Es gibt einen klaren Unterschied zwischen Nichtwissen und der nicht vorhandenen Widerlegung einer Behauptung.

Niemand kann Letzten-Donnerstag-ismus widerlegen - also der satirische Glaube, das Universum wäre letzten Donnerstag entstanden. Alle Erinnerungen und alle menschliche Geschichte seien explizit so erschaffen worden, um alles älter aussehen zu lassen.

Trotzdem gibt es sehr wenige Agnostiker, die sich hier auf “Nichtwissen” berufen und daher keine Aussage machen können.

Warum soll es mit einem Gott anders sein? Nur weil der Glaube an höhere Mächte etablierter ist, ist dieser nicht seriöser als unwiderlegbare Satiretheorien.

Prinzipiell weiß ich nicht mal, ob ich überhaupt existiere. “Ich denke, also bin ich”? Woher weiß man, dass man denkt?

Die Frage, ob ein Gott existiert ist genauso unnütz und es hat keinen Sinn, darüber nachzudenken, es sei denn man studiert Philosophie.

It assumes the man is being imprisoned for just cause

Guantanamo Bay doesn’t rely on any cause though? It’s literally a US torture camp where nothing matters. No due process, no just cause, no nothing. It’s worse than CECOT in everything but scale.

Have you ever seen any country’s opposition figure successfully demand something from another country? I personally haven’t. Usually the government alone controls any and all foreign relations.

Hell, Israel has literally detained and deported two British MPs on a parliamentary delegation - not just a visit. And they’re part of the governing party, no less!

It’s genuinely not surprising that El Salvador reacts this way. It’s the literal default reaction to a nongovernmental politician demanding something.

And yes, I think it’s appalling that the I US deports anyone and everyone, legally or otherwise. This doesn’t affect El Salvador though since they detain whoever the US sends there. The US argues this man is a terrorist, therefore this is sufficient justification for them.

Had Britain started deporting migrants to Rwanda and a MP from the Green Party requested to visit someone “mistakenly” deported, they would’ve been denied access as well.

I just really don’t think there’s anything noteworthy in the rejection alone.

“Right to work” legislation exists in other countries with strong unions.

For example, in Germany you cannot be compelled to join or to leave a union which makes “right to work” the default nationwide. Forcing people to join unions they do not want to be part of violates their freedom of contract. For similar reasons, employers cannot ban employees from talking about their wage, from having relationships or demand they sign “non-compete agreements” . The freedom of contract is constitutionally protected and cannot be waived just like that, even if all parties were to agree.

Yet unions are significantly stronger here than in the US.

Potato potato

Why is it called the Unicode Emoticons Block when it only includes emojis? Checkmate atheist!

Wrong emoji. Should’ve used >:3

It should be fairly normal to decline a random politician from another country a request no one else gets.

It reeks a bit of American exceptionalism that US senators should get special rights. If a random politician from, say, the Netherlands asked to see someone held in Guantanamo Bay the US will do fuck all to accommodate this request.

My comment is not a justification for the deportation of that guy by the way. I just don’t think it should be notable, as random politicians usually enjoy much, much fewer rights than head of states.

Oh, fuck off.

I’m not using my glass rectangle just to be reminded of that.

Illegality has layers though. Right now they’re merely probing the waters and seeing how much pushback there is from the judicative.

That’s rather tame compared to Hitler’s first months, where the nazis centralized all power under them.

The US has had multiple local elections as well, while all free elections vanished the moment Hitler had the power to do so.

So I’d argue the US is somewhere around 1932. Not everything is lost just yet but you’re moving ever closer to the point of no return.

Early 1930s.

The US has elections still, while Hitler abolished all democracy the moment he could.

As soon as Trump starts actually using his presidential power to the full extent, that’s when you have entered 1933. He is still holding back at the moment - the US President is legally speaking nearly equivalent to an absolute monarch and can do far more than just signing executive orders, stopping federal money transfer and deporting non-citizens.

Ah, alright then. I didn’t really understand what your comment was referring to at first.

Hamas is still the legal successor of the PLO in Gaza though?? Everything the PLO signed/declared is valid in Gaza until Hamas revokes it. That’s literally how succession of states/governments works. There hasn’t been a revolution in Gaza, it has been a (relatively) peaceful transfer of power.

This occurs regardless of what you think of one authority. Governments do not void anything and everything the previous government has done.

It’s utterly insane you consider civilians to deserve death. I will never understand how anyone with a working moral compass can justify killing civilians. People like you are the fuel genocide engines run on.

196 countries signed and ratified all 4 Geneva Conventions, with 174 of them having further ratified the procol I quoted.

Most signatories are not “on board” with Israel ignoring this document, unless you somehow believe Western countries are the only countries to matter. And even then, there are various notable dissenters such as Ireland.

The Geneva Convention absolutely apply to international conflict, otherwise no country would bother with upholding them at least partially.

