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.
A person’s sex is science, but their gender is a social construct.
Even sex is not the black and white dichotomy most people make it out to be. The way we define and dictate someone’s sex isn’t reproducible for everyone. The intersex population is larger than what most people assume, and can vary in ways that defy the way we normally evaluate sex. It can range from someone having different chromosomal pairings, to having a varied arrangement of secondary sexual organs.
Anyone saying that someone’s sex is scientifically dependent on “x” is either ignorant, or academically dishonest.
That’s not fair. I’m still kinda convinced Brandon Sanderson has clones, or has made a compact with the devil or something. How can someone write so much and not be in the throws of of some kind of manic breakdown? It’s just not fair to the other fantasy writers.
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.
“Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers” is what I’m hearing.
I don’t think that protests have to be polite, however protests do have to be productive. If your environmental group’s political agitation only results in turning public opinion away from the greater movement…I’m not sure if that’s a productive use of political capital.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to question a group’s motivation who are participating in unproductive political agitation. Especially considering that their funding comes from an oil heiress, who could be using her vast fortune to be lobbying to the people whom actually have access to the power that can bring about real change.
the protests will only become more radical.
I’d hardly say paying some teens to “vandalize” a painting that your family owns is really a radical act of protest. Now if they were conducting these types of actions against oil companies, or the political bodies who support them… That would be radical.
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.
Fair enough. I think then it’s important to distinguish between what subsidies are worth tariffing and what subsidies are not. If Germany rezones an area to allow car factories to be built, is that a subsidy worth tariffing?
Eh, I don’t really have a strong opinion on tariffing. Tbh I don’t really have strong opinions about subsidizing private equity, other than they really shouldn’t really exist.
Under “free market” capitalism subsidies nor tariffs should exist by definition. And under socialism or communism, I would much prefer that the state employ the workers to do the work of the state. Subsidizing private equity just moves the people’s money into the pockets of middle men.
I think the current global regression back to an odd stage of mercantilism is the product of the moneyed class in China and the west attempting to goad political leaders into abandoning their economic principles for greater profit margins.
I mean, in this case it’s more that the developers lost money and the government gained assets sold below book value… That’s pretty good return imo. The developers’ investors got fucked, yes, but have you looked at, say, Evergrande’s ownership? Not all Chinese developers are state-owned. In fact, the distressed ones are not.
Right, but the developers are way over leveraged meaning that it’s not really their money but the banks. The banks/government is making the best out of a bad situation, but they are still loosing substantial amounts of capital. One of the reasons this kicked off in the first place was the government trying to get a handle on private equity borrowing more than their company is worth. That’s not really not criticism on the government action, it’s best to pull that bandaid off as soon as possible, but it still hurts. I think it’s mainly the fault of local banks who have probably been either careless or fraudulent in their reporting to the central bank.
Do you know how China imputes rent for their GDP calculations? It’s the construction cost depreciated linearly over the life of the building. Think about that for a second, then come back to me. I can explain it to you, but when I realized what it meant it shook me to the core so maybe it’ll have the same effect on you lol. For reference, the US imputes rent by asking “what would the homeowner have paid if they had to rent.”
Again, this just isn’t something I really care about much. GDP and how it’s calculated is mostly legal fiction, utilized primarily for international bragging rights and as a way to lull investments from foreign capital.
It sounds like China utilizes user cost approach, and the west utilizes the comparison approach. China’s approach makes sense for a more centralized lending apparatus, as it can help prevent the boom and bust cycle so common in western real estate market. But it’s still susceptible to market collapse if you miscalculated building cost or depreciation values, and makes it harder to sustain value in real estate investments unless you are constantly building more and more.
I think in the end it just creates two different types of problems. In the west the comparison approach provides less motivation for developers to build an adequate amount of housing. In China, it creates too much incentive for developers to overdevelop housing to the point where it devalues the very concept of individual investments in housing.
