|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Big J, I feel like you've agreed to Nyxisto's claim, simply by saying the following:
Many people just don't want to because they are conservatives and hate change per se.
If people would be open to change, soical change would be happening all the time, everywhere. Because this is not the case and rather a large chunk of people fight for the satus quo, we get a very difficult to change social institutions.
You can't dismiss conservatives for being conservative. This is a thing I keep seeing. It might not make sense for a progressive to have a conservative mindset, but the longer you don't get it, the more astray these ideologies will float from each other.
|
On November 07 2020 21:30 Uldridge wrote:Big J, I feel like you've agreed to Nyxisto's claim, simply by saying the following: Show nested quote +Many people just don't want to because they are conservatives and hate change per se. If people would be open to change, soical change would be happening all the time, everywhere. Because this is not the case and rather a large chunk of people fight for the satus quo, we get a very difficult to change social institutions. You can't dismiss conservatives for being conservative. This is a thing I keep seeing. It might not make sense for a progressive to have a conservative mindset, but the longer you don't get it, the more astray these ideologies will float from each other.
I have always said that the will to do so is needed:
"These things can be changed with a piece of paper (or less) if the will is there."
I am not "dismissing" conservatives. I am saying I won't act or advocate conservativism myself just because people like Nyxisto keep on losing elections with their "the common people dont know what they want, so we have to serve what's best for them slowly" attitude.
|
Macron planning on giving Muslim children tattoos so they don't lose their ID numbers?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
That's an oddly specific question. How about linking what you're talking about?
|
I guess we will never find out, which is fine by me.
|
I got you fam, here is the news that he was talking about:
President Macron has also announced new measures to tackle what he called "Islamist separatism" in France.
The measures include a wide-ranging bill that seeks to prevent radicalisation. It was unveiled on Wednesday, and includes measures such as:
Restrictions on home-schooling and harsher punishments for those who intimidate public officials on religious grounds
Giving children an identification number under the law that would be used to ensure they are attending school. Parents who break the law could face up to six months in jail as well as large fines
A ban on sharing the personal information of a person in a way that allows them to be located by people who want to harm them
"We must save our children from the clutches of the Islamists," Mr Darmanin told the Le Figaro newspaper on Wednesday. The draft law will be discussed by the French cabinet on 9 December.
BBC
|
The French don't have identification numbers already? How unmodern! Germans have it since 2008. We had it even earlier, probably thanks to the communist desire to control the population.
|
|
|
Here's a second attempt at raising the same point, heh:
|
Northern Ireland26274 Posts
I rather do not like the way this is going
|
How about fixing socieconomic problems first. I don't think terrorism is often committed by wealthy extremists.
Sure extremism is the problem, but what's the catalyst for such an act if not the feeling of having nothing to lose?
|
|
|
On November 22 2020 01:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2020 01:34 Vivax wrote:
How about fixing socieconomic problems first. I don't think terrorism is often committed by wealthy extremists.
Sure extremism is the problem, but what's the catalyst for such an act if not the feeling of having nothing to lose? I don't disagree with your point because recruiting foot soldiers would be much more difficult, but quite often the leadership of extremists are quite wealthy.
Though I haven't read it myself, I remember there was a book by Alan Krueger going into the data and pointing out that most terrorists don't come from impoverished, poor-educated background, but from middle class ocasionally with college education.
|
|
|
Going to be extremely close for the responsible business initiative. About 50% on each side. I suspect we'll get USA-fucked because we also need a majority of the cantons (=states) to accept it, and I doubt we're getting that.
Initial projections by gfs.bern institute indicate that the vote is split with 50% of voters in favour of the initiative with more results to come in the next few hours. Trends indicate that Basel City and Zurich are in favour of the initiative. However, results for several other cantons including Glarus, Nidwalden and Aargau are leaning in the "no" camp.
Polls earlier in the month showed the initiative had lost some ground in the last few weeks but still had a solid majority. If the initiative fails to win a majority, a counter-proposal developed by parliament that doesn’t include a liability clause would come into force.
Left-wing parties backing the initiatives say Switzerland’s reputation as a place for ethical and responsible business is at stake.
Under the Responsible Business Initiative, Swiss-based firms would have to prove they have taken due care to prevent abusive labour conditions and environmental damage in their own operations and supply chains abroad. If they fail to do so, individuals or organisations could sue companies for abuses.
Swissinfo
|
On November 22 2020 03:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2020 03:01 Sbrubbles wrote:On November 22 2020 01:38 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2020 01:34 Vivax wrote:
How about fixing socieconomic problems first. I don't think terrorism is often committed by wealthy extremists.
Sure extremism is the problem, but what's the catalyst for such an act if not the feeling of having nothing to lose? I don't disagree with your point because recruiting foot soldiers would be much more difficult, but quite often the leadership of extremists are quite wealthy. Though I haven't read it myself, I remember there was a book by Alan Krueger going into the data and pointing out that most terrorists don't come from impoverished, poor-educated background, but from middle class ocasionally with college education. Id be interested in reading that, and the definitions. It does not surprise me that much though, lots of these are pretty sophisticated organizations.
I recall reading that deash had an extremely large amount of university graduates. They had a greater proportion of engineers than any military and were even able to exhibit sophisticated weapon research such as in the way of drone technology. They also had a large amount of lawyers and accountants and suchlike, which enabled them to set up a civil society with better tax collection and law courts and enforcement and what would be called a stronger state control than the Iragi government had at the time.
|
|
|
Smart move - protect your own citizens first.
|
I don't think it's a smart move, quite the opposite. Instead of focusing how they could help companies to increase production, they took the emotional stance. Such measures cannot bring anything good for long term trust of doing business in EU. And risks triggering some similar actions from other countries which will make the overall situation worse.
|
On January 30 2021 07:39 arbiter_md wrote:
I don't think it's a smart move, quite the opposite. Instead of focusing how they could help companies to increase production, they took the emotional stance. Such measures cannot bring anything good for long term trust of doing business in EU. And risks triggering some similar actions from other countries which will make the overall situation worse.
Agreed. The EU doesn't produce enough vaccines for its own goals, so if other countries follow suit, this will cause a larger setback in the vaccinating campaign than accepting AstraZeneca's slower delivery.
The EU (and by extension all countries in the EU) failed miserably at buying the vaccines they needed, and this measure is just an angry reaction trying to cover their own ass. I think AstraZeneca's position is bad here, but the EU is dealing with it in the worst possible way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
