The right for a business to operate is not protected by the first amendment, though.
I could use that argument to stop the government from closing/dismantling any physical space because I might use their walls to express my first amendment rights. But the argument just doesn’t hold up.
I hope broader international recognition of Palestine helps spur more recognition of Kurdistan.
That shit should be illegal.
Moderna has their combined vaccine currently in clinical trials.
We put Kalashnikov on Sergey’s rowboat, Ukraine cowers before invincible Russian engineering!
That and it’s impossible say whether or not a given tool or object will never be used to do harm if wielded by the wrong entity.
Like, say you’re someone who makes free bricks. Someone uses the brick to build a house, great, that’s what it’s made for. Someone uses that brick to shatter a cop’s windshield, even better.
But someone can also use that brick to smash in the windows of a school, or even that the house built with the bricks you made is being lived in by a bad person.
No one makes bricks thinking “this could be a weapon, I am responsible for the harm it causes” because its primary purpose as building material is self-evident. It therefore has no inherent morality outside of what people you can’t control choose to do with what they have. All the brick maker wants to do is make the best bricks they can.
Agreed. The only redeeming thing I can give the writers credit for is that they gave him an amazing family life. Even though he is the office punching bag, he is much more fulfilled outside of work than any other character is. That, and he also does love his job.
Also rebranded as “Live. Die. Repeat.” for some reason. I guess the studio didn’t think the title “Edge of Tomorrow” sold the premise well enough.
I mean it could be better, though. Could do with fewer natural disasters, or perhaps another continent in the Pacific so it isn’t so empty. Or maybe burritos that grow on trees and a mild concentration of opium in the air. That’s the Earth I’d want to live on.
TBH I’d give earth a B or a C.
I feel like there must be a better planet out there somewhere.
Get help
I don’t mind questions being somewhat focused or topical. But the ones I don’t like are “Here is my long-winded opinion on x, what do you think?” or “Here’s a random article or other thing I found on the internet, thoughts?”
If it’s a post asking opinions on a recent event, that’s one thing. But I think the soapboxing should be limited. There’s more that a post should need to actually qualify as a discussion-fueling question than just the fact they ended a sentence with a question mark somewhere in their post.
Thoughts?
So is God powerless to stop people from committing evil?
I don’t know, why do Japanese schools have culture festivals? Is it not enough to say that some countries have different cultural norms and traditions?
You’ve basically touched on one of the core logical issues at play in Abrahamic religions (and others). God is omnipotent and omniscient, or people have free will. It can’t be both.
It’s like asking why people smoke.
Is it bad for you? Yes.
Is it a burden on society? Yes.
Is it addictive and does it make you feel good? For some, yes.
Hard to compete when the government heavily subsidizes the local industry while simultaneously making it very difficult for foreign companies to operate.
I as of this very minute just got the alert that it was back up (and yes, it did also ask you to not call in to check)
But again, you can make that argument about any platform or medium where speech can be posted or displayed. If the department of public health condemns a local movie theater where I host indie movie screenings, that is not a violation of my first amendment rights because they are not prohibiting my ability to make or share content, they are simply removing the space it is currently shared. If that comes out to the same effect for some people who are all-in on TikTok to the exclusion of any other short-form video sharing service, sure, maybe there are grievances. But that still ends up being a self-imposition made by the individual at the end of the day.
Not to mention, the US government is not trying to close down TikTok. They are prohibiting the owners of TikTok from doing business in the US. The company itself would be the one to make the decision to close the service rather than sell it off, so unless the fed is going to force a private business to keep itself open to placate the masses, it’s a decision made by a private company outside of any constitutional law.