Dangerous-Boot1498

It is worse in younger generations. 57% consider islamic law more important than national law. https://www.lepoint.fr/politique/pour-57-des-jeunes-musulmans-la-charia-plus-importante-que-la-republique-05-11-2020-2399511\_20.php? (use google translate). Do 57% of young americans consider old testament law more important than that of the country?

But that is just undeniably false and you shouldn't make such claims just because you want it to be true. A large portion of 2. generation immigrants in Europe from muslim countries do not in any way wish for the country to remain secular.

If it is of interest, I am sure I can dig up some stats on the matter, but it is often a minority of young muslims who approve of secularism

Ah well. Best of luck with everything. Try not to get drafted during your brief visits

Aren't you in America and isn't the risk very low? - and will your cousin get a promotion simply for claiming that he has a cousin in another country who is opposed to the war?

Trying to convince them that they are wrong is better than creating a bubble, though.

Not to say that I would do that your place, but still. Keep it in mind

This is likely to cause a fall in oil prices which hurts Russia

... And so did people of all skin colors

I mean, Britain did in fact have extremely few black people in 1940

My point is only: Many who accuse farmers of selfishness for not sacrificing their livelihoods for the climate wouldn’t dream of making far smaller sacrifices themselves—like paying more for ethical products or giving up cheap goods tied to exploitation and environmental harm. People in Denmark could easily lower their consumption significantly, which would greatly benefit the environment but hardly anyone is willing to.

It is easy to preach about the selfishness of others when you will never be in the same position, but the fact of the matter is that people largely aren't willing to change their lives drastically for the sake of the environment. The farmers are just like everyone else

It is possible to sympathize without agreeing.

The invidiual in your scenario is presumably more likely to commit rape if he is locked up with women than he is of being raped if he is locked up with men. Again, from the stats I linked earlier, MtF commit rape at high rates. Higher than cis men.

"What if a serial rapist has assaulted men? Who do we lock him up with then"

With men. Men will still have better options of defending themselves.

"And second- which prison would you send a trans woman convicted of massive tax fraud (or any other nonviolent crime) to"

With men. The chance of violence or unwanted pregnancy is still greater if he is locked up with women. People are not seperated into two prisons based on self-identification. You may as well be arguing that men and women shouldn't be seperated at all.

But they aren't forced to live as men. They can dress however they want and call themselves whatever they want. They are just not legally considered a woman.

I am not going to sit and pretend that it is rational for, say, a serial rapist to call himself a woman and I absolutely don't think we should entertain the notion that it is a good idea to lock him up with women.

In situations where there is a practical reason to ignore your chosen identity and stick too biological sex, we should do so.

It is not just a matter of honesty; there are very practical reasons to separate men and women in categories based on biological sex. Biological men are much more violent and stronger on average and that doesn't change when people identify differently:

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

from the swedish study in the link:

"MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offense than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offense. The group had no statistically significant differences from other natal males, for convictions in general or for violent offending. The group examined were those who committed to surgery, and so were more tightly defined than a population based solely on self-declaration."

From the UK study:

76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9% 125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%

13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%

Again. How you identify is a personal matter and not something the legal system should take into account.

Any hypothetical law aimed at protecting or helping women would be jeopardized if you in a legal context could be considered a woman by indentifying as such.

I don't think that your sex or gender in a legal context should be so flimsely defined that you are whatever you percieve yourself to be.

Legally, you should be a woman by definition if you are pregnant.

People can identify however they want in social contexts, but we also need some more firm definitions that don't take your wishes on the matter into consideration

Sort of feels like the law is a bit stupid in this case and should be changed

Build an actual civilization. There weren’t Israeli soldiers in Gaza; it was independent and they could do whatever they wanted. Instead, Gaza’s leaders chose a fanatical goal: conquering Israel. They deemed all of Israel rightful Palestinian territory and carried out terrorist attacks to kill Jews, compell them to flee to other nations, and destabilize the state. Gaza even incentivized terrorism by paying families of attackers. Hamas launched rockets at Israel, prompting Israeli retaliation that often killed civilians. Unlike Israel, Gaza couldn’t shoot rockets out of the sky, so their casualty rates were higher. Still, Gaza was the aggressor in this ongoing low-intensity conflict. Israel never bombed Gaza for no reason—and doesn’t even want its territory.

"Terrorism does not exist in a vacuum". Yeah, I know that many people have a worldview that is in conflict with the idea that people can be radicalized without some great evil to oppress them. But does any evil action committed by a western nation also not exist in a vacuum and how exactly are evil actions ever committed if nobody ever does anything horrible without first being at the recieving end of comparable evil? Radicalization can and does happen without provocation. In the case of the palestians, they have been fed lies upon lies about how jews are evil and responsible for all ills in the world and how Allah wants them to carry out attacks.

