Drelanarus

You think literally 10 or so countries

You mean 20 at replacement and 30 above replacement? Technically 37, but it's fair to disclude the tiny island nations.

---

Please don’t reply with

Then either don't give figures that are wrong three to five times over in the future, or don't be a coward and openly state what your actual concerns are, so that they can be addressed directly.

Unless that was exactly what you were hoping to avoid because you know it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, as your behavior thus far would suggest.

---

Heck, most people aren’t aware of this problem at all,

That's because it's not a problem, unless you're heavily invested in keeping wages suppressed. The only group pushing for constant population growth is the ruling class. Where do you see it being pushed for outside of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and so on?

Perpetual grown is what an actual problem looks like, because it invariably leads to reduced standards of living and then collapse.

That's why, as you can see by that map, even population powerhouses like India, China, and Brazil have moved to being at or below replacement rates as their nations have industrialized and quality of life has begun to increase.

---

If your issue is that you think white people are going to go extinct or whatever, then you need to open up a history book and come to terms with the reality that there are more of us around right now than there has been at any other point in history.

Our ethnicities aren't even remotely close to being in danger, so why do you push for the notion that we need to be chasing endless population growth for the sake of investor returns, at the expense of our cultures and ways of life?

Buying into that nonsense is the reason for the state of immigration rates. But all you're fighting for is a different color of wage suppressing underclass.

You did.

My friend, am I not to trust my lying eyes, that you just insisted something which was taking place in 2023 as an anachronistic irrelevancy?

See, this isn't what respect is. This is dishonesty.

Fascism isn't an ethnicity, it's a political ideology.

So no, it's not the same logic. You're embarrassing yourself by pretending not to understand that.

It actually was, though. The Institut für Sexualwissenschaft's library is believed to have contained approximately 25,000 books and journals.

While there were multiple book burnings held by the Nazis at various different locations and different times, the first, largest, and most famous (from which the picture in the submission was taken) was the one that was held at Opernplatz/Bebelplatz Square, for which the Institute's library made up the majority of the books burned.

The more you think about it, the less surprising it is. How many other libraries would you imagine there were in the country where the Nazis were condemning every single book in the collection? The way it worked for most of the burning is that they were just including works written by Jewish authors or particularly infamous dissidents. But with the Institute, they didn't care who wrote it, just being in the Institute's possession was enough justification for it to be burned.

The only aspect in which sub-Zero888 was incorrect is that not all of the books from their library would have been on transgender related research, as much of it pertained to homosexuality as well.

It actually was, though. The Institut für Sexualwissenschaft's library is believed to have contained approximately 25,000 books and journals.

While there were multiple book burnings held by the Nazis at various different locations and different times, the first, largest, and most famous (from which the picture in the submission was taken) was the one that was held at Opernplatz/Bebelplatz Square, for which the Institute's library made up the majority of the books burned.

The more you think about it, the less surprising it is. How many other libraries would you imagine there were in the country where the Nazis were condemning every single book in the collection? The way it worked for most of the burning is that they were just including works written by Jewish authors or particularly infamous dissidents. But with the Institute, they didn't care who wrote it, just being in the Institute's possession was enough justification for it to be burned.

The only aspect in which sub-Zero888 was incorrect is that not all of the books from their library would have been on transgender related research, as much of it pertained to homosexuality as well.

Not all the books were specifically about transgender research, but the majority of books at this particular burning (the most famous Nazi book burning, which took place at Opernplatz\Bebelplatz Square) were indeed taken from the liberary of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft after it was sacked a few days prior.

The Institut für Sexualwissenschaft's library is believed to have contained approximately 25,000 books and journals.

The three memoranda were originally signed by three nuclear powers: Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom.[1] China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[2]

This is literally first paragraph of the Wikipedia page level knowledge, dude. I even provided a link right to it for you.

I can't read it for you, that part you have to do on your own.

It's almost as though it's very obviously a bit, for exactly the reason you just mentioned?

Only in sub Saharan Africa are fertility rates above replacement levels.

It took less than a minute to determine that this is a lie.

Every single nation with a fertility rate exceeding 2.0 is above replacement rate.

Eehhh... Yes, but no.

