the_lego

It applies even more, as the 4th amendment limits specifically government searches.

Ironic, isn't it? The same people that will sing "They paved paradise to put up a parking lot", are also against any effective measures to prevent that turn of events.

A few tourists doesn't mean the community itself is transient. Even a great many tourists doesn't mean that, if the locals are mostly static. They form a community, and watch the tourists come and go.

This is like proposing to dig a bigger basement to fit more flood water. No matter how much you dig, there will always be more water in the ocean to flow in.

In the case of New York, it will never have "enough" housing - what will instead happen is, eventually, it will become so overgrown that it will be unattractive for new arrivals.

> Is that bad?

Yes. A home is not an economic asset like any other. It is the biggest link to one's community and people. Healthy communities cannot form from transient populations.

Should it? Such liability inevitably results in only "verified" content getting "promoted" - an extremely vague term. First it's the home screen, then related videos, then 1st page results for searching "cleanse", etc.

Soon any kind of user content hosting becomes legally impossible without acceding to some kind of government-approved (it will be private, but require "good standing") censorship agency.

> Just so we're on the same page, could you give me a definition of what a fake refugee is

Someone who travels across one or more safe countries before claiming asylum.

> it's beyond the scope of this book to address the history of the Islamic conquest to the extent that you desire

You misunderstand me. If the author simply did not address it at all, and left it as "Saracen influence/legacy", or "influence of Saracen wars/conquest/invasion/conflict/presence..", I would have been content (even with something as neutral as 'presence'). It is perfectly reasonable to focus on architecture, and mostly or even entirely ignore wars.

It is in ascribing guilt to the victims ("stealing", "debt", "Islamophobia"), that changed it from mere focus on a narrow topic, to lying by omission.

> What's the point of having a system of shared values if one member goes "Hey, let's, umm, [stop immigration]!" and your system can't defend itself against such actors?

Corrected to better reflect AfD's position. To address your point, the goal should be to serve the people, not the system. A system that persists against its subjects wishes is, by definition, tyranny.

> Sabotaging people’s private property is a criminal act.

That's what happened here. Refusing to scan without ink is sabotage.

> If it was from a private individual plantiff, then they have a right to privacy you can’t just ignore.

And the public has a right to transparency in the legal system. The rights are in conflict, and given the obvious risks of a black-box legal system, the right to transparency should prevail.

What does that have to do with allowing casual lies about history to go unchallenged? Let's say they do have a place - does that mean we have to whitewash the history of Muslim conquest? In other cases of descendants of invasions, they're made to call themselves 'settlers' and give land acknowledgments. The least we can do here is not tell lies.