@Peter_Arbeitslos@feddit.org Kannst du helfen?

Privatsphäre ist offenbar wichtiger als Kinderschutz.

Privatsphäre ist notwendig, um auch die Rechte von Rechte Kindern schützen zu können

Datenschutz-Lobby

HLI: Ich bin Lobbyist

Wohl gemerkt in Deutschland.

Rare Germany W

Mit dem bisschen Abstand - und sei es nur aus der Halbdistanz Brüssel - lässt sich sagen: Nirgendwo wird so erregt über drohende Eingriffe in die Privatsphäre diskutiert wie in der Bundesrepublik.

Was ja based is

Ein gelungener Kampfbegriff für ihre politischen Ziele.

Is das was schlechtes?

Gedanken an Big-Brother-Szenarien und ein neugieriges, schmieriges Mitlesen im Familien-Chat sind hierbei scheinbar erwünscht.

Die sollten immer erwünscht sein, wenn es um die Rechte von Menschen geht. Man sollte immer schauen, ob ein Gesetz Möglichkeiten zum Missbrauch bietet und dann abwägen

Die Gegner sagen aber: Es gehe um die Verteidigung des Briefgeheimnisses.

Ich persönlich sage: „Es geht um die Verhinderung eines Überwachungsstaates“

Aus meiner Sicht hinkt der Vergleich: Über die Plattformen von Meta, Google und Co. ist es bekanntlich möglich, in Sekundenschnelle Bilder und Videos missbrauchter Kinder um die Welt zu schicken, zu vervielfältigen und ewig aufrufbar zu machen.

Und dagegen muss man vorgehen. Wie hilft hier die Chatkontrolle?

Und das bleibt erst mal so. Deutschland ist es nun wieder gelungen - gemeinsam mit ein paar anderen Ländern -, eine Sperrminorität in der EU aufrechtzuerhalten, damit der aktuelle Gesetzestext festhängt. Vertagt auf unbestimmte Zeit.

Vertagt von den Befürwortern des Gesetzes, denen demokratische Entscheidungen mutmaßlich egal sind

What IDF is doing is not remotely a ethnic cleansing

It is.

Quote:

it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction.

or a genocide, that’s a genocide.

I never said, that its a genocide.

So maybe we could start to call the things with their name.

I do.

The “few ten thousands” were elected from the millions of people.

Yes, Hamas got 44,45% of the votes in 2006. But 43,5% of Palestinians in Gaza weren‘t even alive then. Most people, that live in Gaza today, didn‘t vote Hamas in 2006.

Is it awful that this happen ? Of course. Is it unexpected ? No.

I agree. Both the IDF and Hamas acted very predictable.

Well, I have not yet read anything that condemn what Hamas did on October the 7th

Why is that important, when we discuss, weather killing civilians is justified? I condemn the moral and legal crimes of Hamas. I condemn the rapes. I condemn the murder. I condemn what happened to the corpses afterwards. I condemn the attack on the another state. Are you happy now?

Yes, they are not killing them intentionally, they are collateral damages (awful but sad reality).

This was a collateral damage?

If the IDF was trying to intentionally kill civilians, let’s say that from a military point of view they are a joke.

Israel can‘t risk getting that much bad publicity. And why would they want to kill every Palestinian? That would be a waste of bullets in the minds of many Israeli politians. They want uninhabited land to settle on. Most of these far right politians don‘t care, what happens with the Palestinians.

Maybe, but it is also pretty dumb to not fulfill the with of Hamas and let them kill Israel civilian unpunished.

I think it is possible to fight Hamas without committing war crimes.

I am the one arguing that if the civilian make a choice then they pay the price.

Already answered that.

Well maybe, just maybe, if they try to be a good neighbor, Israel could begin to consider it.

What is the Palestinian civilian supposed to do to be a good neighbor? And why has Israel a right to determine if Palestine is allowed to be a state.

Obviously it is not something that could happen in a day, but it is something that can happen only if both side collaborate.

Yes. And Israel and Hamas are doing their best to prevent this collaboration.

No, I expect that the civilians do not vote for Hamas

Call me, when you find a time machine.

and help IDF to find the fighters to eradicate only Hamas fighters.

I am 100% sure there are Palestinians, that do that. There is collaboration in every war. But why would they do that? Why would they help a force, that tries to murder them against a force, that „only“ oppresses them?

I am not aware that the Israel constitution has the extermination of Gaza in it

I knew you would come up with that. I never said that. Stop arguing against things you make up. I was saying, that the IDF is currently murdering them, not that it is written in their constitution.

but it is true the opposite.

The charter of Hamas is neither the constitution of Gaza, nor Palestine. Saying that is like saying the election program of the democratic party is the constitution of the US, because Joe Biden is the president.

Partially. Palestinian elected Hamas, so as far as I am concerned Hamas is the Legitimate Representation of Palestinians. All the rest is a consequence

And I disagree. Is it now acceptable to commit war crimes?

Now stating facts made me an awful human… nice.

You didn‘t just „state facts“. You stated facts and then advocated for ethnic cleansing.

Or maybe the fact that I belive that a person (or a population) should be held responsible for their choices

Its astounding to see, how fast Israel-supporters go from „its awful that these innocent people are dying because of Hamas“ to „all Palestinians are one evil entity seeking nothing but to bath in the blood of raped women“ in one comment if it fits the narrative they are trying to push.

what an awful thing to say in these times…

Yes. Saying millions of people should be murdered, because of the actions of a few tenthousands is a awful thing to say. It was awful in the past and luckily still is awful today.

