Their US dollars are just frozen in overseas bank accounts. It’s not that they don’t have them, they just don’t have access to them, mostly over sanctions imposed after the Ukraine invasion.
How is it whataboutism if the US bans importing goods made with slave labour if they themselves make use of it? That is just hypocriticism on the US’ side.
It doesn’t take attention away in this case. If the US is like, “hey, don’t use slavery in your factories”, it’s a massive hypocritical statement. Especially considering the 13th amendment allows slavery for criminal convictions.
It’s a clear point of stating, “bro, WTF you gettin’ on my ass about slavery when you’re using it right fucking now!”
The whole issue is that they don’t use slaves in the their factories (as far as anyone can tell), but they’re being black listed anyway, so no, it’s not that simple.
Well, it's not that easy though, is it. You cannot prove a negative. So if I accused you of some sickening murder rape robbing spree where you harmed 20 people and by law it was on you to prove that you didn't do it, you'd be fucked because you couldn't prove that something isn't true.
I mean, screw this og so poor multi billion company and their worthless pieces f shit laser printers, yet I am wary of the increasing tendency internationally to flip "in dubio pro reo" on it's head.
But... you know that a chinese factory does not need approval by US regulators to run, right? Like... the US doesn't run the whole world and it's not a normal thing that US regulators check out foreign factories, nor should it be.
Now if you get accused of using slave labour... how can you prove that you do not do that? You'd need to prove that the slave-labour-factories don't produce anything that then gets sold to you, right? Because absence of slave workers in your factories is not proof that you don't subcontract a slave labour factory. So you'd need to demonstrate that you've got nothing to do with them. But if you don't work with those factories, you have no stake in the factories that exploit slave labour, so you can't let (foreign) regulators into those factories. Now, even if you manage to do that, one could just turn around and say "Well, then you must use another factory we don't know of, prove that this isn't the case". You cannot prove innocence, you can only prove guilt.
well, technically they don't. Nor does any other nation technically speaking need any justification to deny US businesses from operating there (see sanctions against Russia or the US ban of Huawei). Yet that is so oversimplified that I won't even entertain the argument and it is way besides the point I was making originally.
This is wrong. It’s actually the opposite in that falsification is the only way to determine actual truth. In your example, one could prove they didn’t go on the spree if they were in prison at the time, or were in another country giving lectures or something…
The presumption of innocence is used precisely because it is far easier to prove a negative. ie: The accused didn’t kill the victim. Proof can be ANY fact that demonstrates the accused incapable of performing the crime (location, physical ability, etc…)
vs: The accused killed the victim. Proof needs to include AS MANY AS POSSIBLE of: proximity, motive, physical and mental ability, video footage of the crime, etc…
Even with all that, you still aren’t sure the accused is guilty. Police could show up with the accused kneeling over the victim, weapon in hand, covered in evidence, with a slew of testimonials saying accused hated the victim, with video showing the crime and it STILL be able to be disproven. (Say accused was performing first aid, happened to pick up the weapon with poor timing, neighbours all hate the accused and are lying, video is doctored). ie: no signs of struggle on the accused, actual criminal caught and admits guilt (showing how the previous evidence was doctored) etc…
I fear you are mistaken in what a "negative" and what a "positive" is in terms of proof.
Proving a positive means that you proove that something is actually the case. For example: I have your purse, so that's a possible proof that I stole it
A "negative" would be to prove that something is not the case. Which you can't. The fact that I don't have your purse on me is not proof that I didn't steal it. I could have easily hidden it somewhere.
You can prove negatives only by proving a positive that makes the negative impossible. "I could not have stolen your purse (negative) because I was in prison at the time (positive)".
That's exactly what your examples do.
It’s actually the opposite in that falsification is the only way to determine actual truth.
