I wouldn’t feel violated if the person I was hitting on turned out to have a dick, but I wouldn’t have interest in having sex with that person because well I don’t fancy having sex with a person who has a dick.
Am I wrong in thinking this?
Often that is the case with abbreviations. Often it happens that there is a company with that name same thing with NYT B.V., but it's almost non-existent so it doesn't have a site. Or that something has a completely different meaning in another language which makes you get different results. It is more often than not that you can totally different results based on your location. Sometime some search engines give different results as well.
Yeah ofc, it’s another way of funding a company and the investors want their return on investment as well. Our savings, pensions, index funds etc are also investing in these publicly traded companies and we also want whatever roi we can get.
Governments just need to do their fucking job to prevent ani consumerism. But considering there are still a lot of people defending stupid rules and regulations (especially about anti consumer practises in the US) I doubt it will change anytime soon.
Even if they didn’t need to work hard to survive (it they have social securitu) we probably won’t hear from them because getting out if the hole is pretty hard.
All these subscriptions, misinformations about prices, lack of transparant tax structures, creditcards and loans for things people could really buy without don’t help and this is the same basically across the globe
I am of the camp that all rules should apply to everybody and that includes social standards. If it is wrong to say something to person A it is also wrong to say the same to person B.
But I am not American and idk who this person is and how he is “objectively evil” so I might be entirely wrong in this case.
The US is less one country than the EU members are and we are a long way off of becoming one.