391–400 of 420 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it poor taste? I certainly have never had any issue complaining. It's widely reporter on in sports journalism, and the BBC etc.
Probably talking about their own comment, pre-edit to current version.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article you link pretty clearly identifies this form of "temporary marriage" as being the equivalent of a long-term mistress relationship rather than an encounter with a prostitute.
>> The article you link pretty clearly identifies this form of "temporary marriage" as being the equivalent of a long-term mistress relationship rather than an encounter with a prostitute. No, because legally the spouse then has all the rights of a marriage (alimony, etc.) Prostitutes do not get alimony.
it's disgusting to organize public, worldwide events in barbaric countries.
dude merely refuses to play, gets viral because "homophobia is not an opinion, it's a crime" and they were discussing sanctioning him.
speaking of the slavery issues, doesn't the west do the exact same thing meanwhile keeping the slaves in their countries? ps. China and India etc.
Anyways, I think any player refusing to wear a shirt with the Islamic slogan "No God But Allah" should be considered to be sanctioned, because "Islamophobia isn't an opinion, it's a crime", Also I would argue you can't really call the majority of muslims "privileged".
So, when will that be? hopefully France will start first, because secularism isn't discriminatory, right?
how they can know? besides forbidding dating apps i don't think police officers will sit in the bars to make sure no one is going home with someone they just met. though the rules there are quite strict due to the fact this is islamic state
Such laws have some far-fetched, surprising (at least for Westerners) and very creepy consequences. I've read a story about a Swedish girl that had been date-raped while staying on one of Gulf states. Having been used to European legal standards, she reported this incident to the police, only to find out that not only her case was dismissed, but she was found guilty of extramarital affair. Creepy as hell.
Pro lgbtq+ laws have far worse consequences.
A trans sexually assaulted an American man's daughter in the school bath then they triggered the dad in the court and when he couldn't take it anymore they accused him of DV, it was pretty traumatizing to even watch the video of the man raging for what happened to his daughter only to be accused of DV.
another man got 16 years for merely taking down a flag and burning it, arson I know but also 16 years, I think nowadays you'd get around that for murder.
I am sure I can bring you more examples of Sweden pulling children from their families if they suspect they're teaching them anything related to Islam as in to oppose going out on school trips or as in refusing to wear half naked clothes when going to school etc, heard a lot of them and kids where crying to get back to their family, I am sure an actually oppressed kid won't look so comfy and happy with his abusers or even get red face crying just wanting to get back to their families, the difference is, the media doesn't care about these because they're not seculars, me not hearing about these from a dude on the youtube I would have had no clue.
Nothing creepy tho, as far as it's all under the umbrella of secular western standards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly you would agree there are bounds to personal liberty.
If you are not harming anyone, there is no limit. E.g.: I would not want to see people murdering each other even if they are consenting. I would not ever eat dog meat, but I am fine with other people eating dogs or cows or pigs or whatever. You can throw your punch anywhere, as long as my nose is not in there. (Take this sentence literally) Please do not get into the metaphysical debate of what harm will mean broadly…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are not harming anyone, there is no limit. E.g.: I would not want to see people murdering each other even if they are consenting. I would not ever eat dog meat, but I am fine with other people eating dogs or cows or pigs or whatever. You can throw your punch anywhere, as long as my nose is not in there. (Take this sentence literally) Please do not get into the metaphysical debate of what harm will mean broadly…
By that logic is incest ok with you?
I will try to flag all companies in my mind that are advertising on this event and then continue to avoid them if possible.
To the neighbour that I cannot reply to: > Please respect conservative views on life too. I think it is a good idea to marry first especially if you are a woman. I respect all kinds of viewpoints as long as they respect other viewpoints as well. A viewpoint that tries to jail people for their very personal decisions is inherently not respectable, because it is itself by definition lacking respect.
why do you think killing your child and eating him is a bad idea.
animals do that, and we're animals, so give me a reason as why to this being a bad idea and you will gladly get me to agree with your very self-contradictory opinion.
You don't have values, nor a measurement to define what's good and what's not, not to mention "respect" ideas or people.
You only have one thing to appreciate as an atheist, which is materialism and anything that serves your goals by any means necessary.
Am I wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who said that such decisions are personal, and won't affect society?
I say they are personal, because they affect the individual much more than anyone else. Of course everything we do is affecting society somehow, but that does not eliminate personal freedom. If it affects me more than it affects you, my opinion weighs more than your's and vice versa.
Yeah, somehow Europe is now aging, weird, ha?
> If it affects me more than it affects you, my opinion weighs more than yours and vice versa.
So, Who defines or measures this? you? great, should start a "you religion", this is starting to take shape.
Now If a drug dealer says his actions do affect him far more than his buyers, it should make sense for his opinion to outweigh the court's opinion because he's getting much more money hence his trade is affecting him much more than the little amounts he sells individually to people.
Totally makes sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do, effectively. North America produces enough petroleum today to meet its own needs[1]. But the rest of the world doesn't, middle east oil is cheap relative to offshore or (especially) fracked petroleum, and at the end of the day fuels are a fungible commodity and our local prices reflect demand in the rest of the world. The bit about "dependence on foreign oil" you're hearing is largely spin. Supply is not the p…
I'm of the impression that we can't use our own oil because our refineries largely aren't equipped to process it (different kinds of oil require different kinds of refineries, which is to say oil sort of isn't fungible), but rather our refineries are equipped to process foreign oil. So we can pump to our heart's content, but without the refineries we aren't able to use that oil.
One thing is that shale oil is expensive to extract and refine. It wasn’t until recently when prices rose again that it became profitable.