Now admittedly, I cannot think how that might benefit Amazon. But it could be a reason.
There were probably some Domino's locations that did nothing but give out free pizza's all day. How anyone thought that was sustainable I don't know...
Free to the T-Mobile subscriber does not necessarily mean Domino's does not get paid for the pizza. It isn't clear whether or not T-Mobile was paying Domino's for each and every pizza.
The problem is that the people foisting this irrational argument (Pascal's wager) is that they never fully consider the reward/punish matrix and make another box for reward for being an atheists.
I thought the problem was the people foisting this irrational argument assume that you won't pick Zeus, or Odin, or Ra, or any of the many many many other gods that are not the particular god they think you should pick.
Saying a debate should never have happened is censorship, of the worst kind.
It can be, but in this case, no it isn't.
the truth is that you just find it frustrating to deal with those you perceive to be so grossly in error. You would rather shut them up, or shut them out.
If Karmashock wanted to shut them up, why would they say "Don't like it... vote to change it through the regular process and repeal the second amendment."? It seems clear to me that Karmashock isn't trying to shut anyone up. What they want, is to have a discussion where actual legal change can occur. Trying to ban guns without changing the constitution is unconstitutional.
And no, I abhor guns. But backdoors are wrong, whether they are for encryption, or law.
There is no right to not be offended,
and this shouting down of what other people have to say because you don't like it means you would shit all over free speech for your own ends.
Incorrect. You have the right to say something offensive, but they absolutely have the right to say "I'm offended by that". And of course, you have the right to respond back "tough shit". Because Freedom of Speech goes all ways.
I view this as no different than a bunch of church-ladies picketing to stop Andrew Dice Clay, or someone protesting outside of a place that sells bacon because they disagree with eating bacon -- it's the tyranny of a very vocal minority who feels it is their right to control what others do.
And those church-ladies have every right to do that, because Freedom of Speech goes all ways. Allowing those people to say those things is not "tyranny of a very vocal minority", it is the very essence of Freedom of Speech.
You capture opponents pieces and remove them from the board.
And that would explain my confusion. I was unaware that squares could ever revert to blank.
I would not vote any at all. If I am asked to choose to eat one of different kind of poo, why should I pick one to eat if I am also allowed to pick none of them? It is stupid to "must pick" one if you can simply "not do it" instead.
You seem to be confused, thinking that you must choose one of the poos in front of you. You can always write in filet mignon. Sure, you prolly won't get it, but you can still write it in.
Unless you're in a non-swing state. Then it might be possible, but only if voters of the less popular poo color realize that their poo cannot win that state, so all they are doing is voting for who the runner up will be.
Or to get rid of the analogy... voting Democrat in a solidly red state, or Republican in a solidly blue state, is pointless. The person you are voting for can not and will not win your state. So might as well vote for some third option. If the polls read 60% D, 39% R, and 1% Other, that's just business as usual. But if they read 60% D, 1% R, and 39% Other, then people start to go "WTF??".
!07/11 PDP a ni deppart m'I !pleH