of patent protection, and that it should be illegal do unlock your own phone.
Not entirely. Consider the case of water privatization, where there's a real risk of extortionate pricing of what used to be a common good. If carefully written, right to water laws can ensure that such resources are used for the benefit of the people, instead of being just another market good that gets slowly monopolized.
Edit: In other words, you may already have the right to free speech, while water must be provided, but both can be denied.