I think a better solution would be to consider affordable housing development to be a natural monopoly that is provided by the government without the input of private capital. But that would be a blow to GDP for both systems, and I think we both know how the capital class of both China and the west would respond to that.
Your claim that surveillance flights are not considered an action worth intercepting in inside EEZ is disproven by the actions of basically every country on the planet.
I didn’t claim that, as I already said there are specified clauses within unclos that delineate between military and commercial aircraft that limit the freedoms of travel for military aircraft.
Which is why it doesn’t make sense to assume a delineation of “military action” vs navigation at sea. If they really wanted to limit navigation for military vessels they would have specified so, as they did with military aircraft.
Again, I’m not saying this is fair or reasonable. Laws of the Sea were originally developed by nations that could enforce them with a strong navy, mainly to maintain a monopoly of that power. It doesn’t make any sense for these nations to ratify a system of rules that strip those powers away from them. The goal is to maintain the hierarchy of power, making the laws just reasonable enough for other nations to sign, as opposed to fighting a stronger naval power.
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.
Land management. In the same way that changing zoning is not a subsidy, changing land management rules is not a subsidy. It’s government support, agreed, but to call it a subsidy…?
I think I prefaced the statement with it depended on what you consider a subsidy. I admit it isn’t semantic, but I really consider any government assistance to private equity a subsidy. Mainly because it in truth and investment in which the government is hoping for a return.
Subsidizing low income housing. This has been a new policy used to seize distressed assets and make sure they don’t sit… Well, distressed. The central bank is an arm of the government, and the government is achieving it’s goals of housing access. At the end of the day, your claims on profit detract from the actual benefits of public housing.
Right, but this is a reclamation action. It’s not what the original investment was meant for, and surely they aren’t getting the same monetary return they originally hoped for.
I support governments subsidizing affordable housing, this is another thing I think western states need to realize. However, it doesn’t seem like they needed to focus on that much housing at the moment, and it doesn’t seem like that was their original intention.
By your arguments, public transit is robbing Peter to pay nobody, because the government sure as hell doesn’t recover operating costs from fares. That’s never been the point of public infrastructure.
I think the government’s entire existence should evolve around fulfilling their public’s needs, including adequate public transportation. The key word there is need. The Chinese government didn’t need to throw billions of dollars to private equity to build more homes than necessary. They did it because they wanted to maintain their gdp, so they could flaunt their economic vanity alongside the US on the international stage.
What, exactly, do you think justifies US aggressive intercepts of Russian bombers flying in international airspace near Alaska, then?
First of all, you yourself have already acknowledged that the US isn’t a signatory. Secondly, I never claimed anything the US does is justified or ethical.
As I have already said, I wasn’t arguing that international law are ethical, logical, or even reasonable. My original claim was about how China was acting within the scope of the international agreements they are signatories to.
It kinda depends on what you consider to be a subsidy, but China has made significant investments into the housing sector to achieve “the hottest real estate market it’s ever seen”.
The biggest of these are in their policy surrounding land management. This allows corporations to skip through some of the most expensive and time consuming aspects of land development. I actually think this is extremely beneficial if utilized correctly, and we in the west should learn to implement it to some degree.
However, if it’s utilized to build way more housing than necessary, then the land development policy isn’t making any returns for their investment. The significant amount of resources, land, and political capital could have been utilized for something they actually need.
The second big one is subsidizing low income housing programs. Yes, they are turning some of this excess housing to more affordable living spaces. However they are doing this by having local governments purchase them with money borrowed from the central bank. It is just robbing Peter to pay Paul, and does not mean the central bank made any return on the money they originally lent to developers.
Which returns us to the largest problem with the market, the central bank lent out too much money to developers, whom utilized that to build an excessive amount of housing. Banks are supposed to evaluate things like roi and supply and demand to make sure borrowers aren’t over leveraged to the point where they cannot realize a return on investment. However, if that risk assessment conflicts with set policy in a planned economy, then there’s a risk that banks will forgo the vetting process to appease policy makers.