I think you misunderstood this. Yes, falsification is extremely important especially in science. But "falsification" is not the same thing as "proving a negative". Falsification: "You calculated that there must be a second star in our solar system, yet I have found some factors that make your calculations impossible, so your calculations cannot be correct" Proving a negative: Prove to me that there is actually not a disgruntled furby who personally keeps the sun's fusion reactions going. (Hint: you can't)
The presumption of innocence is used precisely because it is far easier to prove a negative. ie: The accused didn’t kill the victim. Proof can be ANY fact that demonstrates the accused incapable of performing the crime (location, physical ability, etc…)
No. Just... no. The assumption of innocence is needed to make it possible to prove a negative at all. By making the negative the default, any failure to prove a positive becomes weight for the negative. That's why it's there. If it was easier to prove a negative, you'd not need the assumption of innocence at all.
vs: The accused killed the victim. Proof needs to include AS MANY AS POSSIBLE of: proximity, motive, physical and mental ability, video footage of the crime, etc…
So proof needs as many things that are actually there as possible? Like... positives? Because you can prove those. That's correct.
No, you’re misunderstanding me. The only things that can be proven are things that can be falsifiable. Positive, or inclusive evidence, as you say, ‘adds’ support for something, but does not *prove *it. Negative, or exclusive evidence, *proves *something isn’t true. That’s the trick.
Going back to the article, saying “China doesn’t use Uygur labour” is easily disproved with a photo of them chained to a punchpress or whatever. It’s not the nature of the evidence itself that is important. It is the nature of the statement being proved/disproved. To sit there smugly and say “you can’t prove a negative” when anyone soundly arguing isn’t trying to is disingenuous. They aren’t trying to prove a negative. They are disproving the opposite (China aren’t using Uygur labour). The poorly worded article fails to mention that the companies in Xinjiang have been shown to use forced Uygur labour so the onus is on these companies now to convince the relevant governing body they’ve stopped. While the article uses ‘proved’ it isn’t in a formal sense.
re: Presumption of innocence. You’re all over the place here. “Adding weight” is not “proof”. A jury can decide there is tonnes of evidence that ‘adds weight’ to a judgment of guilty, but a judge can, and will, overrule if there is actual proof of innocence, and the only way to get that is with disproof of the possibility it was true.
Also, to clarify, PoI is formalized in law not because disproving positives isn’t easy (reworded to make my intent clearer) but because it is so easy not being able to do it is fallaciously believed by the common person to be evidence of guilt.
In all cases, the only truth comes from disproving something. Have a formal argument that comes to a rational deduction? Disprove one of the premises and the whole thing crumbles. Every formal argument claiming to come to a valid conclusion is vulnerable to this except ofc Tautologies for all their magnificent uselessness.
I feel like the olympics have brought this on themselves, continuously growing the events, demanding more and more from bidders . Now no one wants it anymore.
The Norwegians posted the requirements for the IOC executives during the event and they basically want an orgy for the entire duration of the event, never have to deal with plebs, handjob from the King…
Every company feels like they’re now openly, rather than implicitly, competing to be the only one. There’s no regard for being part of a budget, they insist they are the budget.
Come on, not even zelensky had any hope they would accept this peace plan. They’re basically asking Russia to stop the war and give back all the territory they occupied. The Ukrainian counter offensive stopped at a brick wall, the Russians have no reason at all to do this.
holy shit stop invading and leave? OUTRAGEOUS! the nerve of zelensky to ask for what is Ukraine’s! I think you should go join the trenches to show how mad you are!
No, see when he says “a fairer distribution of global benefits” that needs to start with distributing ukrainian benefits to russian oligarchs obviously!
Why do you want to force the people of Crimea and the Donbas to be subjected to a government that they despise? Why don’t those people have any right to self determination?
you mean like the Uyghurs? genocide is really fucked, what are you doing about the Uyghurs?
edit: no-one is forcing russian simps in Crimea to move anywhere you absolute nonce, they can live free under ukraine or go suck balls in russia if thats what they want
the ukranian military were bombing civilians? please, lets see a non-cooker source.
