[QUOTE="rastotm"]

As owners of a bussiness it's your job to adopt to modern social norms. If you as a business owner refuse and consequently get a huge amount of shit from a gigantic amount of people, than you failed your job. I don't see why this has to be such a complex issue.

GOGOGOGURT

People also have the freedom to belive what they want to believe.  These gay activists resorting to such violent threats are ignorant. 

As owners of a bussiness it's your job to adopt to modern social norms. If you as a business owner refuse and consequently get a huge amount of shit from a gigantic amount of people, than you failed your job. I don't see why this has to be such a complex issue.

Overrated. It isn't worth your time and money if getting educated is your goal. Especially considering that the vast majority of lessons are simply a audio versions of books. In this day and age, college is for socializing and getting a proof of education through minimal effort.

The benefits of a stable fiscal policy would be worth it. In the current situation, a collapse of the EU is more likely though. As there seems to be a rise in Populist anti-EU politicans. Sadly, government bashing parties always get a considerable amount of votes in relatively bad times. The dangerous result is that people forget the actual policies of the party that they are voting on, all they care about is showing of their disstatisfaction. The end result is often more problematic than the initial crisis.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I just looked at the other thread and reread some of the posts in this thread. A lot of the people that said that the bakery deserves to be run out of business are not the same people that are giving this employee a free pass. That being said, there are a few hyprocrites, but this is hardly the kind of mass hyprocrisy that you're making it out to be. If you don't believe me, take a look at the two threads.

Person0

Did I give a number or specify a specific amount of posters? The fact at least two of us noticed with possibly a third noticing, means it is more than what you think. 

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

Most humans tend to copy the most successful, rich or popular people when buying clothes. Considering that these factors often go together with good looks, it seems common sense for big brands to shun ugly and fat people.

no-scope-AK47

Most humans tend to copy the most successful, rich or popular people when buying clothes. Considering that these factors often go together with good looks, it seems common sense for big brands to shun ugly and fat people.

I didn't even cry after seeing Hachiko.

[QUOTE="rastotm"]Danger is defined by the dose and the normal dose is defined by the average user. Attempting to define the normal dose of a banned product creates a skewed view of reality, as a banned product is less likely to be used for recreational purposes. Or in other words, a substance ban has a far greater impact on recreational use than it has on addictive use.
Picture the situation with alcohol as a banned product, most of the noticeable alcohol drinkers are addicts. As most addicts, they tend to drink substances high in alcohol, take wodka for example. Your view of alcohol, as a non alcohol drinker, would be based on wodka. This wodka obviously does not portray a just image of alcohol in terms of damage and effect, as a single beer bottle is significantly less problematic than a wodka bottle. The same principle applies to the recreational use of hard drugs.
The only danger that these drugs have is in their addictive properties. In which banning or not banning should have little effect on the long term. MrGeezer

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] I was just using that as an example, and I already admitted that my impressions of most hard drugs was largely informed by anti-drug propaganda. I'm not an expert and I've never thoroughly studied crack, I'm just operating off of what "society" has told me about it. If crack is no more dangerous than alcohol, then crack is no more dangerous than alcohol. Once someone demonstrates that to me then I'll happily admit that I was wrong about crack. Having said that, crack was just a single example in a discussion about legalizing ALL drugs. Crack might not be "too dangerous" to legalize its sale, but not all drugs are equally dangerous. As long as there exists ANY drug which is "too dangerous" to allow people to sell it, then I'd still be against legalizing the sale of ALL drugs for recreational purposes. Which drugs would be allowed and which drugs wouldn't? I don't know, but that ought to be decided on a case-by-case basis.BeardMaster

Alcohol was banned, it was not just addicts drinking during prohibition.

and people dont start out as addicts, they start out as recreational users.... and what is wodka?