You must log in or # to comment.
Personally, I’d missed it but today’s Al Jazeera apparently isn’t the Al Jazeera of the 2000s. E.g. seeing them spread 4chan screenshots with obviously doctored images on Twitter to counter claims by Netanyahu about killed children gives me pause. However, the site does appear to have journalistic ambitions in areas largely irrelevant to its owners’ political interests, such as this article.
The uneasy compromise I came to so far:
- This post stays up, because the article itself is okay and because there are comments here.
- Future Al Jazeera link posts will be removed. I’d like to ask you not to submit more.
Please consider creating a public news source blacklist for this community. Alternatively we could use some kind of guidance on what are criteria for sources to be accepted. As it is I’m not sure what kind of rule I am breaking.
Also: you are not personally responsible for Holocaust, no need to please Israel, just don’t vote for AfD. Lots of love from Poland.
Please consider creating a public news source blacklist for this community.
I privately considered that when we discussed the new rules among the mods but didn’t really fancy working on it. Links to RT will be deleted too though, so much is sure. :)
Also: you are not personally responsible for Holocaust,
I am not doing this out of a feeling of guilt.
no need to please Israel,
If Al Jazeera was simply critical of Israel I wouldn’t mind. I wouldn’t have written the message above about 2000~2010 era Al Jazeera either.
The issue for me is that some of their channels have started part-time dealing in complete fakery when it suits their benefactors (cf. the linked Twitter screenshot).
(On the topic of Israel though: This server, feddit•org, is supposed to comply with German law which restricts certain speech. This means e.g. speech in favor of Israel ceasing to exist is not allowed.)
just don’t vote for AfD.
That won’t happen. :)
Lots of love from Poland.
Cheers!
Sweet, just like in futurama.
The classic Stop’n’Drop! Later than prophesied, but what a time to be alive.
As for someone changing their mind at the very last minute, Nitschke said: “Once you press that button, there’s no way of going back.”
Regardless of what your philosophical beliefs are this seems like a gigantic problem to me. You should be able to stop the process at any point before you are unconscious. Imagine having second thoughts in that thing after you hit the button. You just know you’re fucked, that you are going to die, and there’s nothing you can do to stop it. Sounds fucking terrifying.
I respect a man who goes where he wants to be, even if he wants to be dead.
The capsule has raised a host of legal and ethical questions in Switzerland. Active euthanasia is illegal in the country, but assisted dying has been allowed for decades as long as the person takes their life with no “external assistance” and those who help the person die do not do so for “any self-serving motive,” according to a government website.
That sounds so frigging complicated. Like, you can have a milky coffee, but you can’t physically combine the milk and coffee.
Good on the folk who risked 5 years in jail to help that 65 y/o bite it.
'Self Serving Motive" traditionally was surmised as you were not in line to inherit or profit from a person’s death. A doctor or employee of suicide booth incorporated would be allowed <humanely> end your life but a business partner holding a pillow over your face knowing they’d get majority share of your company could not.
That just means the one dying has to be the one to press the button. Which is 100% a good Idea.
- they wouldn’t risk time in prison if they did it normally instead of breaking chemical law.
They were warned multiple times, yet they still did it. I won’t have any sympathy for them if they get convicted.
Bro why do you post a aljazeera link?
Why not?
Apart from the whole issue with it being financed by a ruthless dictatorship: Aljazeera hasn’t got reporters on the ground in Switzerland. So they are just using some of the usual international news agencies for this. And therefore there is no reason to use a news site financed by a ruthless dictatorship, you can just link to all those other sources reporting the same or you might want to take a look at swiss sources, who might have more insight into the issue than an arabic news channel financed by a ruthless dictatorship
Cause its Aljazeera, the known Qatari funded Hamas propaganda institute, dont spread their links.
Removed by mod
Reality is invariably subject to interpretation and thus there cannot be a truly objective news outlet. But there definitely are news outlets that are largely fact-based and that largely provide reasonable interpretations. You may need to look beyond American cable channels though.
Removed by mod
Your response was way out of whack my dude
Still, it’s a quality article
Nope, nothing of value comes from terrorism supporters. Watch their Arabic language stuff and you might get that.
Well, when you say “you might get that,” it’s encouraging me not to.
Yeah then dont and just use a European News Source and not one that is funded by a dictatorship.
Show me the article on another acceptable news source and I’ll go read it.
deleted by creator
Lmao, looks like somebody needs to go back to their troll cave.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
