Meloni heads Italy’s most rightwing government since the second world war. Italy’s criminal code punishes with a fine ranging from €1,000 to €5,000 anyone who “publicly defames the republic”, which includes the government, parliament, the courts and the army.
Removed by mod
This user’s entire post history is hating artists and actively praising fascism.
Specifically artists, even. Very odd.
There’s anti-art hate spewed by the right, it surprised me too but its there. A lot of them usually start their rants with “art isn’t political” or “art has no value except monetary” and go from there
That gorilla account got banned btw
Removed by mod
poor baby, did you need attention?
Removed by mod
Baby you had to cope so hard you made another account just to comment here 😂
You can keep talking but I won’t see it. Enjoy!
Removed by mod
The history is there specifically for that purpose so you can tell if someone is full of shit, lying, unqualified to make a specific claim etc.
The people who claim that “it’s sad” or the equivalent are either unaware of how stuff works or more than likely the kind of person whose history proves they are full of shit.
Removed by mod
There’s no reason to provide “genuine criticism” to a rabid dog.
Removed by mod
Lol. You managed to abandon your supposed disdain for ad hominem after (checks notes) one comment…
I don’t have a disdain for ad homs if they actually come attached with something. Whether it’s an argument, explanation, rebuttal, literally anything. But if the ad hom is used as a replacement for substance then is it meaningless and fallacious, but also shows a great deal of intellectual laziness.
deleted by creator
You probably think this is a galaxy brain gotcha, when in reality it just shows you’re incapable of comprehend the concept of context. I gave an opinion. You can either agree or disagree. If you disagree then either state that you disagree and leave or explain your disagreement. Leaving ad hom and pretending it’s an explanation is literally the textbook example of why this fallacy is a fallacy. It doesn’t make you any less wrong or me any less right. It just showcases your inability to actually rebuttal what was said. With that being said, if some moron is clearly engaging in bad faith, then there’s nothing for me to explain. There’s literally no argument for me to counter, therfore, these morons just get a reflection of their engagement
How does this relate to an issue people face?
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/italian-government-limits-parental-rights-of-gay-couples-1.6312851
That’s pretty standard
Standard or not (which I checked in Canada it varies by province), it’s still a step backwards and creates unnecessary stress for already existing family units. That’s not even including the extra paperwork, time, and money spent by all parties involved just to fix a parental rights issue that didn’t exist. So how is this an issue that effects the people other than negatively?
I agree that it shouldn’t affect existing family units, but at the same time this isn’t anything unusual. The non biological parent has to go through the normal adoption process to be considered a legal guardian. The same thing should apply to heterosexual couples where one, or both, of the parents aren’t the biological parents of the children.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on whether something is the right thing to do if it’s considered the standard.
I understand where you’re coming from and there could be a lot of scenarios where adoption is a good option but at the end of the day homosexual couples don’t necessarily have the chance of both being biological parents like heterosexual couples do. What you’re describing is equality, but I would argue that it’s also discriminatory.