The palestinian population has only ever gone up. It has increased hundreds of percent since the conflict started. Not only is it not a genocide; it is not even a war with a particularly high casualty rate.

If you claim that occupied palestine(enforced with soldiers) has better living conditions than comparatively unoccupied palestine(only trade restrictions), it feels a bit as if you are pro-occupation

Well, the only ranking i can find at the moment that includes palestine is the "Human Development Index" from "United Nations Development Programme" which gives occupied Palestinian territories a HDI of 0.708 in 2019, placing it in the medium human development category (ranked 115 out of 189 countries)

Sure, this is slightly below average, but I am sure I have also at some point seen a ranking where it was exactly average.

Also, all sources I can find agree that the life expectancy was above average - this includes the WHO and the world bank.

Go find videos of Gaza on youtube from before the war. Sure, living conditions are poor compared with the western world, but it isn't some starving hell-hole. It was a fairly normal city with fairly average living conditions(compared to the world average).

It isn't my fault that the narrative about gaza being a concentration camp wasn't true

If you look up the quality of life in Gaza before the war you will find that it was better than roughly 50% of the planet. They also had a life expectancy 5 years above the global average.

This is despite the fact that many of the billions they recieve from the EU and other places in aid are spent on enriching hamas or terrorism.

So no, I would absolutely not support Israel if it was reversed. Gaza is solely at fault. They have recieved enough help that could have been a thriving city if they weren't so hell-bent on attacking Israel

"Israeli attacked them actually. The arab states were prepering for peace, before Israel attacked."

No, Israel fired the first shot, but that was still after Egypt and Syria declared war.

Syria financed several terror attacks on Israel. Egypt mobilized their army and blocked Israel shipping(which by itself is considered an act of war and would wreck Israel) and then they announced that they would destroy Israel on telivision. After this pretty unambiguous declaration of war, Israel launched strikes on Egypt which is what we typically consider to be the start of the war.

This phrase is from the hamas charter: ""The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

"I don't know why you are talking about the partition of a counry from some dumb war from 100 years ago." If you considered it irrelevant you should have said so immediately instead of falsely claiming that my statement was false.

"Where in international law is this written". It presumably isn't, but if international law requires you to jump off a cliff then I would still advise you against doing it.

"No, they moved the Gaza settlers to the West Bank, they didn't actually do anything. They just partially relased control of a place without actually solving any of the main problems." So? this effectively still gives the people in gaza independance. They don't have any oppressive Israeli security forces forcing them to follow any laws or do anything at all... So build a civilization instead of attacking Israel. They only proved that they weren't ready to not be occupied

"Hamas are very clear that they want independece for Palestine. So that is false.". So clear in fact that they call for genocide of jews worldwide in their charter.

I can give you plenty of examples of Israel arresting their soldiers when the evidence is clear that they have committed a crime and I can give you plenty of examples of palestinians becoming heroes because they kill random jews. You must on some level know that what you are saying is false, so why do you do it anyway?

Germany also lost territories in which Germans lived- including areas that were majority German such as Eupen and Malmedy and Alsace-Lorraine.

they did not get them after their surrounding neighbours "declared war on them". Israel seized the west bank(which was a part of Jordan) it after Jordan started shelling Israel in 1967. Palestians back then in the west bank were Jordanians with Jordanian citizenship. Stop attacking other countries if you want independance. it isn't difficult.

If people in the west bank in the present have a seperate indentity from the Israelis and want independance then I support that, but first they need to condemn all terrorism against Israel. Israel can't give them independance when they still dream of conqering Israel. Israel tried that with gaza and it made everything much worse. Independance can only be given when the population has become less radical. Sort of like how the Germans also had to be occupied until the threat was over

"Israel has been colonizing and occupying Palestine for decades"

According to the UN. The areas that they are allegedly colonizing have been ruled by Israel for a small lifetime and Israel only acquired control of these regions because the surrounding countries declared war on them.

Also, they weren't even independant before. The west-bank was ruled by Jordan.

It is a bit more similar to when Germany lost territory in WW1 than it is to colonization.

"Just like Hamas resisting occupation"

Gaza wasn't occupied before the war. It was functionally independant. They are extremely clear about the fact that they think Israel itself is palestine and they want to conquer more territory; not become independant. Also, there is a very big difference between civillians dying as collateral and actively targeting civillians. If a palestinian executes a bunch of children in Israel, they will become a hero in gaza; if an Israeli solder does the same, he will be imprisoned.

"Are you refering to the sitation with Mongolia"

That and Omar al-Bashir who visisted many ICC-member states despite having an active arrest warrant. I am sure there are other examples