Again, your claim is that surveillance to enforce sanctions is considered “navigation.”
Any boat traveling on a body of water is considered navigation… You don’t stop navigating when you’re surveiling something.
Surveillance is absolutely an explicit military action. The standard practice has always been to intercept surveiling aircraft where possible (e.g., the entire reason the SR-71 is so fast is because it can avoid being intercepted) in international airspace. The SR-71 never entered Soviet airspace, and yet it was still somewhat reliably intercepted by MiG-31s throughout the Cold War.
There is specific language in unlocs that delineates military and commercial air traffic. To utilize your interpretation we would have to assume that the authors of the articles remembered that military planes exist, but forgot that you can put guns on boats…
“oh I’m putting around on my ship shooting stuff, launching drones, innocent passage woe is me.” A military ship has the legal right to sail innocently - that’s the justification for FONOPs. A military ship does not have the legal right to pursue military action
Lol, you are making up your own terminology. Military action isn’t a described term in the articles. You sure you know the difference between civil and common law? Kinda seems you are heavily relying on interpretation for your argument…
The only thing states are governed while in a EEZ is “refrain from any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations” It does not delineate between commercial or “military action”.
This is because there’s a long established history of commercial vehicles being utilized as military/paramilitary forces by governments throughout history.
Surveillance is not a threat or use of force and is done by both military and commercial vessels all the time. If surveillance was considered a threat of force, or a “military action” it would give any government carte blanche seize any vessel collecting or receiving any data in their EEZ.
Again, unless you have an argument that is completely based on semantic dispute, then I think we are done here.
Military action (and, indeed, enforcing sanctions with surveillance using military ships is almost certainly military action) is not a directly permitted operation (it’s neither navigation nor overflight).
"article 90 defines the right to navigation as the right of every State “to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas”.
This is what I’m talking about… There is no distinguishing commercial navigation from military navigation. You are working off of a interpretation in what you have already claimed to be civil law.
If you actually read the articles the only time they specify a difference between commercials or military is in regards to aircraft.
It’s not an operation involved with “operating ships or aircraft”, and it’s not an operation explicitly allowed under UNCLOS by any means.
Lol, the navy doesn’t operate ships or aircraft?
UNCLOS does not specify that all surface traffic is permitted.
Yes it does…so long as it is flying a flag from any state.
Given that, UNCLOS specifies that states should defer to the coastal states rules and regulations.
So long as they do not conflict with rights protected by unclos.
However, UNCLOS only directly gives the coastal state right to intervene in matters regarding living resources and does not explicitly allow intervention for non-resource interests
Which is exactly what my original post explained…
Based on this and our other chat about the housing issues in China, I don’t think you are an idiot or anything. I just don’t think you are being academically honest, and have adopted an “ends justify the means” mentality common on Lemmy.
On the other post, you accused me of being completely wrong, but eventually admitted that they made a miscalculation in policy. Which under the mixed economy of China, is still a miscalculation of supply and demand.
I understand the reasons why people jump to defend any criticism of China on Lemmy, there is definitely people on here that take any opportunities to slander the nation. However, I haven’t made any criticisms that aren’t academically honest interpretations of how they execute their policy. I am also willing to defend the policy that I find admirable, such as I did with the other thread when the poster accused them of pricing people into homelessness.
Every nation deserves criticism of some sort, humans are exceptionally hard to govern. Pretending otherwise and attempting to dissuade any level of criticism of any nation does nothing but make you seem fanatical or disingenuous.
I don’t foresee this conversation really leading anywhere productive, as we have regressed to what I suspect is a purposely semantic dispute. Have a good one.
It is definitely limited by the cultural understanding of linguistical norms. Because the language we utilize in the methodology predates it, the language itself can limit most people’s conceptual understanding of whatever topic you are utilizing the methodology on.
Accurate communication is hard.