401–410 of 509 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other end you have California where people will sue the state for thousands if they trip on the sidewalk, scraping their knee a bit. I suppose the USA and ex-USSR still remain polar opposites in some respects.
Citation needed on that one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It is interesting " What exactly is interesting? Hate speech is bad, unless it is directed at Russians and then it is not hate speech but 'accurate representation'? 'In Russia, "hate speech" would be something that the government does not approve of' Not really. 'The motive of political hatred' can be added to the case as an aggravating circumstance, but the charge itself is 'discreditation of Russian army' or 'spre…
Quoted post unavailable.
As for gays, our government haven't intervened (at least publicly) when gays reportedly got violently persecuted in Chechnya. Also our government often doesn't notice hate speech towards gays (hello, Milonov) or punishes rather mildly when it does notice.
Still, I don't think our government thinks that gays should be violently persecuted, it currently only opposes people going to children and saying that homosexuality is normal.
There is a couple of draft laws basically striking out 'children' in the previous sentence, we shall see how things will develop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems you are saying 'it's your own fault, we're not responsible, go away' to me. I kindly remind you that the comment I was replied to is saying: 'In Russia, the default mode of answering any complaint is "it's your own fault, we're not responsible, go away"'. The irony.
The irony is that by not being able to take the exact same thing you're dishing out and defending, you're confirming the exact same stereotypes you doth protest too much about, methinks. Are you as hateful and violent against gays as your government is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation needed on that one.
Not exactly the same but there's the legendary McDonald's lawsuit after some customer burned his finger after dropping his coffee.
Where a 79 year old woman suffered 3rd degree burns to her pelvic region after spilling coffee in her lap?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This just screams negligence to me. This is very much a default mode for ex-USSR countries, especially russia. While russian bureocracy is extremely procedural, it has nothing to do with efficiency or safety (most of the regulations and laws in post-soviet countries are written not to increase safety or utility for population, but for controlling power and money flows and benefeting someone on the top).
Let’s keep this generalisation to specific countries as this is not true for Baltic countries at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any reference?
This is a common saying or trope with the number varying to a degree. The original version I know of is that in the Soviet military it was an acceptable loss to lose two people out of a hundred during a regular training operation.
More to the glacial reality, it is said that the notorious dictator who made the move in '39, once presented with a report of particularly heavy losses, after a pause said "After all, this is what the young are for". Some people can have so debatable ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how health and safety works, you can't just leave children near lethal machinery like chainsaws and molten metal spewing form an arc furnace after 'briefing' them.
When I was a child, my mother always told me "read the manual" before using her power equipment like a tractor or chainsaw. Which I did. She grew up on a farm in the 1940s, where she got to use potentially lethal machinery as soon as she could reach the controls. Of course, if a complete manual with all safety information wasn't provided, that's clearly negligent and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.