The future of the Forex industry - page 73
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Question above.
which one?
which one?
Or money for a child's treatment? When they collect millions on TV, should they also let them suffer?
Medicine, especially expensive and experimental, also requires "suffering". Not everyone will be able to exchange organs in the future and live forever.
so did you say yes? or what do you mean by that?
h ttps://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/368613/page72#comment_22338221
Most universally, all kinds of suffering.
Although the types of suffering differ in cause, they have a common basis.
Here we are not mainly talking about suffering of the body, but suffering of the soul from the realisation of a discrepancy between the ideal self and some objective situation of the world.
Suffering is the whip that makes one move.
Or money for a child's treatment? When they raise millions on TV, should they also let them suffer?
Is it only me who thinks it's surreal and obscene to collect money for treatment on TV? - When you can organize normal fundraising like in decent countries?
By the way here is the beastly grin of capitalism 😁
https://rg.ru/2020/11/05/kak-v-raznyh-stranah-mira-lechat-detej-s-redkimi-i-tiazhelymi-zabolevaniiami.html
The state's insurance mechanisms are clearly more appropriate here. You could do a couple of subs later.
But you have to realize that it's better to fund a startup (e.g. for a cure for SMA), hire expensive scientists and initially sell the cure for $2M per shot.
To make it available to more children later. Simply shipping the money abroad is unlikely to help the development of medicine in Russia.
so did you say yes? or what is the meaning of your message?
The answer of course is yes. But the state can alleviate 'suffering', that is its main function. For example offer to buy 10kr/year health insurance on the birth of a child from maternity capital.
It can also be given to the poor, but in that case it is probably better to postpone having children altogether.
The answer, of course, is yes. But the state can alleviate the 'suffering', that is its main function. For example, offer to buy health insurance 10kr/year at birth from maternity capital.
It can also be given as a gift to the poor, but in this case, it is probably better to postpone having children at all.
Targeted minimum support is needed, of course, but it should not turn into too much easy money.
There are precedents of procreation for the sake of the maternity capital, aren't there?
In the long term they probably need a license for the creation of children, like in the Cyberpunk.
With requirements for capital adequacy, and if you do not meet them, there is no need to procreate poverty.
This is necessary even for humane reasons, so that children do not suffer in the poorest segments of society.
It is still a very irresponsible state of society.
Targeted minimum support is needed, of course, but it should not turn into too much easy money.
There are precedents of reproduction for the sake of maternity capital, aren't there?
In the long term they probably need a license for the creation of children, like in the Cyberpunk.
With requirements for capital adequacy, and if you do not meet them, there is no need to procreate poverty.
This is necessary even for humane reasons, so that children do not suffer in the poorest segments of society.
The state of society is still very irresponsible.
There is no need to interfere in the procreation process. Isaac Newton was the ninth child in the family.