Do you mean FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theater? I’m not aware that it is illegal to install fire alarms in theaters, but pulling one if there isn’t a fire is frowned upon.
I don’t believe that there should be any punishment for telling the truth, yes.
My point was only that the phrase is used widely in the United States.
I don’t see any problem with law enforcement in the UK wanting it to not be used.
Many people have adopted the mantra that “freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences”. I disagree with those people.
I just don’t need to online bank when out and about. Is that a normal thing?
In my opinion, yes. You can check your account balance at any ATM anyway, which is probably 90% of what people do when “online banking”.
In July, the force’s chief, Mark Rowley, banned officers from wearing the “thin blue line” badge saying that in the US an equivalent symbol had been used by “hard-right groups”.
The hard-right group known as “law enforcement”.
Biden’s reaction was far better than those of certain toddlers in the GOP, who immediately — and without attribution or any facts to back it up — found ways to link Biden to the actions of Hamas.
This is a bizarre article.
The IRS has said it won’t increase audits on households earning less than $400,000 annually.
Trust but verify. MEE looks fine to me now, but you can find wackos anywhere.
On 20 October 2022, MEE cut ties with Palestinian journalist Shatha Hammad after it was discovered that she made a Facebook post in 2014 which praised Adolf Hitler for “sharing the same ideology” and the Holocaust. The Thomson Reuters Foundation had withdrawn a 2022 Kurt Schork Award in International Journalism from her, after the discovery, on 18 October.
EU officials confirmed to TechCrunch that an investigation has not been taken at this point. Clearly, though, yesterday’s development (and the pace at which regulators are moving) is a strong indication of the bloc’s direction of travel.
This report was substantially revised to clarify a number of aspects, including — most saliently — that the EU has sent a formal request for information to X at this point. This could prefigure a formal announcement of an investigation but is not, yet, that formal technical step. We also clarified the scale of financial penalties possible under the DSA if a breach is confirmed; and added details of the regulation’s crisis response mechanism. We also fixed an error in the original report which referred to Interpol, rather than Europol.
?
I’m assuming that the Dems won’t run Hillary again. If that happens, all bets are off.
Well, he’s lost an election since 2016 and as he says, “nobody likes a loser”.
I’m concerned you seem to imply here that we require some abstract deity to determine what our moral guidelines should be.
No. That was not my intention. I’m trying to better understand where and why you (or anyone) think religion is holding us back and how we can move forward.
What a total bullshit argument.
It isn’t an argument or a rhetorical question.
Thank you for taking the time to explain that.
Just to be clear, I was talking only about the presidency. If trump is nominated, I think the probability of trump being elected to the presidency is zero, or it will be zero when election day rolls around.
I understand why there aren’t any republicans eager to show trump the door though. I think that is a mistake on their part, but I understand and agree with what you’re saying about that.
Recently, I think. I am sure other states will take similar action.
I have a hard time believing that the republicans are stupid enough to give trump the nomination, but it is quite easy to underestimate how stupid people are.
Gonna be hard to get elected without being on the ballot. I don’t see how the republican party can believe they have any chance of winning with trump.
But we all know that intent to “save the children” isn’t good enough,
I think that is frequently overlooked when it is convenient to do so.
How do you construct a moral framework with science and statistics? I’m not saying it can’t be done, but I would like to hear how you think it is possible to do so, and how you think we ought to go about it. I have thought about it a little, but I don’t see an obvious way to go about it. That is to say that how you would go about it is not obvious to me. I don’t very well understand what you are imagining.
The following are just ideas you might use as a jumping off point or an example. I don’t expect you to answer all of the questions or anything like that, that would be unreasonable. I don’t have a problem if you don’t touch any of these examples. Just explain how you think we ought to approach this. How would you change the law with respect to murder or assault? How would you change the tax code? How would you change law with respect to financial institutions? How would you resolve the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians? Why is religion impeding us from making these changes?
I don’t think disagreeing with someone is punishment.