From a utilitarian point of view, it probably makes more sense to attempt to minimize suffering rather than opting out of the decision and thereby passively enable greater suffering.

But hey, it’s the trolley problem all over again, and people hate even thinking about that one.

Oh, corruption is going to thrive under Trump. Did you not notice that last time around? Did you not notice the fake charities, the tax payer money funneled into Mar-a-Lago, the hundreds of millions going to Trump PACs, the money going to the Trump hotel in Washington DC, all the corruption and bribes and schemes?

And the fun thing is that now that Trump knows how to do all of this, how to funnel millions into his own pocket, a second Trump presidency is going to be corruption on steroids.

The only thing that’s going to crumble are democratic norms and human rights in the United States.

Ironically, so is supporting the Hamas position that Israel shouldn’t exist.

The law should still apply equally to every company, shouldn’t it?

Which is why they released women for the other 7 days. Love how this article contradicts itself in the first sentence.

Here’s the entire sentence:

Israeli official says Hamas doesn’t want to release remaining women because it doesn’t want them speaking publicly about what they endured on Oct. 7 and in their time in captivity

which clearly implies that Hamas was fine releasing female hostages that were treated okay, but is refusing to release the remaining female hostages that have possibly been abused, raped, sexually mistreated.

You obviously don’t have to agree with that analysis, but where exactly do you see the contradiction?

Milliardäre sind halt so unglaublich weit weg vom eigenen Erfahrungshorizont, da könnte man sich genauso gut über Smaug den Drachen unterhalten. Menschen, die vielleicht hunderttausend mal mehr Geld haben, als man als Durchschnittsmensch in einem gesamten Arbeitsleben verdienen kann? Da fehlt vielen Menschen komplett das Vermögen, das in irgendein Verhältnis zum eigenen Leben zu setzen.

Da sieht man sich dann lieber in der eigenen, erlebten Umgebung um und tritt dann gerne kräftig zu, am liebsten nach unten.

You’re spelling out how they’re acting like a neutral party here.

Qatar is knowingly and willingly hosting the leadership of a terrorist organization that mass murders innocent civilians - both Israelis and Palestinians. Hamas leaders live in luxury in Qatar, they have billions of dollars stashed away.

That makes Qatar about as “neutral” about Hamas as the Taliban were “neutral” about al Qaeda.

It’s a destitute open air prison. Come on now.

You act like I’m debating that, or like I’m taking sides.

I’m not.

I’m just pointing out that a totalitarian regime - a regime that tolerates no dissent, that enforces strict religious laws, that suppresses women, that has the death penalty for homosexuality, that openly uses slave labor - isn’t some kind of neutral party if it has a vested interest in Gaza and has been openly supporting Hamas for decades.

I don’t blindly trust their reporting.

That’s all I’m asking for.

The hostage deal was negotiated by Qatar, the Hamas leadership is living in luxury in Qatar, Qatar is seeking to gain more influence in the future of Gaza.

Is this really the right moment to blindly trust the Qatar state owned news source with its reporting about a Qatar negotiated deal related to a conflict that Qatar has a vested interest in?

If they call for genocide? Yes, of course.

What makes you think society should just sit idly by and do nothing when people call for mass murder and genocide?

From the article you’re commenting on:

The suspects were said to have celebrated the attacks by Palestinian militant group Hamas on Israel on Oct. 7, and were accused of spreading hate speech against Jewish people on social media, using symbols of banned terrorist organizations, dpa reported.

and

One suspect allegedly sent a sticker in a WhatsApp school class chat with the words “Gas the Jews.” Another person, a German-Turkish dual citizen, allegedly posted on his account that “the Jewish sons” deserved nothing more than to be “exterminated,” dpa reported.

So probably more the category “celebrating antisemitic terrorism” and “calling for the extermination of all Jews.”

You decide:

One suspect allegedly sent a sticker in a WhatsApp school class chat with the words “Gas the Jews.” Another person, a German-Turkish dual citizen, allegedly posted on his account that “the Jewish sons” deserved nothing more than to be “exterminated,” dpa reported.

and from a German source:

A German-Turkish defendant is said to have posted on his account that “the Jewish sons” deserved nothing more than to be slaughtered “and exterminated”.

and

According to the LKA, a Turkish citizen posted a picture of Hitler shortly after October 7, adding: “I could kill all the Jews, but I left some alive to show you why I killed them.” Next to it, he posted a Palestinian flag, the caption “Free Palestine” and an emoji with a victory sign.

deleted by creator

Winamp wasn’t a Google project.

Then I assume you’re aware that the Geneva Convention make one exception where hospitals lose their protection: when they’re used for a military purpose that is harmful to the enemy.

In other words: a warring faction cannot simply set up a military headquarter, a military outpost or a military attack position in a hospital and expect to enjoy the full protection granted to medical facilities while using it to attack the enemy.

You’re aware of that, right?

Except that in this case, the UN is explicitly saying that the numbers they’re quoting cannot be verified and they’re merely cutting the numbers Hamas is giving them.

So the question is: if the IDF cannot be trusted, why should we trust the terrorists?

What does the Geneva Convention say about using civilians as human shields? What does the Geneva Convention say about using hospitals, schools, places of worship as military headquarters or outposts? What does the Geneva Convention say about murdering civilians to prevent them from evacuating from an area that is under attack?

Honestly, though: good for those Catholic laypeople in Texas to complain to the friggin’ Vatican that this guy is a compete nut job!

deleted by creator

These cars don’t even go onto highways or areas where accidents are more likely.

Accidents are less likely on highways. Most accidents occur in urban settings. Most deadly accidents occur outside of cities, off-highway.

In dem BGH Urteil steht doch drinnen, dass es anders ausgefallen wäre, wenn der Autofahrer bewusst auf den Polizisten zugefahren wäre

Ja, klar. War aber halt nicht der Fall, und war auch hier bei dem Klimaprotest nicht der Fall.

Noch mal aus dem Fall mit dem BGH-Urteil:

Polizist P möchte einen anfahrenden Autofahrer stellen, indem er sich auf die Motorhaube des Fahrzeugs legt und sich an den Scheibenwischern festhält.

Das ist doch genau die identische Situation mit der Situation hier, wo zwei Demonstranten einen anfahrenden Autofahrer aufhalten wollen, indem sie sich auf die Motorhaube des Fahrzeugs legen und sich festhalten.

Aus diesem sehr spezifischen Einzelfall jetzt irgendwie das Recht herauszulesen, dass man blokierende Fußgänger einfach anfahren dürfte

Gut, dass ich nie behauptet habe, dass so ein Recht existieren würde.

Meine Aussage ist lediglich, dass es keine gefährliche Körperverletzung ist, wenn ein Autofahrer zwei Demonstranten keinerlei Verletzungen zufügt.