xxd

Barely any pension, but that's fine because they have kids to take care of them. This sounds nice, except for when you think of it for more than a few seconds. How would a homosexual couple survive while they're old? They can't have kids. They can adopt, but that does nothing to enlarge the population. What about people that can't conceive for medical reasons? Should they have to suffer with "barely any pension" just because they got unlucky? This might be fine for most, but policies like that come at the expense of minority groups, which are already often at a disadvantage. And if you suggest adoption... If having kids is the only way to have a decent life after retiring, adopting would be an easy choice, because it saves you the pregnancy hassle as well as maybe some stressful first years of childcare. Surely the demand for adoptions would skyrocket, making it close to impossible for every person in a group that can't have children to actually get them. Also, since kids are so valuable, supply for adoptions would fall, because who in their right mind would give up their pension that easily!

And let's say a couple can and does have children because of the policy. In your mind they might have been 'forced to make a better decision', but ultimately ended up with the right choice, right? Have you considered that having kids might not be a healthy choice for a couple? Maybe the parents are just not cut out for the stress and suffer greatly while their kids grow up. Maybe the kids suffer as well, because a parent that is forced to have kids would hardly be a loving and enthusiastic parent, would they? You'd have to admit that forcing people into a choice is not exactly a good recipe for ensuring that they are happy, right?

Moving the financial burden of taking care of the elderly to an individual level works fine for some people, like your granddad enjoying your financial support, but greatly hurts people in different circumstances that they have no fault to be in. We should support everyone, not just a few lucky ones.

Except that is not the strategy at all. They actually used a formula that has nothing to do with the countries tariffs, only with how much they import/export from/to the USA. Why else would they put a tariff on an uninhabited island? The penguins surely had a 0% tariff policy with the USA, which according to your logic would mean, that they would get a 0% tariff as per trumps policy. Instead, all tariffs are at least 10%, because if you actually applied the formula to all countries, some would end up with negative tariffs! I strongly recommend this video by Stand-up Maths to understand how the numbers are actually calculated.

Es gibt eine YouTube API mit (zumindest nach meinem letzten Wissensstand) einer gewissen Menge an kostenlosen Tokens. Da kannst du auch Kommentare herunterladen (Dokumentation) und unter deinem video einfügen. Falls du das bei sehr vielen Videos machen willst bzw. immer alle Kommentare erfassen willst, dann könnte das die Tokens schnell aufbrauchen, aber das kommt auf deinen konkreten Anwendungsfall an.

Für das Video selbst macht wahrscheinlich ein Tool wie z.B. youtube-dl Sinn.

EDIT: Anscheinend kann youtube-dl auch Kommentare mit herunterladen, das wäre also also vermutlich deine beste all-in-one lösung

What the actual fuck is wrong with these people

It's not only the risk factor, people routinely oppose wind turbines just because they dislike how they look. and huge cooling towers are not exactly subtle.

but the 'risk factor' is a total non-issue in regards to making this decision. nuclear power could be 100% safe and it would still simply be far too expensive to be worth it.

It's really sad to see that evidently more than half of the german population have an opinion on something which they have little to no understanding of. It's frustrating what misinformation can achieve.

Nuclear power might work for some nations, but there is just no way it makes sense in germany. All previous plants are in dire need of renovation and will be hugely expensive to bring back up and running, and a new one is just as overly optimistic, as major construction projects routinely go far over budget here, and nuclear energy is already not price competitive with renewables. Nobody wants waste storage, let alone a power plant near them, and it would take years until a plant is even producing energy. By that time, it might already be redundant, because renewables and energy storage will be cheaper and more ubiquitous. there is just no way nuclear power makes sense for germany.

If anything it would be more a 'tu quoque' fallacy than whataboutism, because the latter tries to shift the attention to an unrelated topic, whereas here it is occupying land both times.

It certainly weakens the criticism, because the robber in your example might do the right thing, but if they really opposed robbing, surely they wouldn't do it themselves? As you said, it makes them a hypocrite, and makes you question their motive for measuring two cases with a different yardstick.

So you taught a chimpanzee nothing and he hanged himself? You can't blame me for that!