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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There’s never going to be a president that liberates us. The office itself is tyrannical in nature.
We will need to liberate ourselves.
Hamas’s negotiating tactics make the term hostage applicable, even for soldiers.
The real question is whether Palestinians held by Israel should be called hostages. I would argue yes but they aren’t as open about the threats to them and their use as pawns in negotiations.
Nah he was always an opportunist who lacked any real convictions. Californians knew this already but now the national public is learning of it.
“Sustainable”. More evidence Chinese green investments are performative.
Not that other nations are any better.
Why is arrest even a legal remedy for trespassing? They literally took him from public space back onto the property he was supposedly trespassing on as part of the arrest. It makes no sense.
The remedy for trespassing should be escorting someone off the property and no more.
There is a danger the National Security Law will be weaponised, he says, with people saying: “If you don’t agree with me, I accuse you of infringement of the national security law.”
“I don’t agree with this type of stuff,” says Mr Tang.
After years of searching, we finally found him. The least self-aware man on the planet.
It’s basically illegal to build apartments in most of the bay area other than a few tiny downtown areas. It’s changing in the last few years but still very difficult.
Unregulated? Clearly you don’t know the Bay Area.
What can be done about this? Obviously Trump won’t intervene, so what other levers of action can people push against?
I’m more concerned it might strengthen it.