Kleinbonum

From a utilitarian point of view, it probably makes more sense to attempt to minimize suffering rather than opting out of the decision and thereby passively enable greater suffering.

But hey, it's the trolley problem all over again, and people hate even thinking about that one.

Oh, corruption is going to thrive under Trump. Did you not notice that last time around? Did you not notice the fake charities, the tax payer money funneled into Mar-a-Lago, the hundreds of millions going to Trump PACs, the money going to the Trump hotel in Washington DC, all the corruption and bribes and schemes?

And the fun thing is that now that Trump knows how to do all of this, how to funnel millions into his own pocket, a second Trump presidency is going to be corruption on steroids.

The only thing that's going to crumble are democratic norms and human rights in the United States.

Ironically, so is supporting the Hamas position that Israel shouldn't exist.

The law should still apply equally to every company, shouldn't it?

That's because they like the idea of a Trump dictatorship. They simply assume they'd be on the side that's going to do the dictating.

Which is why they released women for the other 7 days. Love how this article contradicts itself in the first sentence.

Here's the entire sentence:

Israeli official says Hamas doesn’t want to release remaining women because it doesn’t want them speaking publicly about what they endured on Oct. 7 and in their time in captivity

which clearly implies that Hamas was fine releasing female hostages that were treated okay, but is refusing to release the remaining female hostages that have possibly been abused, raped, sexually mistreated.

You obviously don't have to agree with that analysis, but where exactly do you see the contradiction?

"Achso dieser Terroranschlag. Ja das waren natürlich wir"

"Die Terroristen sind natürlich Helden. Und übrigens rufen wir noch zu viel mehr Terroranschlägen auf Zivilisten auf!"

That's fair.

However, it's just an argument for cracking down on money laundering, criminal enterprises, dark money in politics, etc.

Bad actors who oppose cryptocurrencies out of nefarious reasons don't make cryptocurrencies a good thing, particularly if even worse actors support cryptocurrencies for even worse reasons.

Milliardäre sind halt so unglaublich weit weg vom eigenen Erfahrungshorizont, da könnte man sich genauso gut über Smaug den Drachen unterhalten. Menschen, die vielleicht hunderttausend mal mehr Geld haben, als man als Durchschnittsmensch in einem gesamten Arbeitsleben verdienen kann? Da fehlt vielen Menschen komplett das Vermögen, das in irgendein Verhältnis zum eigenen Leben zu setzen.

Da sieht man sich dann lieber in der eigenen, erlebten Umgebung um und tritt dann gerne kräftig zu, am liebsten nach unten.

Another thing of course is that the banks are unhappy with not getting their share in money laundering, crime investments and tax evasion, like they do with government currencies. Cryptocurrencies could also democratize organized crime and not just leave it to the established ties between politics, banks and existing crime groups.

I'm not sure that "cryptocurrencies make it much easier for criminals to launder money, finance criminal enterprises, evade taxes and for organized crime to funnel dark money and into politics and corrupt politicians" is the kind of pro-cryptocurrency argument you seem to imply it is.