Also i love you mention 2014, i wonder what relevant action happened then that made the whole area a shitstorm? i dunno, must just be a coincidence, surely nothing to do with the incompetant half-strength military staffed by drunk conscripts that has been shooting rockets at hospitals and malls for the past 18 months
edit: also respond to the Uyghur situation. by default you are condoning genocide
Zelensky knowing that there wasn’t a hope in hell of Russians accepting this is false? You know it, I know it, we all know it. It’s just politics. Of course Zelensky has to offer something, even if he knows they won’t bite.
The Russians have to claw something out of this debacle to sue for peace. And I hope the Ukrainians give them nothing, and take back the Crimea while they’re at it.
Either Putin propagandists have now infiltrated mainstream liberal media or you have no clue regarding the state of the war, I’m going to go with the latter here
The counteroffensive is moving forward slowly because the Russians put a ton of mines and trenches in the way. Plus they committed their best troops to stopping it. Still Ukraine is slowly moving forward in the south.
I wouldn’t want to be there right now on either side. But basically the Ukrainians are winning because their artillery is better. Once Ukraine moves their artillery within range of the highway along the Sea of Azov, the troops protecting Crimea will have their supplies threatened. This is the general plan and they’re getting closer.
I never said this in unwinnable, but don’t make any sense to propose a peace plan to Russia right now demanding them to return all the land they occupied. Ukrainians are not dumb, they know this, this peace “proposal” is just a piece of propaganda to western media to say they are trying to start peace talks with Russia or some shit. The Russian ministry answered this out of anger but he’s not wrong, the Ukraine is only getting their territory back if they can put a huge pressure on Russians, possibly only if they can manage to make Russia fear to be attacked on their own territory. And even if this happens we have to trust Russians won’t nuke Ukraine to protect their own territory.
They’re making slow progress constantly but the front lines are barely moving. There’s obviously a chance for a big break through as the first defences are always the heaviest and it should get easier after that, but there’s still a long way to go, and they’re both taking heavy casualties every single day.
There’s obviously a chance for a big break through as the first defences are always the heaviest and it should get easier after that
That’s the opposite of Russia’s defensive doctrine, which would only be exacerbated further by the ability to deploy reserves where necessary. It could be a different story if Ukraine wasn’t having to commit their exploitation forces just to try to reach the first lines of defense; even if they break through tomorrow they won’t really have the manpower to do anything with it.
The only actual progress being made is in destroying the equipment NATO managed to cobble together and losing trained manpower. Even if a miracle happened and Ukraine managed to make some breakthrough, what exactly is it going to be consolidated with given that they spent past three and a half months beating their head against a wall. They’ve already thrown in all the reserve brigades that were originally meant to come in and consolidate the gains now.
They didn’t have any hope because Putin is a warmonger. Any “peace plan” that Russia would find acceptable would just delay the inevitable and give Russia time to build back up, they’ve already shown their cards. Russia needs to give up on its territorial aspirations and give back what it’s stolen. Russia could’ve held onto Crimea even had it just not invaded Ukraine, the rest of the world had basically turned a blind eye to it (it wasn’t right, but that was the reality), instead they get to watch their military turn to dust, just like Putin will be doing within a decade.
I’m not saying that all, but facts on the ground were that, 2014–2022, Russia had control of Crimea and nobody was going to do anything about that for fear of getting into conflict with Russia. That Crimea even “passed” into Russian hands without much of a fight from the international community is probably what emboldened Putin to go after the rest of Ukraine. What I’m saying is that had he stuck to just that sort of low-level “piecemeal” approach to carving out sections of Ukraine, like what was do e with Crimea, he wouldn’t have gotten nearly the amount of international backlash that he got.
