- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
as with offline therapy the ethics vary depending upon execution. for instance, whether a therapist discloses the unique security and privacy risks of online therapy is not especially different from whether a therapist discloses the general security and privacy risks of offline therapy (e.g. insurance claims, note taking and storage, colleague consultations, research information gathering, etc.). similarly, whether a therapist informs and avails themselves of adequate secure online data transmission options is similar to whether a therapist informs and avails themselves of adequate offline security options (e.g. office location, reception practices, etc.). and so forth.
God, you're better than sleeping pills. Can you record yourself saying this and send me the file?
This is a nice way to get rid of him without reference to his criminal activity during the pandemic
Yeah, I remember he got impeached twice, let millions of Americans die because of his own gross negligence, and has 30 allegations of sexual assault and/or rape hanging over his head.
Oh no wait. That's the other guy. The one you made no mention of. 😆
I believe there is a big misinterpretation about what constitutes free speech in the United States. The first amendment is not a catch-all and in fact many types of speech are not protected under the first amendment. See:-
Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.
Convince me ANY form of authority is legitimate in any way!
I understand what you are saying and mostly I agree. However, scientific and/or authority based on personal expertise is legitimate in my opinion. That isn't to say that these forms of authority are always right, but what is the point in gaining knowledge and experience in something if other people without that knowledge and experience are going to ignore what you say?
We also know from the media coverage that he was not the only left winger present, so there is another lie that you've been caught in.
I have been caught in zero lies you fringe lunatic.
Ever since pro-Trump insurrectionists stormed the U.S. Capitol last week, some people have tried to blame the attack on other groups—namely, Antifa and BLM.
A false Washington Times report—which spread like wildfire—claimed Antifa members had been identified at the riot by a facial recognition software company. As it turned out, the men identified by the software company were actually neo-Nazis, not Antifa, and the story was corrected. But not before Congressman Matt Gaetz cited the original, false story on the House floor. In fact, some people are still talking about the false story as fact. Despite being corrected, the damage has been done.
The proof is in the pudding. You demand evidence of well-established facts and yet provide NOTHING to support your own neo-Nazi conspiracy theories.
Seeing as CNN & MSNBC was using Sullivan's footage, and they were caught financing his group to purchase it from him.
I find it simply absurd that you demand evidence of things which have been well documented and are all over the news, yet have absolutely no problem with making wild conspiratorial claims and including absolutely nothing to support them. You are a fringe lunatic and that is simply a fact.
The Capitol riot footage shot by John Sullivan proves this statement to be incorrect.
It does no such thing. Nobody saw John Sullivan because he was the lone lefty in a crowd of thousands of violent maniacs.
It is quite simply impossible to take anything you say seriously when you ignore the thousands of right wingers out there killing people and instead attack the only left winger present. That illustrates a level of bias which is so extreme it can only be described as fringe lunatic.
We've seen for the last decade now, that these people who usually come out in protest, or support for some form of movement. Can have some defining negative traits such as this.
OP didn't define any negative traits you comically absurd lunatic. He called activists losers.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!