Because it sounds complex and not entirely legal (it might be legal but it sounds like it might be illegal).

The vast majority of users are going to be using their real credit card.

I'm not even sure every guy who knows how to use a bank account and a computer fully understands how credit cards work. I think you need to seriously recalibrate your opinion of what typical people are capable of.

That even after you remove the rant and bias it's still a really stupid question.

You might as well ask why animals don't have political pundits.

Why ask why animals don't have X when you'd probably agree people didn't even have X until some time in the last few hundred years.

Your work improving slaughterhouses essentially involved empathizing with the animals and understanding the factors that were causing them excessive stress.

Why do you think most people have so much trouble doing this? Is it just experience, ie we don't realize a certain rake is making the cattle nervous because we haven't lived the life of a cow. Or do you think there's something fundamentally different about the cognition of different animals that makes them respond in ways that humans have trouble relating to?

That must have been hard to phrase your angry off-topic rant in the form of a question.

I'd also question your claim that animals don't have social justice. If we ignore your incoherent definition (ie any moral judgement you disagree with) and look at actual social justice things like concepts of fairness and policing social norms it's clear animals do have social justice.

I concede "virtually all" is an overstatement and I'm not sure how to find evidence other than anecdotes and a general impression, but I do think there is a definite pattern with people falling into extremist bubbles which is a lot easier on the internet.

As for the reporting aspect I do think I have some evidence of it being under reported. Luka Magnotta was very active on social media and extremist sites like Stormfront, posted multiple videos of himself killing animals and uploaded the video of his murder of Justin Lin to a gore website. However, the only mention of this you ever saw in the media was that he had uploaded videos of the kitten killings and murder and that the owner of the gore website was arrested.

It wasn't even made clear that Magnotta uploaded the video himself, the fact that he was extremely active in social media (and probably the gore website as well) was almost unreported in an extremely sensationalized case. It follows that there's a lot of other cases where it's likely under publicized as well.

It's an easily accessible source with biases that are relatively well understood. That doesn't mean it's where I formed my views but it has conveniently accessible information.

If I gave something you know to be inaccurate or misleading you can supply your own source rather than just writing the whole thing off.

It's ironic that you're criticizing the quality of my sources since I don't even recall you posting any.

They gave back a tiny portion they didn't want in order to cement control over the West Bank and prevent the creation of a Palestinian state, at least according to Ariel Sharon

Yet despite this the proposed partition still managed to make the regions given to the Jews 45% Arab.

I disagree.

Who cares what ethnicity they are? These are actual individuals who are having their homes taken away.

So when was this that there was no notable Muslim population?

Lets just ignore the question of whether they became anti-Semitic before or after Jewish immigrants literally decided to take over Palestine because either answer carries the implication that the Zionists shouldn't have tried to take over Palestine.

You're still ignoring the Settlements question!!! Clearly you can see why I think the Settlements are indefensible, because no one will ever defend them!

It that the case though? If the community is bad enough to get banned I don't think it's moderating people.

That's a very different topic.

Games are fundamentally escapist, GTA doesn't actually endorse violence, it just lets people enjoy some fantasies.

But communities shape people's views and what they perceive as typical or right. I don't see why making the community online would change this?

Well Elliot Rodger is one but I was mostly thinking about lone wolf terrorists or people like Luka Magnotta (though he wasn't a spree killer). However it's hard to find good sources in part because it isn't really mentioned. When people do something crazy like go on a killing spree or post a murder video people assume they'll be part of some screwy online communities and papers don't want to get flack from readers for posting the name of a really disturbing site.

But at a more abstract level no one disputes the fact that people can fall in with a bad crowd in the physical world, why would you dispute that it's possible to fall in with a bad crowd on the Internet?

Given the US justice system someone suing a company and losing is hardly firm evidence they were in the wrong.

True, but that doesn't necessarily mean she was calling the shots if the chairman of the board was pushing hard enough.

It's not coming from the organization but from a former CEO who doesn't seem to have an active role any more (but presumably still gets the office gossip). I don't think it makes sense for Reddit to defend the scapegoat and shift blame to their Executive Chairman.

The Jewish printer, Christian baker, KKK baker, and eugenics supporter are all guilty of discriminating against a group. That's not allowed nor should it be.

But that doesn't mean the Jewish printer should have to print holocaust denial posters nor the KKK member print "kill all whites" posters, you're allowed to ban offensive speech.

In what sense?

I assume you're referring to his affair, I'd say the reaction seems mild because a) affairs are tough for the family and a personal indictment but not really a public policy issue and are generally ignored, b) Clinton never presented himself as an example of a perfect family man so it wasn't very hypocritical, c) the reaction of the Republicans was completely over the top.

I don't deny that the PC crowd can be hypocritical but I don't think they're moreso than any other group.

Alternately providing a forum allows people to develop their views and nurture them in a community.

Maybe I'm a non-practising paedophile who has kept it in check because I know it's wrong. But then I find an online community which shares my attraction and suggests it's perfectly fine, and since I have all those people who seem to think I'm not doing anything wrong by looking at these pictures of young girls then going a step further and looking for child porn can't be that bad either...

Same thing with any kind of extremism, it's the communities around them that develops them into dangerous people. The one thing in common with virtually all these lone gunman type terrorists or spree killers is their involvement in extremist online communities. It's a positive feedback loop.

There's a difference between making it illegal to talk about and giving them a forum.

Reddit is a community, it has no obligation to cater to any specific topic.

I'm not saying it was as simple as who shot first, I'm saying that it's more complex than a pure war of aggression by the Arab states.

And even if it were a war of aggression that doesn't justify Israeli land grabs.

You've also ignored the elephant in the room of ongoing Israeli settlements. It's like arguing whether Joe or Phil was responsible for starting the fight while ignoring that fact that Joe was robbing Phil's house.

So it's a flaw of Turkey then. Either way the Kurds will end up paying for it if they try revolt against Turkey and end up in a bloody war surrounded by extremists. Bush thought that the Iraqis deserved democracy and self-determination, over a hundred thousand people died for that idealism and many of the remainder have less freedom than before.