distic
11mo ago
although the Cold War meant that the Security Council never functioned as intended
Didn't it? I think the purpose of it was (as you explained...) to avoid a war between the great powers? It seems to me it succeeded quite well.
distic
11mo ago
Americans were wildly misled about the situation, for example, lots of them thought that Saddam was connected with 9/11. Taking down Iraq was strategic goal of Israel.
It seems to me that people that are so easily mislead should take part in no decision at all. As I said somewhere else, being dumb is no excuse.
distic
28d ago
People here take the view that it is somehow related to modern feminism, but it might not be. Women, for centuries (at least since Lucretia killed herself), have been trained to think that a rape was worse than death, because death takes your life but rape takes your honor, and in this old-fashioned theory a life without honor is not worth living. Moreover, women have also be trained to say they don't want sex ; if they admit they would prefer to be with a man than with a bear, what would people think? Do you really think Lucretia would have preferred the man over the bear?
I'm not saying it has nothing to do with modern feminism. Actually, I think the old fashioned honor is responsible for a large part of modern feminism, as opposed to earlier feminism. In the seventies with the sexual liberation movement the accent was on having more sex, not less. The idea of a rape was somewhat conservative, as it assumed that it was important to women to not have sex in some circumstances. By the way, it also lead to a lot of abuses. With AIDS, Reagan and Thatcher, the conservative gained ground and feminists began to insist on the consent of women and her individual rights as opposed to "sexual freedom". The modern emphasis on rape is a result of both earlier feminism and the conservative ideology.
distic
2mo ago
I think it goes against the common morality because:
(1) Old people aren't supposed to need as much money as their children, they typically don't need to pay their mortgage anymore and don't have children to take care of. A couple of pensioners with 80k$/year is a lot richer than a couple of middle age parents with the same revenue.
(2) When the parents die their money will typically be split evenly and it means that the richest sibling is paying for the others
(3) It's not easy to know what share of the success of the child is a result of the parents' labor and what is the result of the child's own merit. If the children owe something to their parents, it is probably proportional to their average income (because the parents' labor should have been shared evenly among the children and thus any variation between them is supposed to depend only on the individual labor of each child)
distic
2mo ago
I don't really know. I don't think there is any disparate impact law, you'd have to prove the disparate impact is intentionnal and thus that it falls in the scope of the anti discrimination law.
distic
2mo ago
Because it's visible, so it's easy to organize around it. People will know what side you are just by looking at you.
distic
3mo ago
He lived for 41 years and was probably a drug addict for 10 years at least, so the probability that he dies the same week as Navalny is not higher than 1/500. Obviously you would need to count all drug addicts that could have died at the same time and perhaps there are more than 500, but I doubt it.
I admit the elections thing are just a hypothesis. However when three people opposing Putin die the same week, at least one of them is mudered and you can't get the body of the most famous, my basic assumption is that the three of them were actually murdered.
distic
3mo ago
Most western leaders did not explicitly reference the history of suspicious deaths of opposition leaders (and the fact that Navalny was poisoned once). It's just obvious to everyone
distic
3mo ago
Your core point is not clear because it is an anti-analogy. Analogies are not helpful to begin with, but anti-analogies are even worse. It needs to be clarified, but let me help.
I agree that any citizen committed to democracy should make sure that the electoral process is fair. This means, above all, that the legal procedures in place have been respected, and also that nothing has occurred which cannot be codified but which seriously calls into question the sincerity of the ballot. I think you agree, but contradict me if you don't.
However, here's where it gets complicated: questioning the results (in bad faith) is also a way of trying to cheat. So a citizen committed to democracy should also view any accusations of fraud with circumspection.