Is Crimea part of Ukraine? Yes, but when it comes to international borders, facts on the ground are what matter in the long-run. Had Putin bided his time, eventually it would’ve just been accepted as fact. Nobody else would’ve ever cared enough to start a war over it. With Putin going for all-out-war though, he’s revealed Russia’s military weakness and facts on the ground have become mutable again, giving us the chance that we’ll hopefully see Crimea come back into Ukraine.
I’m not judging who is or who isn’t a warmonger or whatever, let’s just be pragmatic, it makes no sense at all for Russia to accept those terms. Were u expecting the Russian Govt. to suddenly wake up one morning feeling bad for what they’ve done and just move the troops out of Ukraine, including Crimea who’s under Russian control for over a decade now, and say “sorry, my bad”? This 10 point plan they “proposed” was only made so western media can say they’re trying to stop the war, which they aren’t. And again, I’m not saying they have to stop the war, I’m just analyzing things objectively.
I’m saying Putin can stop this war right now by going home. This is all Putins’ fault supported by oligarchs. It makes complete sense for putin to accept these terms, because he will eventually be forced to.
Sure, if you fight in the middle of the desert with little cover and no mud, progress is fast once you cut through the defensive lines. Vs fighting in mud and forests.
There have been a lot of exceptions. However the majority of wars are longer as if you don't think you can win surrender terms are generally better than death.
Western people are funny to say the least, i dont know why, if it has something to do if the fact u guys always lived in such a privileged position that u can live in a fantasy world.
Try to be pragmatic. I never said it had to be quick, I never said this is unwinnable right now, I just said that makes no sense for the Russians to accept this terms right now, and Ukrainians are not stupid, they know this. Or were u expecting putin to wake up this morning feeling bad for what he have done and just move his troops out of Ukraine?
“Russia’s upper house of parliament on Tuesday voted to support the treaties that make the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine part of Russia.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has formally ruled out talks with Russia after it illegally declared four Ukrainian regions to be part of Russia.
Zelensky’s decree released Tuesday declares that holding negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin has become impossible after his decision to annex four regions of Ukraine. The decree also approves the decision of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council to strengthen Ukrainian defenses and seek more weapons from the country’s Western allies in response to Moscow’s move.
Ah so “has become impossible” is now “has been made illegal”. Tankie text comprehension, I presume.
I guess if we ignore the two comments pointing out how the article doesn’t state what he claims Zelensky said, then yeah nobody has any arguments.
Or were you expecting arguments against a fictional statement? Because I can come back with some just as fictional counter-arguments if that’s what you were looking for.
time to remind people that zelensky made having peace negotiations with putin ILLEGAL
Can you quote the part of the article which made you think so? I don’t see the article saying what you claim it says.
<span style="color:#323232;">A reminder from the KidsPost team: Our stories are geared to 7- to 13-year-olds.
</span>
It’s alright if you are younger than that. Otherwise, I think all you achieved is reminding people how dishonest and untrustworthy lemmygrad users can be. You would have helped your cause more had you not made that comment.
Imperialist Murderers: Invade & murder innocent civilians for no other reason than hurt egos
Wankies: Thank you for your service. Freedom for ya'll. Tankies are the problem
(Not saying the US is good, but China has no interest in improving anything other than their bottom line and geopolitical influence, don’t kid yourself).
Well, let’s see… USA gave us the Juntas, took a piss on our technological developments, overthrew every president that opposed them or opposed their freaking corporations… China is paying for the renovations of our whole railroad system… they are gonna keep it and tax us for it when they find out we can’t afford paying them back… they already knew we wouldnt pay them, BAD CHINA
Both USA and china arent aimed to improve our lives but china’s investments are actually doing so. In the particular case of my failed country, china is the only reason why we arent dividing by zero each time we do a cash count at the central bank
Don’t get me wrong, I despise the Chinese government and sociopolitical system, they are a threat to democracy and to the western culture as a whole and i know that they are just putting the noose around our necks… but I totally get why a lot of people here would rather give china a chance than run back to the US toxic relationship. I mean, please lower the belt if you are thinking of calling us back and tell us that this time you have changed.
