Especially when the palm trees are standing in the shadows.

Adidas is short for Adolf Dassler... Just leaving that here

it took 2 nuclear weapons and the promise of more, and they were already in the verge of losing.

Some historians argue that the bigger factor was the sowjets preparing to enter the war against Japan and that the nuclear bombs just kind of sped up the decision that was coming anyway.

You could make the same argument against every civil liberty the Germans enjoyed in the Weimar Republic: freedom of movement, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, even democracy.

That's exactly my point, the Nazis never acted in good faith, they were never beholden to the freedoms they used, in fact they used those freedoms to get rid of them, so to protect them we have to restrict them. So unfortunately we have to exclude some things from the protection Democratic values can deliver. For example the swastika in Germany - all it represents, all it refers to in that context is anti democratic, anti freedom so if you show it outside of a educational context we have to assume it represents exactly that - that you want to get rid of democratic values like free speech, so we exclude that symbol from the protection of our democratic values TO protect said democratic values.

It's a little paradox and a lotta complicated. We should never take those measures lightly but imo they have to exist, because history showed that if you don't protect them , some forces are willing to use them to destroy them.

Your first link shows what happens when we don't apply those measures carefully and too broadly, the framework has to be very precise for them to make sense, otherwise they do the job of the deconstructors of democracy for them.

Your second Link refers to a private entity, those can not restrict free speech, they can censor what speech they want to host and it is their right under free speech to do so, so it is irrelevant. Like if you're in my house talking shit I can kick you out, no free speech was impeded by that action, I just exercised my free speech to show you the door.

Is Cassettes a mistranslation? Or am I missing something here?

I like to drink a coffee and a glass of juice in the morning. I have put juice instead of milk in my coffee more often than I would admit.

They're not even in the same packaging, one is a tetra pack, the other is a tall glass bottle.

My city is pretty flat, so I'd guess that they don't need all powered axles? In the subways it happens more frequently on the longer trains, that are full, so during peak hours.

Another dishonest tactic - deflecting to an unimportant part of the argument to hold up the participant with needless explanations for metaphorical concepts.

What the other user meant is that all we know about space travel is, that we need a lot of protective layers around our crafts just for leaving the atmosphere, so one would assume that craft that supposedly travel hundreds of light-years would need a very sophisticated kind of protection. But there is no way to deliver evidence to a theoretical concept, hence why I said your arguing is in bad faith my dear.

edit: and now he takes the cowards way out of a failing argument by deleting his comments. That's another tactic - ending the conversation, rendering all our arguments worthless and essential wasting our time. Jean Paul Sartre described it well in his quote about anti semitism.

It's impossible to prove a negative, you simply can not prove that something ISN'T there. It's such a transparent deflection and you know that, it's a common conspiracy tactic, dishonest argument 101.

As long as there is no physical evidence that proves the existence of extra terrestrial UFO we have to assume that they are not real. So if you want to maintain they exist, you'll have to cough up some proof.

Interesting, never heard that, got a tip where I can read more about that?

It is! Can recommend.