OK. So by that logic, let’s say you are touring Europe and have a heart attack. The paramedics are in the area and available, but refuse to take you to the hospital. You are left to die on the street.
You think you deserve such foul treatment?
When a government is informed that people are dying within its waters, and the gov has the capability to respond but deliberately chooses not to because the victims are “african”, you think that the government bears no responsibity for their deaths?
Is it really so different though? The outcome of both situations is the same. Migrants are dying, through direct action and deliberate inaction.
Mediterranean nations have the opportunity to protect lives, but instead they choose kill / let migrants die.
You are defending willful negligence that leads to the deaths of migrants.
Up to 1 in 13 migrants die in the Mediterranean. Italy as well as Greece have been allowing migrants to die as a part of deterrence-based migration policy. Rescuing the passengers of capsized migrant vessels has been criminalized. There are plenty of articles that confirm these facts. Here is one example.
Are you trying to equate the ideology of a political regime with a minority population of South Africans?
South Africa had no right to exist as an apartheid state, and Israel has no right to exist as an apartheid state.
After apartheid ended and living conditions improved, black South Africans didn’t go and slaughter every white South African as retribution, so when Israel says freed Palestinians would slaughter all Israelites, why should we believe them?
If the occupation ended today and Palestinians were allowed to live fairly and given ample resources to rebuild, what reason would they have to seek further conflict? If treated fairly, why would Palestinians act any differently than the South Africans freed from apartheid? This conflict is ultimately the direct result of unfair treatment after all.
Why are there foreign judges serving in Hong Kong?
It is a holdover from Hong Kong’s past as a British colony. After the UK handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, the agreement between the countries stipulated that the special territory would continue to operate with its freedoms and systems for 50 years- including its common law legal system which operates in several other jurisdictions worldwide. Currently there seven foreign judges remaining on the court– three British and four from Australia.
So, foreign judges who are meddling in HK affairs are upset that China (the inheritor of HK) is meddling in HK affairs?
If the West actually cared about HK independence, why do they wish to maintain colonial judges in HK courts? If they cared, shouldn’t HK judges be in HK courts?
While China has been heavy handed in its effort to speed up the timeline of the power transfer, in the end, the West has concluded that HK is to be Chinese territory. By the West’s own policy, these are foreign judges getting kicked out by the “rightful” new rulers, just a bit early.
Sure, but “effectiveness” is usually not a binary and is often difficult to measure. Small, but persistent changes should still add up. Eventually.
So long as people recognize that these things are in fact quite toothless, I’m not sure they are entirely detrimental. There’s no reason this couldn’t be used as a starting point for more effective action, now that signatories are in greater contact with the campaign.
I don’t know.
I still think there’s at least some value, even if the only thing it accomplishes is getting people to talk about it. Many people have never even heard of The Internet Archive.
Either way, there isn’t really a reason not to.
Sure, but it is still better than doing nothing.
the California government didn’t give him money for that
Right, but Las Vegas did and still is. It’s more about how so many people in power were duped into believing it was ever a reasonable method of transportation. It would be dishonest to call it anything other than a publicity stunt / tourist attraction for SV tech bros.
I mean it’s the first system of its kind in the country and it’s being built in a state full of NIMBYs
Acquisitions through eminent domain have been used for far more nefarious purposes in the past.
the ticket cost will be 100 dollars from San Francisco to LA
I would be pleasantly surprised if that comes to be reality, though the cost of the project keeps rising and business school drop outs are going to demand costs be recouped through higher ticket prices.
What?
I am criticizing that the project is 10 years behind schedule and that there are very few comparable initiatives to expand passenger rail.
Instead of prioritizing work on proven solutions, funding is going to fringe science fair projects. Elon Musk literally got government permission and funds to dig a subway tunnel for electric cars.
Even if the CAHSR project is completed, it will likely be expected to run as a for-profit enterprise like Amtrak, making ticket prices unaffordable for many commuters.
Pedantism does not change the fact that the passenger rail system in US is severely underdeveloped when compared to other nations.
So, they’re throwing money at Silicon Valley tech companies that want to sell speculative and unproven tech because they can’t figure out how to build even a single train?
Relevant username?
Yeah. Currently, there’s also no consensus that carbon capture or geo-engineering are even reasonably feasible solutions. They are still very much in the experimental stage.
Assuming we will invent a technological solution sometime in the future, instead of reducing emissions now is irresponsible and an excuse for inaction.
Granted, clearly the other personal clearly meant it negatively. Weird that sharing basic medical advice has become politically charged…
destroying as much fossil fuel infrastructure as possible is a good thing
Maybe not when doing so would release as much methane as a small country.
Wanting to protect people from heat stroke is propaganda?
That’s fair. I suppose I was criticizing the concept more generally, not solely with NYC in mind.
I’m sorry, but there is no situation where it is permissible to stand idle as someone suffers an untimely and preventable death.
Even soldiers at war, captured in foreign territory without visas, are entitled to lifesaving care.