He or she should therefore demand that anyone making such accusations provides, perhaps not evidence, but factual elements that lead him or her to believe that irregularities have been committed and that they are of such a nature as to call the results into question. Tell me where I'm wrong.
distic
3mo ago
I like your pragmatism. There is a related argument: once there is democracy, the opposition candidate policy doesn't matter much, because you can choose another one if you want to.
distic
5mo ago
Your example is pretty poor, you cannot tell someone "you don't trust everyone on the internet so no one can be trusted". Moreover, you ca. trust a random person and yet not trust a person arguing that "people just follow incentives"
distic
6mo ago
A ceasefire would accomplish a lot. For example, you can move a patient from hospital A to hospital B without fearing for his life, and perhaps he needs to be there now. You can leave your house if you feel it is dangerous to stay there, without being shot.
Israel don't want a ceasefire because Israel has an army of reservists. Those reservists can't be used forever, it cannot last more than a few months.
Moreover, I wonder what you think can be achieved without a ceasefire. Assume Israel kills all Hamas members, there are still a huge number of people who have lost someone (a child, a parent, an aunt...) and who will hate Israel forever.
distic
7mo ago
Ok I didn't remember it correctly. I think economical consequences (losing money or things) are a special kind of social consequences, at least in a poll where you can't have infinitely many options
distic
7mo ago
It's not that clear to me what they mean with "mother/daughter". Looking at a daughter and a mother having sex (incest porn)? Or for a daughter to want to have sex with her own mother? Or for a mother to have desires for her daughter? Because incest porn is quite widespread, but it's not the same as being excited by your own daughter.
distic
7mo ago
Israel might start with Hezbollah. It's a more realistic target than Iran, and it would be more explanable to the population (we can't get rid of the Hamas because hostages but we will get rid of hezbollah). I don't really believe it will happen, it's just something possible
distic
7mo ago
It can be both. Sometime, a white racist says that black people are racists too, and it means two things: (1) they are racists, because there is no such thing as human rights, equality or whatever, everyone just fights for his own people; (2) they are racists, so it's better for us to be racist against them, because they are dangerous to us. Those two claims are complementary. But there are still holes in that theory, the first one beeing how you establish the boundaries between your people and the rest of the world, and the second one that the existence of bad people is no argument against morality.
distic
7mo ago
A world war is when the war is global. Even 10 local conflicts don't make a world war until there are two sides and japan allies with germany even though they are not fighting on the same continent. And by that, I mean that they declare war and peace together, not that they are allies in that they help each other somehow.
distic
7mo ago
It's pretty hypocritical because antisemitism is a major driver of Zionism. When Jews have to flee, they go to Israel. Obviously those antisemits don't care about Palestine (when have they be interested about dead arabs anyway?)
I don't know, but the West bank is not controlled by Hamas so you can't put it on them. Moreover, from Wikipedia:
According to a 2013 World Bank report, Israeli restrictions hinder Palestinian economic development in Area C of the West Bank. A 2013 World Bank report calculates that, if the Interim Agreement was respected and restrictions lifted, a few key industries alone would produce US$2.2 billion per annum more (or 23% of 2011 Palestinian GDP) and reduce by some US$800 million (50%) the Palestinian Authority's deficit; the employment would increase by 35%.
I don't know if this report is biased.
distic
7mo ago
What would you do with your statute of limitations anyway? People won't just compensate others or renounce their claims based on that if they didn't intend to. Israeli settlements are against international law, but they still exist. Moreover, it seems that some cases can't be solved by time. Gibraltar has been british for very long, yet the disagreement with Soain will continue for decades.
If you want to have one nonetheless, one important factor would be: how many people living today in the world were alive at the time? Are direct victims still living, or would they still be living if they had not been victims?
distic
7mo ago
I don't know what they planned but remember that Hamas has a lot of hostages. They will probably do something spectacular but useless, unless they want to sacrifice the lives of the hostages which I doubt.
distic
7mo ago
It wasn't really a suicide mission for everyone, as they took so much hostages.
distic
7mo ago
Even if it was possible (others have proved that it isn't a good idea), what makes you think that all of them would flee?
When you say that "the jews" are responsible for something, it's a requirement that at least a majority of them were wanting for it to happen.
More options
Context Copy link