|
Thanks all!
Next time I see a stupid redneck yelling "women need no feminism, they already got everything in our countries" I'll just have to give him this link!
|
|
|
|
Until now I count 9 users that actually believe that abortion is killing and that Trump is pro women rights.....
People are actually saying that Trump is pro women rights by... Depraving them of a right...
Such logic, much wow, dignity lots...
It's not that complicated. In the US, the argument is that federal money should not fund abortions. Federal money for abortions is NOT A RIGHT. That's different from woman's rights. No. That's only the first part of the act. I disagree with that as abortion grants far more to society than what it costs, but indeed it is not a right. But second part of the act prevent individuals to make donations to associations promoting about abortion, helping women with abortion, or even just informing about abortion. How is that not a right? Why Trump believes that he has the right to allow or not allow people to sacrifice their money on what they want. Let him show you how he made his money, how he paid the taxes and whom he financed. Yeah but you know republicans are for freedom... Freedom and no state regulation. Unless it's for something against their beliefs! Then it's ok you can regulate everything! |
|
|
|
That is good news. The United States of America must now stop wasting their resources controlling other countries through the guise of the United Nations. Trump has seen that the previous administration is using the UN activities so the oligarchs can bring our millions of dollars in form of aid to other countries to fund their own greediness. Its time for the UN to be independent of USA and move on for the betterment without the strings pulled by the USA.
You're a special kind of idiot aren't you? The kind of idiot thinking usa can survive alone around here. The kind of idilt not even understanding how weak usa is right now. Yeah. Leave. Let us decide how the world will work. We can't mess it up more than you did. |
|
|
|
Until now I count 9 users that actually believe that abortion is killing and that Trump is pro women rights.....
People are actually saying that Trump is pro women rights by... Depraving them of a right...
Such logic, much wow, dignity lots...
It's not that complicated. In the US, the argument is that federal money should not fund abortions. Federal money for abortions is NOT A RIGHT. That's different from woman's rights. No. That's only the first part of the act. I disagree with that as abortion grants far more to society than what it costs, but indeed it is not a right. But second part of the act prevent individuals to make donations to associations promoting about abortion, helping women with abortion, or even just informing about abortion. How is that not a right? |
|
|
|
|
Until now I count 9 users that actually believe that abortion is killing and that Trump is pro women rights.
The more time passes the more I understand how USA is doomed and how I'm happy it will just destroys itself.
People are actually saying that Trump is pro women rights by... Depraving them of a right...
Such logic, much wow, dignity lots...
|
|
|
|
Wow, Trump is really the best President of America. Aside from not promoting LGBT rights Which is a good thing? he also make a move to stop pro-abortion law.
No law is pro abortion. Laws are pro "having the right to dispose of your body". There isn't a single law saying you should abort... Abortion is not pro-women but instead it is anti-women, it destroys the dignity of women and its right to give birth.
Stupid because: 1/ How can giving women the right to control their body be anti-women? 2/ Then why NOT A SINGLE WOMAN signed this law if it's so pro women? 3/ How the hell does abortion the right to give birth?? On the contrary it reinforce this right! Transforming a natural duty into a civilized right! 4/ What's the link with dignity? How controlling your own body can be seen as a lack of dignity? You want me to control what you have the right to do with your body then so you can have more dignity? Abortion is killing a life and it is murder.
False. See above posts, abortion is only the destruction of a pile of flesh. There is no will, no consciousness, no sense, no intelligence... Nothing. It's like saying masturbation is a genocide because it MIGHT become human one day. Abortion causes women to have trauma in life which cause emotional distress,
Cause having a child after being raped doesn't cause trauma? Good to know damn! therefore Trump is pro-women since by abolishing the pro-abortion law he is protecting and upholding the dignity of women.
