What a complete waste of human life and effort.

It’s because normal empathetic human beings can see the e difference between injury and death. But for militaries, soldiers are merely tools at their disposal, and the nature of their brokenness is unimportant.

Sure but do you think when they say more than any other country they fairly compared it to the US?

This is a surprisingly common opinion. I don’t share it but as long as we’re pushing in the same direction, then I welcome you as an ally in the struggle.

An interesting anecdote that supports your arguments is that the Netherlands is one of the best countries for cyclists and pedestrians yet also for drivers. It doesn’t have to be a trade-off. Well-designed transportation infrastructure can work for everyone to some extent.

Maybe objectively but in the Israeli disinformation sphere I am not so sure.

I’m more concerned it might strengthen it.

I think people are a bit too quick to pin everything on aipac. But you don’t have a state apparatus that’s so dedicated to a policy without multiple reinforcing mechanisms. It’s also anti-Arab racism, it’s also realpolitik and imperial considerations, it’s also the fundamentalist Christian death cult, it’s also the left’s inability to organize a coherent and appealing message, it’s American apathy, fear, and so on.

The police state apparatus, once built, will not be constrained to the specific boogie-men of today. It must be deconstructed or it will find a new enemy that justifies its authority. Until it is destroyed it threatens the safety of everyone.

I guess I’m specifically addressing the consent argument which I find very stupid. If you believe that future children will be subjected to horrible suffering, then it would make sense to abstain. But that’s not the main anti-natalist argument I’ve seen.

But I will say despite the popularity of doomerism I don’t think there’s much reason to think human life will be much worse overall than it was in the past. There will be incredible challenges and incredible joys and triumphs, just as there always has been. So this is more of a factual question, and I think it’s pretty clear on the facts that most people will continue living rewarding lives for the foreseeable future.

Some people do know what they’re doing (at least more than others) but we as a society have become increasingly unable to recognize and listen to those people. This creates more and more opportunities for charlatans to weasel their way into an influential position.

Not really. This is the same pants-on-head level reasoning that leads people to oppose medical procedures on animals or even suggest that we should kill them to avoid suffering merely because they can’t consent to anything. Just because they can’t consent doesn’t mean we can’t infer what their interests are.

Most of these people are just depressed and universalize that experience onto everyone else. But the reality is that most people are glad they were born, and parents can reasonably predict how the lives of their children will be. People who can’t provide a good environment for their kids should abstain, but I would even argue that for those who can, having kids is morally good since it brings the joys of life to more people.

Eh if you look at it as a hobby it’s not so bad. My only issue is that it rests on a certain mythology that you’ll survive collapse by holing up in some bunker by yourself which is complete nonsense. Strong community bonds will help people survive difficult times, not isolation.

Based on the news articles I’m seeing I’m forced to conclude it is.

Am I allowed to say Germany is a police state?

I mean probably none of the solutions to this conflict are going to happen but it’s theoretically possible that they could. Many people across the world have dissolved their own government under certain (usually extreme) circumstances.

Did you appeal? Their AI just flags random shit that’s sort of adjacent to things they don’t like. I got a warning for using an analogy that included vandalism but it was reversed on appeal so it could be worth asking if you want to continue posting there.

Or just hang out here. Some communities are lacking but plenty of Linux talk from what I’ve seen.

Did you read the definition above? None of this is relevant. At this point I can only assume this is an issue of willful ignorance.

Hamas’s actions have not been notably different towards civilians and soldiers they hold captive. Both are treated as hostages. There is really nothing further to discuss, and I already mentioned my view on Israeli hostages above as well.

It’s entirely possible to use POWs as hostages. They aren’t mutually exclusive categories. One has to look at the statements and behavior of the actors involved to assess their motivations. Is it merely to reduce enemy fighting forces or are they also used as leverage? Hamas’s actions and statements make it clear in this case that they are hostages.

Of course, Hamas also took non-combatants hostage so I don’t see why you are willing to die on this hill, it’s incontrovertible that they do take hostages.

That’s absolutely not what the word hostage means. A hostage is a prisoner used as a bargaining chip. The validity of the action has no bearing on it.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hostage

No? Maybe you should read again.

Hostages are defined by their usage as pawns by their captors. Whether they are soldiers, children, or guinea pigs has little relevance to that.

Also, I would add that imprisoning people is almost always wrong, so the distinction between hostage and prisoner isn’t as morally significant as mainstream society believes.