would argue that Muslims are, by default, required by their religion to make the hajj. You make it sound as if it’s opt in, but their religion mandates it with some exceptions.
Nah dude, the vast majority of Muslims never go to mecca. It’s not a mandate anyone enforces but yourself. I think only like 9% of Muslims ever actually get to make the trip.
In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:
(a) artificial islands;
(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;
© installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.
There no language in the EEZ article that mentions “territorial military outpost”.
According to who?
In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:
(a) artificial islands;
(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;
© installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.
Can you link what article that falls under?
Nah, there’s pretty clear rules. It’s just that the main power in the region tends to ignore them when it suits them. Again, how is the Philippine government breaking international law?
I think that’s more plausible than China’s claim that their exclusive economic zone stretches over a thousand miles off their coast, and supercedes both Vietnams and the Philippines exclusive economic zones…
What’s your point?
You seemed to be suggesting that what the Philippines is doing is breaking the rules of unclos, but you haven’t explained how.
but flouts it at every opportunity. International law for thee but not for me.
How? They are allowed to protect the resources in their exclusive economic zone. China on the other hand is still attempting to enforce a claim that was invalidated by international courts in 2016.
Seems like you might be projecting on the behalf of China.
And how exactly does China’s claim work within unclos? The shoal is only 190nm away from the Philippines and should be part of the Philippines exclusive economic zone. If there is any questions of legitimate territorial claim it would be with Vietnam not China.
Also, stopping any navigation within your own exclusive economic zone goes against unclos, let alone stopping navigation of a country in their own exclusive economic zone.
No, it’s not socially acceptable. Yes, I wish it were.
Like, does this mean you are afraid of other people you don’t know judging you, or that you or your friends find it socially unacceptable?
Either way that seems to be more of an individual problem rather than a social one. I am physically affectionate with my friends and have never been confronted about it by a member of the public , not that I would really care if I were. People be dumb, I’m not going to let someone else’s projected homophobia dictate my friendship.
Japan is still a fairly insular nation, especially in regards to the topic of history. During the Meiji restoration they basically rewrote their own history, which also kinda requires you to ignore or reshape everyone else’s history to suit your perspective. As a result, I doubt world history is very well covered in their public education.
It’s clear that we have a very different definition for what the word evidence means.
My friend, I am not trying to be argumentative. I am simply trying to improve your ability to logically frame an argument.
If I wrote a scientific paper and claimed one piece of evidence was enough to prove my theory I would be laughed out of academia.
Have a good day.
You as well.
Again, you’re conflating two different things here. Evidence and hearsay are simply not the same thing.
I’m not conflating the two, I’m saying hearsay is a type of evidence, it’s just not a very good one. You can use hearsay to support your overall claim, but that can’t be the only peice of evidence you use. It’s not transferrable unless attached to a greater body of evidence.
There is a big logical difference between something that’s a verifiable a fact and and assertion.
Yes, hearsay and anecdotal evidence are not proof that something happened. They are a claim that something happened.
There is no evidence anecdotal or otherwise to support the assertion.
We’ve just made the whole circle again. I think you may be accidentally conflating the meaning of evidence with the meaning of proof. Perhaps English is your second language?
“Proof is a fact that demonstrates something to be real or true. Evidence is information that might lead one to believe something to be real or true.”
Furthermore, legally speaking, both anecdotal evidence and hearsay have zero value if you really want to go down that route.
That is what I have been saying the entire time.
Anecdotal evidence means that something factually happened, but we don’t know whether it’s statistically significant or not.
I don’t believe that’s what anecdotal evidence means. Anecdotal evidence is generally understood to be information based on personal observations.
Hearsay is reporting what other people attest to have observed. Logically and legally they are weighted the same. There is no logical difference between trusting what someone says, and believing what someone says someone said.
I think we are having a misunderstanding of what evidence means. Evidence isn’t something that supports reality, it support your argument or theory. There may be anecdotal evidence that a million people are in encampments, but that just means someone reported it. It’s not good evidence, and can be dismissed as easily as someone reporting the opposite. However, it is technically defined as evidence.
anecdotal evidence itself is not actual evidence.
I would say that’s a semantic dispute.
Like if you saw a documented car crash and from that started extrapolating that car crashes are very common,
The incorrect application of logic in this scenario is still making a claim drawn on too little evidence, not an inherent problem with the evidence.
These are claims as opposed to evidence though, and these claims must be weighed against actual evidence and contrasting claims.
Yes the 1 million thing is a claim, which is “supported” by anecdotal evidence. Which as you say needs to be weighted against negating evidence, and can be dismissed by contrasting anecdotal evidence.
Again, not trying to attack your overall argument, just pointing out a problem within the framework of your negation. Mostly because you seem like a person who might care about that.
Technically anecdotal evidence is evidence, but it must be weighed as such, and is not conclusive unless supported with verifiable data. But, that’s kinda besides the point.
I was merely pointing out an issue with your methodology, not the overall argument.
The whole conspiracy theory started with a claim of millions of Uyghurs being supposedly imprisoned story is based on two highly dubious “studies.”. However, this claim is completely absurd when you stop and think about it even for a minute. That figure 1 million is repeated again and again. Let’s just look at how much space would you actually need to intern one million people.
Based on the article you linked from quartz, I think you may be misconstruing the claim of 1 million people in detention. The article seems to suggest that the potential million people have been through the process of work or education camps, not that there are a million people actively held in detention at the same time.
I wasn’t really disputing that he applied it to nature, just giving my two cents of why I don’t think that application is really appropriate.
It’s kinda an apple to oranges comparison. For example, we wouldn’t be excited about conducting mutual aid with a fascist organization. We understand that fascist would be more than happy to take part, and eventually use that relationship to destroy us.
Nature in comparison is full of relationships that start as mutually beneficial and then become parasitic after a slight change in ecology. The examples of mutual aid in nature are also likely products of survivorship bias, the organisms that find harmony in mutual beneficial relationships are the product of filling the gaps left behind of other mutually beneficial relationships failling.
To condense my rambling… We can find examples of mutually beneficial relationships/actions in both nature and human society. Technically all forms of commerce is a form of mutual beneficiary action, but not all mutually beneficial actions are mutual aid. Mutual aid requires intent to organize or intent to diminish the dependency of the current organizational hierarchy.
I think the difference would be that the concept of mutual aid is meant to build something further than just surviving within a niche of mutual benefits. It’s a means of political organization, not a means of simple existence.
I think it’s kinda a semantic dispute. Rules are mostly a human construct, utilized to organize a hierarchy of understanding of the natural world and how we interact with it as social groups.
So, I’m not really sure if an idea like mutual aid can be used to accurately describe copacetic relationships outside the human experience. Mostly because when nature engages in mutually beneficial relationships, there isn’t a goal of organization, nor is there any understanding of hierarchy.
These types of relationships could better be described by someone like Bookchin, as a network of natural codependent relationships is more in the realm of ecology than it is a political science.
That’s a pretty big ask for a democratic government where half of the politicians are actively sabotaging climate initiatives…
The only countries where this is really feasible are places where federal powers can supersede the authority of local governments. A nuclear based power grid in America would require a complete reorganization of state and federal authority.
The only way anyone thinks nuclear energy is a viable option in the states is if they completely ignore the political realities of American government.
For example, is it physically possible for us to build a proper deep storage facility for nuclear waste? Yes, of course. Have we attempted to build said deep storage facility? Yes, since 1987. Are we any closer to finishing the site after +30 years…no.