See as all your previous arguments are pure shit and understand that your conclusion is the exact opposite of reality. And maybe look at the millions of women thinking exactly the contrary of you? You mean that Trump is pro women while women don't even understand he's doing this for their good? |
|
|
|
They are all just hypocrites, I will accept an abortion on the reason that its going to be fatal to the pregnant lady but having an abortion because you just want to have it is very inconsiderate and selfish and when they have it once they will continuing having it again and again. this is the same as being a murderer.
Murder is the deprivation of the formed person. Until a child has not formed, I do not consider it murder. Besides who gave you the right to invade someone else's life? When you're pregnant, then for yourself and decide! No they're conservatives morons. That means they're for liberty, but not when it hurts their beliefs. When it hurts their beliefs you have no right to do it! Even if there is no argument behind! |
|
|
|
I am really not surprised with Trump defunding organization that promotes abortion, The whole Republican Party is against it. If the women can go on demonstration against Gun violence, i think it is highly hypocritical of them to demonstrate against Trump for defunding these organizations. These protesters are selfish individuals who just want to have their cake and eat it. If you don't want to get pregnant for Christ Sake use a condom. In todays world, there are other ways to prevent pregnancy rather than have an abortion.
Very good decision to stop all those child sacrifices. Murdering of children is one of the worst crimes of humanity.
They are all just hypocrites, I will accept an abortion on the reason that its going to be fatal to the pregnant lady but having an abortion because you just want to have it is very inconsiderate and selfish and when they have it once they will continuing having it again and again. this is the same as being a murderer.
All the people quoted are just COMPLETE MORONS for two reason: -they compare abortion to murder. Saying an abortion is a murder is the same as saying masturbation is a genocide. A foetus has no sense, no intelligence, no will, no consciousness. It's just flesh and potential human being. Nothing more. -They believe that contraception is efficient. It is not. Contraception like condoms are efficient for occasional sex, it can't be used for a normal healthy regular sexual life without a small risk of still getting pregnant. |
|
|
|
I agree with most of Trump's policies, but I don't agree with this one. Abortion must be legal (with the exception of partial birth abortion). Why create orphans, if the parents are not interested in raising the child? Also, sometimes if the fetus is not aborted, it can result in health complications for the mother. Check this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_HalappanavarIf you agree with abortion why not stopping there. You can also kill your infants and children and disabled relatives. If you cannot raise them properly. I'm 100% behind Trump. I will not be posting this if my mother abort me. You're becoming emotional here. It's like people saying "if you allow gay marriage why not also paedophilia and zoophilia?". That's a stupid argument because there is a very clear and obvious line between the two. Here the line will be consciousness. If you kill infants or disabled relatives you KILL. That means you put an end to a living being, that has consciousness of himself and the world. If you get aborted (before your 8 month of pregnancy of course) you don't kill. You might FEEL that it's the same thing but it has no link whatsoever. A foetus is NOTHING, it's just a pack of flesh. It's just a potential, it would be the EXACT SAME THING as to say that you kill millions of people when you masturbate, because you kill millions of "potential humans". Don't get your emotions command your actions. Think before making a decision. |
|
|
|
I agree with most of Trump's policies, but I don't agree with this one. Abortion must be legal (with the exception of partial birth abortion).
People should learn some responsibility. There are cheap and easy to use ways of contraception. So no, abortion should not be legal, except for extreme cases like deformation/mutation, rape, probability a mother could die giving birth.Well that's already much better than what I see in this thread usually. Indeed you raise good points where abortion is PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE and CANNOT BE FORBIDDEN if you have some decency. Problem is that the act of Trump doesn't take those cases into account. He doesn't give a fuck about those cases, which are extreme but not rare at all!!! Deformation and mutation for example concern around 1% of pregnancies. Most are aborted and some decide to keep the child anyway. It's their right to decide this. Why create orphans, if the parents are not interested in raising the child?
