lukzak

I know it's just an anecdote, but I've know quite a few Muslim women that prefer to wear it. I've also met many who don't like to wear them. Is it really fair to ban it for the ones that actually choose to wear it?

Women choosing to dress conservatively isn't exactly something foreign to Italians. Let's not forget that nuns also wear very similar clothing and cover their hair. That's not so different from a hijab.

Wow, that's pretty crazy to think that so many people can't/won't get a bank account. Are these people undocumented immigrants with no identification? Is this the same part of the population that is targeted by the ID laws for voting?

How are those people getting money? Is it really possible in the USA to just be paid with an envelope of cash? Or is it under the table work? Or if they are poor, is there any kind of benefit/welfare from the government? Don't they need a bank account to receive those funds?

I'm just asking because in my country, I was able to open a bank account for free. I've had it for a year and I've never even deposited any money into it. But I have a debit card for that account. It seems impossible to me to have no access to a bank account. Even if you're homeless, you're still able to use your town hall as a contact address for official things.

I always chose to let my brother cut. Then, even if they were perfect halves, I still laughed like a maniac and acted like one piece was clearly better.

I think there's a big reason why treating them the same way they treat others is fine.

The people that Nazis target are not only usually innocent, but they often don't even have a choice in the reason for their bullying. You don't choose to be non-white, be gay, be trans, etc.

Nazis choose to be pieces of shit that hurt innocent people.

The argument that people bring up for not treating them badly is that we don't want to set a precedent in case the Nazis eventually get in control and decide being on the left is worthy of being deprived your rights.

But I think we all know that they wouldn't need a precedent to deprive you of your rights if they took control and didn't like you. They would simply do it if they had the power.

It says that they are sent to Britain to be trained. Unless they're being flown in to some military complex directly, why wouldn't they just run away once they've cleared immigration in the UK? Would British police arrest them even if they haven't broken any laws in the UK? Do Ukrainian army personnel have authorization to capture them and arrest them even on British soil?

That's a real concern if you're at all worried about spoilers. It's so easy just to have shit spoiled even if you try to avoid it. Passively hearing about it from school/workmates, social media, or even radio. The stupid radio spoiled the ending of Breaking Bad for me and I never got over it, I guess.

I think it's just the beginning. They'll split seasons eventually into 3 or more parts. Or if you wait till all seasons are released, they'll paywall earlier parts. They know people won't wait that long, especially with how easy it is to have things spoiled by social media or among friends/co-workers.

The streaming companies are starting to get wise to that. They've started splitting seasons and releasing them separately so that you have to be subbed for 2 months.

For sure, I agree it should be used only in cases where we're absolutely sure that they did it. For example, mass shooters that are taken into custody mid-shooting and there is an absolutely undeniable chain of custody to ensure that the wrong person isn't getting killed.

That doesn't seem possible, at least in my country. The fact that we have executed people that turned out to be incocent later makes my stomach turn.

I don't have a problem with the state killing people in principle. I just have a problem with the state killing the incorrect people (actual, guilty people that don't deserve to live).

What a shitty opinion. Upvoted for having the balls to post it though.

Is this actually an unpopular opinion? For sure horrible like all things in war, but I understand that the alternative was an invasion with a hell of a lot more casualties.

Should the USA have invaded Japan instead?

I guess that depends on what they meant by "land". Is marble land?

Or maybe no marble for anyone. The only materials we can use are non-land based.

Good luck even owning a car if the metal and fuel have to be taken from the land! A wooden frame bicycle would be possible, maybe? Would you be able to use rubber? Idk anything about how rubber is processed, but that also probably uses land-based stuff either as a fuel or some sort of chemical.