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.
Those half-naked men made another face on October 7th
You do know that only 3k dudes attacked Israel on the 7th, right? The people responsible for the attack are almost assured to be part of the 13k “militants” already killed in action.
there are still hostages in captivity.
You mean the people who’s family are literally begging the Israeli government to negotiate a safe return for? The people Benny has been ignoring to satiate his lust for Palestinian blood?
you people found your angle to attack rhetoric you don’t like.
People who don’t ignore historical context?
comparing Zionists to Nazis is based on their nationalism and commitment to oppression and genocide.
Again, reductive. Based on your own criteria basically every powerful nation today can be accused of being a Nazis.
By that criteria the Han were Nazis when they overthrew the Manchus, the American governments were Nazi when they expanded west. When you lose definitional context, all of history and it’s lessons begin to become opaque.
By just saying any act of colonialism or ethnic violence gets lumped in as Nazism, it redirects the blame from those who committed the acts to generalized ideologies that you associate with the third Reich.
Zionism is about Jews having land.
Again, highly reductive. This is minimalizing the hundreds of years of pogroms across Europe and Asia the Jews endured, resulting in the inception of Zionism in the 1800s.
I wonder, who wanted to give Jews Madagascar? 😲
Did you not read? I told you it was one of the Nazi schemes to answer “the Jewish problem” while stealing their wealth to redistribute among party members.
I’m not saying you can’t correctly compare aspects of Zionism to Nazi Fascism. I’m saying that you can’t equate the two to be the same thing.
Zionism’s popularity among Jewish communities in Europe didn’t become popular until the rise of Nazism in Germany. It didn’t become popular in Asia until the Soviets began forced deportations after the doctor’s plot.
Ignoring the actual historical context, just logically it’s full of internal contradictions. If Zionism predates Nazism by a hundred years, wouldn’t they be the ones who invented fascism?
You are accidentally supporting actual Nazi propaganda about the Zionist intentions for turning Germany into their new homeland.
Again, I’m not saying that I support Zionism, I don’t even support fucking borders. It’s just that if we continue utilizing Nazism for every argument, it loses it inherent meaning, thus giving cover to actual practicing Nazis.
I do however think it’s important to discus how fascist governments create fascist governments. It’s actually something Hitler and mousseline talked about, that to fight against fascism a governments only response is to become more militaristic, and thus more fascist.
Cause the seems pretty nazi-like to me.
Again, highly reductive.
You can claim that modern Israel is a fascist state, and that fascist states behave in similar ways. However, just calling it Nazism ignores the working history of both political ideologies.
The whole point is that for one to equate Zionism to Nazism requires you to ignore decades of historical context. Furthermore, equating Ukraine to a Nazi state ignores the fact that the vast majority (up to 7 million) Ukrainians fought for the Soviet Union in WW2 against the Nazi.
No it doesn’t. Fascism as definition uses what suits them best and what’s give them power, they are opportunists. The church was a good way for them.
Lol, no true Scott’s man for secularism?
Hard to be nice colonialists though.
Again, are all forms of colonialism fascist…?
Ok , if you like to split hairs, biggest funders of the state of Israel and it’s colonies at its formation.
Splitting hairs? The whole point of me saying you’re being reductive is that you are ignoring large swaths of historical context.
biggest funders of the state of Israel and it’s colonies at its formation.
Israel was formed in 1948, three years after the fall of the Nazi party…
The largest state contributor during the formation of Israel was Britain. They were in control of Palestine at the end of the war, not Germany.
I think you are recalling the Nazis “attempt” to relocate Jews to places outside Europe, including places like Palestine and Madagascar . The Nazi made several schemes to deport “willing” Jews prior to WW2, in reality they were just schemes to seize assets before the Jews left the country.
Google generic fascism. And nazi support for Israel.
Perhaps read more material about Haavaar agreement than a quick Google search?
The Germans weren’t funding Zionism, the Jews being forced to leave the country were, and the vast majority of property seized from the Jews never made it to Palestine.
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.