Why does Israel even fight the ICC instead of simply ignoring it? If it had no impact they could save the attorney resources they are spending. It’s because it very much impacts them in terms of international relations. Every single international treaty relies on trust alone. Become untrustworthy and you will get worse deals.

And it does very much apply to Gaza. The internationally recognized representation of the state of Palestine who claim jurisdiction over Gaza has signed it shortly after becoming a non-member state of the UN. There is no country on this planet who has signed the Geneva Convention but considers Gaza to not be bound by it.

Also, before Hamas even existed, the PLO declared themselves bound by the Geneva Conventions. The only reason they didn’t sign the declaration was because the UN didn’t consider Palestine a state. Hamas has not rescinded this declaration from what I have found.

By the way, there is no “application” for civilian status. Either you are a civilian or you are not. And no one on this planet considers reservists to be soldiers unless they intend to kill civilians. A 100 year old Israeli in a hospital bed would be deserving of execution according to your definition.

Ok? Don’t quite know how this relates to my comment about international legislation behind armed conflict and the definition of “civilian” though. Did you respond to the wrong person?

I do not care about what Hamas is or isn’t, nor do I care what Israel says it is or isn’t.

Hamas is bound by Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol 1 of the 4th Geneva Conventions:

Article 1:

(4) The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination.

Article 2:

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Palestine is generally considered to be under alien occupation and therefore falls under this protocol.

And what is a combatant?

Article 44:

(1) Any combatant, as defined in Article 43 , who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

Article 43:

(2) Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

And a civilian?

Article 50

(1) A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

(Note: article 4 A goes into more detail as to who can become a POW. Basically anyone who is armed or accompanies the army during conflict.)

From those articles it clearly follows that reservists who are not activated are civilians.

It does not necessarily follow that Hamas is a terrorist organization, nor have I ever claimed it was. The right to armed resistance is still bound by international law such as this protocol.

Attacking reservists who are not activated violates the Geneva Convention and is nearly universally considered - including by Palestine, which has signed the Geneva Convention - to be a war crime.

This includes civilians - which deactivated reservists are - in occupied areas.

Ukraine is similarly not allowed to attack occupying Russians in Crimea who moved there after 2014, despite the fact all male Russians had military service.

Israel uses the exact same argumentation to kill “combat-aged” men - that is to say, male Palestinians who look 14 or older.

Also, being an occupying civilian during a conflict does not allow an opposing party to arrest them. They are afforded various protections, especially by the 4th Geneva Comvention.

True.

“Austria Est Imperare Orbi Universo” (all the world is subject to Austria) is an important historic motto the Habsburgs coined in the 14th century.

If you do decide on creating a new account, I think either beehaw.org or lemmy.blahaj.zone would be a nice fit for you.

Both aim to provide a well-moderated instance and are strongly supportive of LGBTQ+ people (moreso than other instances).

Beehaw has also defederated from both lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works because of moderation difficulties with those two. As a result, Beehaw is a bit more closed off than Blahaj.zone. I recommend checking both out - you can create an account on either and just abandon the one you like less. Or use it as an alt account, the choice is yours.

That’s like the least noteworthy aspect of German anti-piracy action out there tbh.

There’s an entire industry around identifying people who torrent and fining them 4 digit amounts as well as forcing them to sign a declaration never to pirate again in their lifetime (which, when broken, results in contractual fines a magnitude larger). Don’t want to sign? Tough luck, have fun losing a lawsuit forcing you to sign it.

The cases where large companies do win won’t make news though. “Large companies settles with individual” isn’t really headline material now, is it?

Also, small companies != people. Neither me nor you are a company and even small companies have significantly more resources available to them than someone who just created the next Lord of the Rings and didn’t see a penny.

There are significantly more companies who would rather start killing politicians than see IP law gone. They rake in billions of shareholder value, much moreso than any AI company out there.

I never argued that copyright law is necessarily wrong or bad just because we went millenia without it. What I am arguing is that these laws do not allow people to create intellectual works as people in the past were no less artistic than we are today - maybe even moreso.

Have you seen the impact of IP law on science? It’s horrible. No researcher sees any money from their works - rather they must pay to lose their “rights” and have papers published. Scientific journals have hampered scientific progress and will continue to do so for as long as IP law remains. I would not be surprised if millions of needless deaths could have been prevented if only every medical researcher had access to research.

IP law serves solely large companies and independent artists see a couple of breadcrumbs. Abolishing IP law - or at the very least limiting it to a couple of years at most - would have hardly any impact on small artists. The vast, vast, VAST majority of artists make hardly any money already. Just check Bandcamp or itch.io and see how many millions of artists there are who will never ever see success. They do not benefit from IP law - so why should we keep it for the top 0.1% of artists who do?

the chimp would tell the bear

I thought the bear had died?