Me, i think latin america and specially the south cone should close ties with the EU.
Dude, same boat here, I am from South America, and I absolutely agree that we are basically screwed with every populist regime that comes and goes, regardless if they call themselves left wing or right wing. In the end, they are all just corrupt imbeciles making a buck off of other’s misery and hunger.
The problem with Chinese money is that it will end the same way US money ended in the 80s/90s: indebted countries with massive inflation.
Mercosur is negotiating a deal with the EU, which should improve things a little, though, even though I was raised in Europe, I can tell you that it will be same shit, different continent.
I gave up trying to find the less bad player here. And don’t forget that some of the world biggest predators, including Nestle, Santander, Lloyds and Danone are European.
What South America needs is to get rid of populism, but I reckon an alien invasion is more likely. The way Argentinian elections are shaping up to happen, with Massa and the Kirchners not wanting to give up power; Brazil electing populist imbeciles like Lula and Bolsonaro; Chile stuck on drafting a new constitution; Peru dealing with protests and a regime that wants to amass more power; Colombia trying to survive the FARCs with peace agreements; Bolivia trying to stabilize itself after some really turbulent times; and Uruguay, well, swinging from left to right, I reckon we are ways from solving any issues.
So might as well embrace the Chinese, since there is not much left to lose. Just without any illusions that what they are doing will be any good to anyone in the long run, like US money from the 50s was.
And don’t worry, discussing Latam politics as a whole makes anyone sound sassy.
Yeah its so badly worded i feel the post title deserves compensating for it. Many if not most people only read headlines, so titles like this are somewhat counterproductive i feel.
When asked on Wednesday by Agence France-Presse about what kind of drones were used by the two men and the nature of the threat the drones posed to Israeli troops, the army said it was “checking”.
It'd sure be nice if they checked their facts before missiling two journalists. And I sure hope those "documents" the Israelis "found" hold up to scrutiny better than those supposed "battle attack plans" supposedly carried by Hamas operatives in the initial attack :/
Online games must not offer rewards that entice people to excessively play and spend, including those for daily logins and topping up accounts with additional funds, according to draft rules published on Friday by industry regulator the National Press and Publication Administration (NPPA).
Most of the article was under a paywall but I uncovered enough in what I quoted above.
As a parent I wouldn’t mind seeing this shit regulated better in Western democracies.
These would be wonderful over here in Canada too. As a former video game developer I don’t think most people understand just how much science goes into exploiting addictive personalities and just how much is specifically targeted at young children. The stance of “people should learn personal responsibility” ignores just how much games like Genshin Impact stacks the psychological deck against you.
I’d really like to see an honest assessment of the costs and benefits of a city hosting the Olympics. While I can see that a focused burst of spending on the infrastructure to host the games could provide a positive short-term boost and some of that infrastructure could be a long term boon for a city (e.g. transit upgrades), it seems like a lot of the infrastructure is just going to rot or have to be torn back down. And any transit upgrades or infrastructure is likely not well aligned with the city’s residents. Instead being hyper-focused on the Games. The tourism income during the event is probably spectacular for both the government and local business. But, if businesses expand to meet the surge in demand, what happens to those businesses as the one time boost dries up? And are local businesses really benefiting or do non-local businesses flock to the area for the short term and then close up shop as soon as the event is over? I’d expect a major city is much better equipped to deal with this sort of event, but it’s still likely to face an overwhelming number of tourists. But, if what they get is a short term economic boost, useless infrastructure which either rots or costs ongoing maintenance, and a bunch of debt to pay off, then the whole endeavor doesn’t seem worth it.
Most of the ones that have turned a profit were American, including Los Angeles in 1984. LA in 1984 didn’t build a lot and put everything they did build into use after the event, mostly college athletics. They also collect sponsors directly rather than depend on the IOC.
scmp.com
Hot