Yes, I'd like these irresponsible parents, who fuck without contraception and then get scared when the belly starts to grow, to answer this. Problem is... No contraception is 100% efficient. It doesn't exist... Currently even if you use contraceptive pills (which not every women can use) and condoms, you can have an accident. Of course it will be rare, but when you know that a couple has sex 100 times a year and you think of the number of couples... You understand that's not SO RARE. If you live 20 years with the same person you'll have sex with him/her 2.000 times on average. Even if there is only 0.1% of chance of an accident (and it's much more than that, more like 1%) it means you could have 2 unwanted babies!!! Not really "rare"... |
|
|
|
I agree with most of Trump's policies, but I don't agree with this one. Abortion must be legal (with the exception of partial birth abortion). Why create orphans, if the parents are not interested in raising the child? Also, sometimes if the fetus is not aborted, it can result in health complications for the mother. Check this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_HalappanavarI am not from US but I will share my opinion. I am with Trump to stop legalize abortion. In the first place why is that you would make a baby then abort it if you can stop it by using contraceptives? Problem is sometimes you don't have the choice. There NO CURRENT CONTRACEPTION MEANS THAT ARE 100% SAFE! It doesn't exist! Sure condoms are great but they're only 99.2% effective. You think that's a lot? Well not for a couple that has been living together for a long time. You have sex on average twice a week, it makes 110 times a year. With a 99.2% rates it means that every year you'll have a problem (condom breaks for example) and you have a chance to have a baby. Even though you used a fucking condom. The baby in the womb is not a trash that you simply abort it if you don't want it.
It is a human like you that has a will to live and experience the world.
Just my opinion.
No, it has nothing. It's just a "potential". It has no consciousness, no will, no sensations, nothing. It's just a bit of flesh! Of course if you abort after 8 months of pregnancy it's something else... But who does that? It's illegal everywhere of course! But if you abort after 2 months, the "baby" is just a bean of flesh, litteraly. No brain, no eyes... It is nothing, just a part of you you should have all the right to dispose of. Moreover sometimes you have medical reasons to abort. Sometimes after 2 months of pregnancy you discover the foetus suffers of huge malformation, trizomie or whatever... |
|
|
|
Je n'ai plus rien à dire, sur internet on rencontrera tjs des gens à qui on doit expliquer des choses mais je crois que c'est contre productif. Fin pour ma part.
Ahah, "je me suis rendu compte que dans un débat faut expliquer son point de vue, du coup j'arrête ça n'a aucun intérêt" xD J ai décider que la couleur gris ne pouvait appliquer que au hippopotames
Je peut maintenant affirmer que tous ce qui est gris peut être dangereux.
Oui bien sûr il y a un peu de ça! Spéculation est un mot très vaste, dire que la spéculation est mauvaise ça n'a pas de sens parce que ça regroupe TELLEMENT d'actions et d'activités qu'on ne peut faire aucune généralité. Du coup pour pouvoir discuter il faut préciser le sens, c'est simplement que dire "spéculation financière" ça va plus vite que dire "toute formes d'achat ou vente d'obligations et/ou contrats à termes et/ou actions d'entreprises visant un profit rapide en profitant de la variation du marché". Je ne connais pas de mot pour désigner ça à part dire "spéculation financière". Mais oui c'est clairement arbitraire, c'est juste pour simplifier la discussion sinon ça va être TRES long ^^ C'est comme si je ne connaissais pas le mot hippopotame dans ton exemple et que je préférais dire le "truc gris" plutôt que "le mammifère terrestre passant la majorité de sa vie dans l'eau afin de réguler sa température corporrelle, de couleur gris et d'un poids entre 2 et 3 tonnes, responsables de milliers de morts en Afrique" :p |
|
|
|
Une assurance est une spéculation  Est-ce qu'on peut se dire qu'on parle uniquement de spéculation financière/boursière? .... Certes ça peut correspondre à la définition... Mais ça n'a aucun intérêt... Strictement aucun, mais abus te permet de comprendre que l'assurance et une spéculation aussi. A partir du moment ou tu te veux te garantir d'une perte ( assurance ou contrat a terme ). Tu spécule de la même façon mais avec des outils différent . Bien sûr mais du coup on va restreindre un peu la définition sinon on va pas aller loin  La spéculation au sens financier du terme ça sera surtout l'achat d'obligations et/ou d'actions et/ou de contrats à terme. Sinon tout est spéculation et du coup le mot manque de précision ^^ |
|
|
|
http://www.bctalkaccountpricer.infoWhen you use the normal token and not the merchant it lists all the bitcoin addresses posted from the account on the forum. It even tells you if it is a possible staked one or just an address for a giveaway or whatever. Pretty precise piece of profiling software they created.  WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? Omg thanks mate! I absolutely didn't know about this tool! Thanks a lot! Gonna use that next time xD |
|
|
|
I agree with you. But not only money makes born in rich families to earn more income. There is still a connection. They agree among themselves and where the ordinary person does not earn the money they earn millions.
