A billionaire cannot exist in 2 countries at the same time. It doesn’t matter if his company is multinational, he isn’t.
If you jail that billionaire, which is not hard as a state if said billionaire resides in your country, you can “convince” him to give even assets in foreign countries.
That’s why they removed his passport.
To anyone unfamiliar with Spain politics, it might not be even noticed.
But it is incredible that the party with most scandals and corruption (PP) claims that they’ll party will do less corruption than them. Why don’t the media give attention to other parties that have less corruption than PSOE instead of the masters of corruption PP?
We no longer live in a 2-party country.
Fill in the blank please.
And what I’m saying is that what you claim I claimed was never claimed by me.
Since the discussion seems to have derailed let me do a brief summary:
I tried to make the least offensive analogy possible in order to have a logical conversation around the topic. But it still got an emotional response. I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith.
The second paragraph is called projection. I never made the claim that those opinions are correct because they are contrarian, yet you keep making the claim that they’re incorrect because they are contrarian.
I don’t understand how being contrarian or not makes an opinion less or more valid. Who decides what mainstream is? Whoever gets more upvotes? We should never ever have an opinion that will get downvoted on Lemmy? Or is it a democratically elected process? In that case, the mainstream opinion in the US in 2020 was that the best person to be the president was Donald trump. Does that make it correct?
You’re yet to give any argument other than “those opinions are wrong because they are contrarian”
First of all, that’s not my opinion. I’m defending the other guy. Since he’s getting his opinion denied under the untrue argument that his opinion is contradictory, when it is not. See the user names.
Second point, “not supporting trans athletes because they are a small group” is not at all what I said, but you are acting as if that were what I said. Let me repeat it again so you can see the difference: you don’t need to support every policy that claims to support a small subset of a group in order to claim that you support that group.
Since it seems hard to understand let me say an example. There is country “chairland” where the chairpeople leave happily. Inside chairland there is a town called “tabletown”. Person A says: “tabletown people should have free access to Netflix!” And person B says: “No, I love chairpeople, but tabletown is not entitled to free Netflix”. Is the claim of people B contradictory? Can’t a person support chairland but not support giving tabletown free Netflix?
And yes, everything in that original comment made by the other guy are opinions. “Trans women should compete in women leagues” is not a fact, doesn’t matter how progressive you are, it is under every definition of the word: an opinion.
You are free to have any opinion you want, I don’t believe in thought crimes. I don’t know why you place such importance on “contrarian”. Is someone that has an opinion different than yours a contrarian? Are contrarian opinions not valid? Therefore, are opinions different than yours not valid?
Contrarian about what? Who are the contestants? I don’t understand your comment.
What is it revealing that I supposedly didn’t want?
Yes. I believe that you can support a political group without supporting 100% of the policies that supposedly support that group.
Basically because it’s impossible fro 100% of the people on the group to agree on exactly which policies are hurtful and which are helpful.
Of all the things in your comment, getting right the “you probably call yourself a centrist” is the least significant part. You’re wrong in all the rest of your comment, which is the actually important part.
Whether someone calls themselves left, right or center is way less important than the policies they support.
Because guess what. You can’t fit the entire world in 3 political buckets and expect everyone in each bucket to have the same opinion as everyone else on that bucket.
As I said in another comment. The world is not black and white. There’s lots of shades of grey.
And each person has a different combination of shades of grey for each political topic.
There is no contradiction.
Not wanting trans-women in sports doesn’t make you not support LGBT. T is only one letter of 4+. And trans-women is only half of T. And athlete trans women is a small subset of that. And athlete trans women that want to play in women’s leagues are a subset of that.
You can reward people based on accomplishments and also tax the rich. You can also have social programs while still rewarding them.
You can improve the environment without a complete ban of fossil fuels.
Or some people just have nuanced opinions and see that topics can be multiple shades of grey instead of either white or black.
Yeah. It is clearly possible. I don’t know why I read it as 60th percentile instead of 60% of median
After reading my comment. You are right, it is not impossible.
However, it still is not a good indicator for minimum wage.
IMO, minimum wage should be based on expenses. That is, it should cover what you need to live a decent life.
That definition is based on other’s income. Imagine you live in a country where housing is 1€/month and food is 0.10€/month. The rest of the costs scale accordingly. Yet it is an incredibly rich country and the median income is 10000€/year. Would you say that a yearly wage of 120€/year is risk-of-poverty? It’s 0.001% of the median income, yet it can provide for 10 years of housing in 1 year of work.
Great. We used the same definition, that’s good.
Now, can you explain to me what minimum wage do you think would make it so minimum wage is safe from poverty according to that definition?
What is the definition of safe from poverty?
What I found was this:
The at-risk-of-poverty rate is the share of people with an equivalised disposable income (after social transfer) below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold, which is set at 60 % of the national median equivalised disposable income after social transfers.
By that definition, it is not possible to have a minimum wage “safe from poverty”. Since the minimum will always be below the median.
There are no words that can express the same as curse words. Otherwise, we wouldn’t use them as much.
Words are words. And they are used to communicate. I don’t understand the American panic about this small set of words. They are words like any other.
Non-american countries also have some people that panic about curse words, but I don’t think they match the level of panic of Americans.
“full attendance”
The fact that some 300 people with the best salaries and most prestigious jobs in the country can’t be presumed to all attend their job is completely incredible to me. Especially on occasions of such importance such as a presidential impeachment.
The planet does not care about taxes either.
The reason per person footprint is important because we can’t just turn off all pollution. We have to gradually reduce it.
You can’t just say to your country “by the way, we just banned fossil fuels”, that will just result in you dead and a pro-pollution guy being in charge of the country next day.
The way to reduce pollution is to get more output from the same input. That is, efficiency.
Private jets are incredibly inefficient and are used by an extremely low percentage of the population. There’s no reason to keep that 1.8% just to satisfy 0.0001% of the population.
The comment you replied to originally was talking about why billionaires should support a democratic society.
If the society is not democratic, it would be authoritarian. Therefore what I explained could happen.