Can't argue against logic, if jokes about Germans are allright then making fun of the Chinese speaking English can't be racist either...
Hmm, you (or another Anonymous C.) were the one linking this specific pronounciation to Mandarin.
If you would agree that over 99% of Mandarin speaking people are Chinese, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that this should be called making fun of, not an arbitrary, but a Chinese foreign-language speaking person?
'Making fun of' is not necessarily bullying, but it is still racist if it is based on the characteristics of the (Manderin speaking) Chinese.
unfortunately, chinese people are not born speaking mandarin and do not have a racial/genetic problem with r & l.
I think it is racist, as over 99% of people speaking Manderin are Chinese...
The results of the polygraph will not be used, they will just look at your recorded internet sessions.
The polygraph is just there as an excuse, a distraction.
When people pointed out two key typos, the military bosses thanked them and said they were 'exactly the kind of people they are looking for.'
"Eh, sarge, I think this war is a mistake..."
Accepting them is a "no-brainer" as a donation, there is no loss. But for any other serious financial transaction, well, unless you are a mobster or a dope dealer or otherwise involved in something illegal, the real question is WHY DEAL WITH IT.
There is a (potential) loss. As soon as the Bitcoin collapses, some people will have lost money. And Bitcoin might, in retrospect, be regarded as a pyramid scheme. People will not be happy with any party that has profited from that.
Every Watt spent on Bitcoins is a wasted Watt. (Ok, you can't spend a Watt, a Joule I mean.)
Plus, now we get the environmental burden of producing ASICs, which will be quite worthless in the near future. With the GPUs you could at least organise a fantastic LAN party after the Bitcoin crash.
Link to Original Source
Time will tell...
That sounds like the obvious answer here...
I'd find these rules more reasonable:
1. You should be free to refuse anything being put into your body (even if it would harm others)
2. You should be free to put whatever you want into your body (provided it doesn't harm others)
3. You should be free to practice whatever religion you want (provided it doesn't harm others)
4. An employer may never impose rules that violate previous 3 rules.
Irony indeed, you're a bad copycat. Please do see Comboman's previous post:
I wonder how many of the people applauding the limiting of these women's rights to control their own bodies when it puts another life at risk are pro-choice on the topic abortion?
Suppose there's a new vaccin that, if taken by nurses, has been proven to completely rule out any chance of them infecting patients. But, as a side effect, it causes X% of the vaccinated to die instantly. Or, on average, those vaccinated live Y days shorter. How large may X or Y be for you to still be a proponent of obligatory vaccination? (And what if X and Y are unknown?)
What if we not only requite nurses to vaccinate, but also policemen, firemen and teachers? What the hell, why not forcibly vaccinate everyone? That would help stop a flu epidemic.
And while we're at it, why not have everyone implant an RFID and put a halt to terrorism!