The question is: why the children should left behind if Egypt opens the border ? Are their parents so awful to left their children behind as they are fleeing ?

Separation in the chaos, child could be injured, child is too weak to walk and mother to starved to take it with her. There are plenty of reasons, why a mother and a child can be separated in a warzone. That you refuse to acknowledge these factors doesn‘t speak for your empathie.

No, they are not fair game, as every civilian is not fair game, in a war.

I am glad, that you acknowledge this.

I only noted that there is a possible solution to minimize the civilian deaths that could be implemented without Israel’s intervention.

Could be a solution to save lifes if we manage to feed all those people and provide medical help, yes. But it also blames a neutral third party instead of the party, that causes the suffering by blocking aid and bombing areas, they declared to be safe for civilians.

Why EU don’t pursue this option ?

Because Egypt already has taken in a lot of Palestinians and demanding they take even more wouldn‘t be smart on a diplomatic level.

But the problem here is that you people think that it is ok for Hamas to explicity target civilians

Literally nobody here, besides you, thinks its okay to target civilians.

while is wrong when Israel kill a civilian as a collateral damage.

So you are trying to tell me, that Israel didn‘t kill a single civilian intentionally?

collateral damage that is what Hamas wants as they openly stated. Read something about Mosab Hassan Yousef if you don’t belive me.

Its pretty dumb of Israel to fulfill the wish of Hamas, don‘t you think? Again: Nobody here is defending Hamas. You are the only one arguing in favor of killing civilians.

No, they are not worth to die but in the end the only option for them to be safe is to collaborate with Israel in eradicating Hamas and become an affidable interlocutor for peace talks.

And how is this supposed to happen, if Israel doesn‘t even recognize Palestine? Do you expect the Palestinians to sign a petition asking nicely to not murder them?

I could understand why Israel has some qualms to make an accord with someone that has in its charter the objective to destroy them.

I could understand why Palestinians may have some qualms to make an accord with someone that is murdering them.

And again: Palestinians =/= Hamas, Legitimate Representation of Palestinians =/= Hamas, starving Child in Gaza =/= Hamas

Thanks for the sources.

The first article doesn‘t invalidate my thesis. It explains the difference between sex and gender.

The second article argues against the sex binary, which I never defended. I view „male“ and „female“ (in the context of the biological sex) as terms for a combination of chromosomes. The article still was absolutely worth reading, thanks.

The third article actually lists a bunch of stuff I didn‘t know about. I‘m going to look into that.

As you may have guessed I don‘t have a doctorate in genetics, just like you, I assume.

I don‘t get to determine biological definitions, but the definition of a biological sex, if such a thing exists, is still heavily debated in science. Therefore a consensus couldn‘t be reached so far. I just argued for the definition, that sounds the most logical to me. If you have other definitions or models I am open always open to learn.

So you are male even if you have a complete set of female sex organs and no male sex organs?

Biologically yes. At least according to my definition, but thats a different discussion.

Literally the only way to determine ‘male’ or ‘female’ is a DNA test?

Biologically, yes.

We’ve never been able to determine that before Flemming discovered chromosomes in the late 19th century?

In the 19th century we assumed, that social and biological gender are the same and ignored, that basically every definition of „male“ or „female“ at the time had exceptions and wasn‘t applicable to everyone.

That’s really weird, because the etymology of the word male traces it back to the 14th century.

I am surprised it doesn‘t traces back even further. People believed in all kind of shit back then. Thats no argument.

Now I’m not math expert, but I’m pretty sure 14 comes before 18.

That doesn‘t make sense in the slightest. By that logic the earth is flat, because the first models of a flat earth were published before the first models of a round earth.

Male

Biological gender: A Person with two X-Chromosons

Social Gender: Anyone who wants to be a woman

Divorce.

I agree with most of your comment, but when I was suicidal I absolutely was looking for ways to achieve something good through my death.

You guys definitely have an addiction

Thats happening a lot lately in Germany. At every fucking Antifa protest at least one suspicious looking guy films with his handy. I honestly doubt, that they have the necessary skill and contact with other fascists in other cities to identify everybody, but I still don‘t want them to know my face

What are „serious groups“ and why are they better? Tell me, I want to learn.

maybe some leftists should organise in some way and maybe earn some respect and copy some tactics

Thats literally everything I do

Why isn’t Greta Thunberg sympathic?

I still don‘t get, what you are trying to achieve with your comments

What are you trying to tell me with your comments?

Literally nobody outside of some telegram groups respects the current protests. And yes, there were Nazis at these protests without farmers taking issue with ist

Where were farmers beaten by police for no reason?

1. Obviously it was well organized. It isn‘t hard to organize if you have a powerful lobby, that is supporting your protest
2. It doesn‘t matter, that the majority of farmers were peaceful. The majority of protesters during the G20 protests in Hamburg 2017 were peaceful as well. They were still beaten by police. Why should the farmers get a better treatment, than any leftist protest?
3. The farmers in Germany were marching with literal neonazis. They delegitamized themself.
4. Most people didn‘t give a fuck about the farmers until they started blocking roads. Thats when the public opinion turned against them.
5. The farmers aren‘t all peaceful, as we have seen in Biberbach

What are these „serious“ groups and what are they doing, that makes them „serious“ in your opinion?

ok. Lets say Greta Thunberg stays at home. What now? What are we supposed to do?