Anamana @ Anamana @feddit.de

edit profile

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

520

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm mostly pro Palestine, but using this picture with the subtitle 'history repeats itself' and therefore portraying what happened at the festival, and the other slaughter missions as a tiny goofy missile, feels kinda disproportionate. Don't you think?

When I drink one I just get super apathic and anxious

Too many countries/companies profit from this conflict. The economy has adapted to it & is built on it. So are the politics.. There is no winner besides religious fundamentalism and capitalism.

Can't see your image properly btw, it's not loading. Neither on sync nor on liftoff.

My general sympathy is with the Palestinians who struggle from systemic oppression, but defo not with the atrocities committed by Hamas. How one can support and excuse the recent events is beyond me.

Just because you're oppressed doesn't mean you can just go out there and slaughter random people. I mean they even killed tourists, who have no role in this ethnical conflict. But I don't think they even care..

It started out by you misinterpreting the other guys message, so it's fair I guess.

That's probably the best way to try it. First get comfy and still have a fallback solution if you don't like it.

I'm a fan of Linux, but my personal experience was filled with headaches on how to solve compability issues. It's just a pain that some things don't work as well as they used to with a clean windows install. So I traveled from Windows to Debian to Dualboot (win/debian) to Windows. And tbh I never looked back since then. Took too much time just to keep things running properly.

If you depend on Adobe products I would at least opt for Dualboot if I were you. Otherwise you have no safe option to return to if things don't seem to work out as you wished.

Klingt aber iwie langweiliger, als die japanischen Beispiele mit schlechtem Deutsch.

Und man isses ja auch iwie gewohnt, dass der Westen alles fremde exotisiert und sich kulturell aneignet. Finde die andere Richtung da spannender.

I'm surprised they can still walk around outside, when there are literally cars everywhere. Those are killing way more people on 'second hand' exposure than tobacco.

Because people need some time to adapt. Make it 5 if you want. I don't think we should get rid of a transition phase however.

Let's hope it will turn out like you said, I'm all for it.

That's such a ridiculous and unnecessary scenario. Just make it illegal in 20 years and be done with it. Why put so much money and effort into such a badly designed solution?

Not everyone can buy a gun, to get the paperwork you need to meet a somewhat arbitrary age requirement and you have to be "mentally stable". So we are discriminating against mentally handicapped people.

Sure, that's exactly what we do. And there's a good reason for that. I'm also not against dropping it, just because it's discriminatory.

Okay, maybe a better example: if you're interested in becoming president you have to be at least 40. Sounds like age discrimination to me :P

Sure. In this case I don't see a rightful reason for it to exist though, which is why it has to be abolished.

I hate second hand smoke as much as every other non-smoker, but I'm not a fan of banning smoking, just because I think it's annoying. Let people ruin their health if they want it that bad. We live in a time where second hand smoke is almost completely avoidable. At least in Germany. With the vapes it's even less of a problem now. If I breathe in smoke from some other guys' cigarette once a month it won't affect my health.

However there's a much much bigger problem regarding breathing in toxic fumes, which we should address immediately: cars.

Care to share it? I'm quite sure it's applicable in this case.

Allowing the future 45-year old to smoke, while making it illegal for the future 44-year old, sounds like text book age-based discrimination to me. And the health based age argument (protecting the youth), which is the main reason for smoking/alcohol regulations, doesn't make sense here, cause they're not teens anymore.

I disagree. It's not the same, because everyone can buy a gun if they have the paperwork for it (and noone can buy the uranium). It's not only an exclusive group of old people, people with spots on their skin or people with green eyes. Otherwise it would be discrimination, because it creates differential treatment based solely on age, skin type, eye color...

We also discriminate against young people to protect their vulnerable health via alcohol, tobacco regulations. But it's justifiable and 'good' discrimination, because they're not of age yet and need to be protected.

I'm not smoking or anything btw so I'm not emotionally involved in this argument, I'm just curious about the debate :D

Is it legal to discriminate against people who are over 21 years old in the UK? I think you couldn't even pass a law like that in Germany.

I disagree. Like I said, I don't need to 'own' something I rarely use. I'm fine just borrowing it for a couple of days as well.

Why is owning sth you might watch once every 10 years so important? I don't care about it, as long as it isn't some niche content or stuff I watch every year.

Before playing around with that, I would suggest OP to get their blood checked via hemogram. This way you can usually let doctors determine deficiencies and subsequently adapt your diet/supplements.