But that is a different statement, you are basically taking the racism away from the previous statement (which was made by someone else).

Said like there is no such thing as Jewish people in Africa, India, or (!) the middle East. I mean it's a very weird way to classify people, are we talking about nations, regions or cultures? None of them work for the intended purpose here.

The implicit assumption you are making is that your voting system should be accepted and not challenged. Not voting can be a form of challenging it. On the short term, you're right that it favours whoever wins the election. On the long term it's not so clear, the more people protest, the more a violent change of voting system is likely.

They have already been doing that for a while: https://www.newsweek.com/frenc...

You are, in fact, disregarding that education (and more generally environmental factors) influences IQ. Otherwise you wouldn't have made the first claim. If you want to make this claim you have to prove that, when accounting for environmental factors, your statement is true. Short of that, you're just wishfully thinking. It is disturbing that your wishful thinking is of racism, there are happier things to wish for.

Thank you for this very precise reply, it absolutely and unambiguously answers my question. You sound very smart!

Just blame it on Adam and Eve, everyone's ancestors. Or on whoever made them.

Who did the joke harm?

You say that like it's an absolute truth. What do you claim the "nuclear family system" is good at, and in comparison to what other system? On what evidence do you base that claim?

Also "since forever" is most likely untrue, it's at most since humans switched to a sedentary lifestyle based on agriculture, and that's also not true everywhere.

I do not like this word, terrorism, nor do I normally use it. I was using the word that the other person was using, to show the hypocrisy. Maybe you're right and I could have found a better way. I actually think it's a word we should refrain from using, because nobody agrees on the definition. That being said, I challenge you to find a definition for that word that will not also describe some actions by Israel and by the US. I am asking you to stick to the actions in your definition, and to exclude who is committing them from the definition: what actions should be called terrorism?

On the topic of boats, I think you forgot two important things. The first one is that the boats being destroyed are *alleged* to have been transporting illegal drugs towards the US at the time of the shooting. The second is that once the boat is destroyed and humans are clinging to life, there is no moral justification to coming back one hour later to murder them. Whether you want to call that terrorism or not will depend on which definition you come up with. I don't think we should call anything terrorism but if people are using that word, I am certainly going to point out the hypocrisy.

Nice to see your outrage erupt on important topics. Meanwhile the US is committing actual terrorism by murdering unarmed people trying to survive in the water, and by funding a genocide by a terrorist nation who is the world champion of violating UN resolutions and a major cause for child mortality in the world this year. The US government is also sending masked agents to kidnap people, from the party of small government no less. You seem outraged about the speculative, legal and comparatively benign stuff from OP. Where is your outrage about the actual cases of terrorism mentioned above?

Have you noticed how all the big companies who try to shove genAI down our throats, despite no consensus that it brings any kind of gain, are not from China? They are from the US. Meanwhile, Chinese companies are taking the lead on electric cars.

I'm cool with also sending anyone else who trusts their vision and wants to be a part of this great experiment. Meanwhile I'll re-play BioShock to remind myself of how this plays out.

I think one point being made is that the current advertising and media landscape, which depends on social media and so-called influencers, is particularly good at grifting people who can be grifted. It doesn't contradict your point, but if people have certain weaknesses, we shouldn't be fine with a culture of predation aimed towards these weaknesses. Unless you're a libertarian and you think everyone should just use their free will to make better decisions, and lying or distorting the truth to make money is generally fine.

You are projecting a lot of things that nobody has expressed, I'm not certain how these thoughts made it to your mind but please don't pretend that I said things that I didn't, and don't try to guess what I think, you are failing at it. Let's take a step back. Here is a comma-separated list of things that are all true, all different, and do not contradict each other: killing civilians is bad, killing civilians is sometimes an inevitable side effect of achieving military-focused goals, bombing areas with the primary goal of harming civilians is morally unjustifiable, decision makers from Western countries have made such morally unjustifiable decisions, decision makers from Western countries have made the decision to attack military targets knowing that there would be civilian casualties as well. Note how the moral judgement is only applied to the cases where civilians are the primary target.

Now you also expressed your intent to bait me into something, you are not arguing candidly, I won't waste more of my time here.

The fact that you had to add "that were applicable at the time" means that you know that these actions were morally wrong. And this is what GP is discussing: the morality of it. Not the technicality of what constituted a war crime back then. And that technicality would have been different if different people had won that war. See the argumentations at the trials about the holocaust: it's fascinating how many perpetrators acted as though they did nothing wrong, or not *that* bad in the context.

So this is the topic here: nuking and firebombing civilians is bad and should be considered a crime, and powerful people in every nation are fine with it to some degree.

I don't think GP mentioned the people following orders in the context of assigning moral responsibility, I think this is a misunderstanding. The people with power and giving orders are clearly the first persons to blame, as in every war.