Randosaurus
Oh how dare I, my days of making points are certainly coming to a middle...
"If an entire village is razed to the ground then whatever led up to that is wrong, period"
People shot guns while hunting all the time, therefore the actions of Cheney that led up to him shooting his friend are both acceptable, things we should continue doing, and should under no circumstances be expected to change in future hunts.
^ Because you see ... it doesn't matter that other people have successfully gone hunting and shot guns in the past, what matters are the specific circumstances that led to Cheney shooting another human being.
---
What happens is that people like you want to point to the firing of the gun and argue that firing guns is legal therefore Cheney did nothing wrong.
Everyone understand the flaw in that logic, I don't even have to explain it.
---
FB did nothing wrong everyone! FB is just displaying text on a webpage, something people do all the time!
If an entire village is razed to the ground then whatever led up to that is wrong, period. What people get backwards is thinking that if the actions that led up to the razing were themselves not ethically problematic, then the result has no bearing on whether or not we should continue allowing said actions.
Then there's the fact that actual FB employee's have gone on record that FB is making things worse in Ethiopia. Or aren't we allowed to take that into account when condemning FB?
Discounting this as being simply "he said/she said" is itself ethically dubious.
The problem with opinions like yours isn't that they're wrong, it's that you've lost all perspective.
The issue here isn't the action, it's the scale at which this action is able to occur.
What you quoted is specifically for less than 200 transactions in a calendar year. The implication being that any account involving 200 or more transactions in a calendar year will need that information.
Which brings about two points.
1. Exactly how much money can someone launder buying < 200 csgo skins in a calendar year (are we arguing that they're paying $50k per skin?), and 2. How exactly does the idea that they've decided to take on some risk to decrease friction incompatible with not wanting to deal with NFT's, which *COULD* conceivably go for $50k a pop.
We are all aware you are certain.
I think the worst part of your entire post is that your argument boils down to it being irrational to wait until more complete information is known.
Let me quote them again so we're clear on the context that started this conversation.
> ... a vaccine that didn’t even begin testing before spring 2020 __does not have a long enough track record to assure safety__.
Lets consider how you responded
"why do you feel more qualified to say it's unsafe than the people who have spent their entire careers focused on it?"
I would love for you to explain why that's a reasonable response to what the other poster said. Or explain how the other posters statement is irrational.
Because that's the major problem people like you have. You even start attacking me for the egregious wrongthink of not calling someone irrational for having the opinion that we can't be assured of its safety __YET__.
And I realize I'm not going to get through to you, but here's an observation for you.
When you start lumping such middle-of-the-road opinions in with people who believe covid can be spread through 5G networks it's possible you're part of the problem.
They did exactly that, to quote them:
"I use my common sense to know that a vaccine that didn’t even begin testing before spring 2020 does not have a long enough track record to assure safety."
No reasonable person is going to interpret this as "they admitted they didn't weigh the risks".
My favorite part is how you set the bar to "something that can be evaluated scientifically", without also admitting that __"SCIENCE", IS IN THE MIDDLE OF EVALUATING__.
This is the reason no one trusts people like you, your willingness to dishonesty and misrepresentation makes you untrustworthy. Nothing anyone says will change anything other than the bar you claim others should be clearing, said bar just so happening to cause everyone to land on your opinion.
Not even the CDC takes a stance as strong as yours.
You don't actually want them weighing the odds, you just want to imply they're wrong without being histrionic about it.
It's reasonable to be leery of a vaccine produced in such a small amount of time when most vaccines go through much more rigor.
And making claims such as "it's been thoroughly tested" is balderdash. It's like claiming your software has been thoroughly tested because you push straight to production with minimal testing after someone says they won't use your software because they don't want to be the testers of your software.
We're still learning about both the virus and the vaccine. In 10 years we'll be a lot more confident in our knowledge, and what's "known" about it will be a lot more trustworthy.
Oh hey look, I'm signing yet another contract with an arbitration clause when signing up for a cell phone service. Must be my fault that all of them require the arbitration clause...
I'm not. That was my point.
I was floored when I realized that it was $40 on Amazon Video (streaming), but $22 if I purchase the DVD.
Amazon's costs are __LESS__ for the streaming media than for the company/people selling the physical DVD. Ridiculous doesn't even begin to properly describe that behavior.
If companies are charging premiums for services that cost them less to run, I'm damned well going to be buying in person more often.
Part of the reason I stopped playing was I realized ranked wasn't competitive, it was just a different mode. If riot actually considered it competitive, autofill wouldn't be a thing.
But to your point, you're absolutely correct. There's an old video about a well known streamer (forget his name) ranting about where the toxicity in league comes from.
And he draws the following analogy.
If you're in a game of pickup basketball and someone on your team decides to start scoring for the opponent, you can simply walk away. If you do that in league you get punished for it so you're forced to stay in a game you don't want to be in.
The long and short of it is that LoL players have very little control over both their teammates, and their willingness to play with someone who decides to be an asshole.
Riot could solve a large % of the toxicity in league, but they choose not to.