Yeah even without taking into account the social aspect with education or things like that, the social groups are important! It's so much easier to earn money when your dad is the boss of a big company... You get everything you need. Internships, jobs, studies, formations... It doesn't mean you didn't earn the money, it's just SO MUCH EASIER for you... |
|
|
|
La voie normale pour un agriculteur qui voudrait se prémunir des aléas climatiques est l'assurance, pas la vente "à découvert"
Et tu crois que l'assurance, elle se couvre comment des risques ? J'attendais cette question. Avant de répondre, il serait que utile que tu y réfléchisses : comment un assureur, c'est-à-dire celui qui met en oeuvre les principes même de l'assurance, se couvre contre le risque. Tu crois que c'est par l'achat de contrats à termes ? Tu le crois vraiment ? Non, ca c'est un spéculateur. Que des banques et certains financiers veuillent se travestir en ajoutant "assureur" à leur pas de porte, je ne le nie pas (aidé par cela par quelques lois passées en catimini il y a environ une décénie), mais ils restent des spéculateurs, pas des assureurs. C'est encore un exemple de tentative de financiarisations de pans de l'économie en vue de toujours plus de profits : les contrats à terme ne peuvent en aucun cas servir de garantie. Cette financiarisation, en créant une fausse offre et demande (fausse au sens où elle porte sur des contrats, des promesses et non sur la récolte elle-même) sur les matières premières à créé la prise à la gorge des producteur et leur suicides réguliers. Donc, pour répondre à ta question, l'assureur se couvre par la mutualisation et les réserves des excercices précédents. Encore une fois, il faut pas prendre la conséquence pour la cause : acheter des contrats à terme pour couvrir un risque, c'est de la spéculation, pas de l'assurance, quoique les financiers essayent de vous faire croire. C'est vraiment du grand n'importe quoi. Et je retrouve encore les arguments qui prouvent l'ignorance des propos : la fixation sur le réel et les dérivés. Donc c'est vilain, malin. Pour ne relever que cela. C'est marrant comme tu es incapable d'expliquer ce "grand n'importe quoi" et pourquoi c'est n'importe quoi... Du haut de ta montagne de savoir tu ne peux même pas nous démontrer l'opposé de la proposition au dessus? Tu vas prétendre que la vente à terme ne crée pas une dépendance de la parte de l'agriculteur qui donne un moyen de pression à l'acheteur pour faire baisser les prix d'année en année? Parce que si c'est le cas je t'invite à discuter un peu avec un agriculteur, n'importe lequel. A mon avis te confronter au monde réel te ferait le plus grand bien, descend un peu de ta tour d'ivoire dans laquelle la destruction créatrice a un sens et la loi du marché permet de réguler l'économie de sa main invisible. Un indice: ce n'est pas le cas. Les dérivés peuvent être utilisé sans spéculation et volonté de retour, par des assurances via des contrats à terme ou des options. It's a fact et ça marche aussi bien qu'une mutualisation qui a des frais plus importants qui est overengineeré.
