One question: Would you say the same about getting completely naked in public?
One question: Would you say the same about getting completely naked in public?
It is against the law. That means that society, as a whole, has decided that this is immoral.
No one forces you to stare at the girl
So that means that its morally okay to kill everyone who looks at me (“No one forces then to look at me!”)?
Why is your ethics enforceable, but other people’s aren’t?
Because ethics are only enforcable through laws and the laws currently enforce “my” ethics in that regard.
Why does she have less right to practice her ethical choice to expose her body (assuming by your answer you would have offense)?
Whether that is morally right is an ethical question but would you say the same about a minor (exposing themselves)?
Ethics is very subjective
Exactly, so what is the issue with the company having moral concerns about it and shutting it down?
… aber waren Sie schon mal im frankfurter Bahnhofaviertel?
This dish was brought to you by: Vladimir
1st word: “Das” 2nd word: “Rindfleischettiketierungs…gesetz”
(Their point was that Spotify’s free version is sufficient because they only want the things mentioned)
I actually know quite a bit about Argentinian football. What you’re describing was either a long time ago or not referring to the first division. The only match that would remotely come close to that would be a Boca Juniors VS River Plate match…
Bro, “Puritanism” is a religious movement of the 16-17th century. Maybe you mean purism?
(Serious) question: How do you stand not being able to select individual tracks? I honestly would rather listen to my music in any of the free frontend apps rather than being limited to that extent…
Honestly, what does this change? For paid users nothing, and the free version was always unusable with you not being able to individually select songs.
Can you name another country whose national team’s hooligans were as prominent in the media as English ones were?
I actually though of England right away, even before seeing their feddit.uk name
The US government doesn’t want an adversary government to have the data of its citizens (because of varios reasons, including mass manipulation for example). They would of course have no issue with having that data themselves though (also because then they would be more in control over how the data is handled).
But not for a foreign government (from their perspective).
Yeah but the wording is basically: “Prices are higher because they are”.
I was actually not aware of that… Makes more sense now.
Except I have cups in my kitchen that are double the size of other cups and I dont know which ones to use.
What part is wrong then? That’s pretty nuch what they say in the article.
11-20 = -9 10-19 = -9 -9 = -9
Fixed that for you.
Cocktails without alcohol cost way too much for what they are. That would be like paying 15 bucks for a burger without meat.
Restaurants sometimes also have like dozens of types of beer, wine, etc. but the best non-alcoholic they can do is a water or a coca cola softdrink?