Lol? Un contrat à terme sans spéculation ou volonté de retour? Euh... On a la même définition de contrat à terme? Le principe c'est pas de fixer en amon un prix de vente? Donc de spéculer sur le prix futur en espérant faire un profit? Quand à la mutualisation qui aurait des fraix plus importants... Non mais là tu te fous de nous? C'est quoi l'étape d'après? Nous sortir que le public coûte plus cher que le privé? --' Vas-y expliques moi comment la mutualisation coûte plus cher que l'assurance! J'ai bossé pendant 2 ans sur des mutuelles ET assureurs santé et ta déclaration sans chiffres, exemples ou arguments logique me fait bien marrer là! |
|
|
|
Une assurance est une spéculation Tu spécule que ton intérêt et de la prendre . Tous est spéculations à partir du moment où tu fait un choix libre ou non . Ex: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1759124.0;allSi je répond encore je spécule sur illuminations de mon contradicteur. Est-ce qu'on peut se dire qu'on parle uniquement de spéculation financière/boursière? Parce que sinon la discussion n'a aucun intérêt. Je décides de sortir aujourd'hui parce que je spécule qu'il va continuer de faire beau et que cette balade au grand air aura un impact positif sur mon bonheur ma santé et ma journée. Certes ça peut correspondre à la définition... Mais ça n'a aucun intérêt... |
|
|
|
La voie normale pour un agriculteur qui voudrait se prémunir des aléas climatiques est l'assurance, pas la vente "à découvert"
Et tu crois que l'assurance, elle se couvre comment des risques ? J'attendais cette question. Avant de répondre, il serait que utile que tu y réfléchisses : comment un assureur, c'est-à-dire celui qui met en oeuvre les principes même de l'assurance, se couvre contre le risque. Tu crois que c'est par l'achat de contrats à termes ? Tu le crois vraiment ? Non, ca c'est un spéculateur. Que des banques et certains financiers veuillent se travestir en ajoutant "assureur" à leur pas de porte, je ne le nie pas (aidé par cela par quelques lois passées en catimini il y a environ une décénie), mais ils restent des spéculateurs, pas des assureurs. C'est encore un exemple de tentative de financiarisations de pans de l'économie en vue de toujours plus de profits : les contrats à terme ne peuvent en aucun cas servir de garantie. Cette financiarisation, en créant une fausse offre et demande (fausse au sens où elle porte sur des contrats, des promesses et non sur la récolte elle-même) sur les matières premières à créé la prise à la gorge des producteur et leur suicides réguliers. Donc, pour répondre à ta question, l'assureur se couvre par la mutualisation et les réserves des excercices précédents. Encore une fois, il faut pas prendre la conséquence pour la cause : acheter des contrats à terme pour couvrir un risque, c'est de la spéculation, pas de l'assurance, quoique les financiers essayent de vous faire croire. Putain comment je me sens moins seul sur ce thread... Outre l'omniprésence des banques et le travestissement des mots, tu mets le doigt sur quelque chose de fondamental: ce n'est pas parce que ça se passe comme ça que c'est la seule solution, ou même une bonne solution. C'est comme dire qu'épargner c'est spéculer. Non, à l'heure actuelle quand on met son argent à la banque la banque spécule avec et nous "rémunère" en nous filant 2% par an. Mais ce n'est pas parce que c'est ce qui se passe que c'est la seule solution! Et on pourrait envisager un système d'épargne sans spéculation. |
|
|
|
Statistically it's not being lazy that makes you poor, it's coming from a poor family.
It is the combination of laziness and religious indoctrination, which creates poverty. There are a lot of people around us, who became super-rich as a result of their hard work. Many of them were born in poor families. For example, Howard Schultz grew up in a government subsidized apartment complex for the poor. So it would mean that welfare actually helps people accomplishing themselves?  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