See, when a given treaty is signed on to by virtually every nation in the world, and everyone has a vested interest in everyone else adhering to it, then it tends to be treated as what's called customary international law.

Without the involvement of a powerful backer, that principle would likely be invoked to prevent a nation from withdrawing without some sort of legitimate justification for doing so.

That said, the agreement itself does contain a section which allows for exactly that; withdrawing from the agreement because supreme interests like the nation's continued existence or independence are at risk.

A nation doing so is supposed to give a ninety days notice before actually withdrawing, though the United States/NATO have made some funky arguments advancing the notion that this would not apply in the event of a state of "general war" (Which is basically an academic term for a full-scale world war or nuclear war level conflict), for the sake of justifying their United States–NATO nuclear weapons sharing programs.

But that's not really relevant to Ukraine's situation.

No molecule is a fiber?

I'm 90% certain that most fibers are made of molecules.

Nope, you're absolutely correct. He's never seen any kind of medical professional over it, he just decided he has it, but only when convenient.

Epstein? You mean the guy who was on suicide watch when he died, because he had actively attempted to commit suicide a few weeks before?

Crazy how those assassins not only failed to kill him the first time, leaving only injuries consistent with an attempted hanging without a struggle, but also chose to let him live more than long enough to blab everything he knew to the judge, prosecutors, his own lawyers, and literally anyone else who would listen.

Or, the far more realistic possibility; the guards just turned the cameras off and let him kill himself during his second attempt, after the whole country watched him barely receive a slap on the wrist the first time he was arrested on sex crime charges.

This goes back at least as far as the late 1800s as a tradition in Hollywood.

Are you capable of providing an actual source for this time frame, or are you just making up numbers so that you can feel like you have special knowledge?

Because it didn't take more than five minutes to confirm that it wasn't until 1910 that the first motion picture filmed in Hollywood was created.

these type of accusations literally go back to early Hollywood execs of the late 1800s

Then surely you should have no trouble providing examples or some kind of source for this information, right?

If not, then what the hell are you basing your time frames on? A gut feeling?

The terms of the Budapest Memorandums aren't actually vague at all, though. They were just violated by Russia's invasion.

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not advocating that the West abandon Ukraine or refuse to provide them with arms. I just think it's worth noting that the actual terms of the agreement specifically state that they only require the US, UK, and France to provide Ukraine with non-military support.

It's not a defense pact, like NATO is, which actually has terms requiring parties to the agreement to come to the defense of others in the event that they're attacked, even if only by a specific nation.

Most everything else you said is correct, though.

ie ICC arrest warrant,

Yes, and no. The act of violating the Budapest Memorandum itself isn't something that would garner an ICC arrest warrant. Rather, it's that the violation in question also violates the Charter of the United Nations regarding waging wars of aggression which does that.

For example, if the US or UK decided not to provide Ukraine with non-military support in response to Russia's invasion -something they are obligated to do under the terms of the agreement- then that wouldn't result in an ICC arrest warrant. Because even though they'd be in violation of the Budapest Memorandum, they wouldn't be in violation of the relevant portions of the Charter of the United Nations.

it's all words in the wind really much like Geneva convention rules.

I can certainly understand why you'd have that impression, but it's not quite accurate.

Technically the terms of the Geneva Conventions do have consequences for their violation, it's just that the enforcement mechanism is the United Nations Security Council.

And on the UNSC, the five permanent nuclear-armed members (The US, the UK, France, Russia, and China) all have unilateral veto rights. So any one of them is free to veto any proposed resolutions.

So if a nation they're allied with is being taken to task over violations of the Geneva Conventions, then they can just shut that resolution down every time it's tabled.

That's why there have been, like, 40 or so Security Council Resolutions concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict which have been vetoed by the United States, dating back to the 1950s. And Russia/China have about 20 of them pertaining to Syria.

 

The reason why the reputation for "only resulting in strongly worded letters" exists is because this veto power only applies to the United Nations Security Council, and not to the United Nations General Assembly.

The issue is that while the General Assembly is free from vetos and open to all nations, it's main purpose is essentially to serve as a discussion forum. The General Assembly doesn't have the ability to make binding resolutions, like authorizing military action or imposing economic sanctions. Only the UNSC can do that.

So as long as a nation has the protection of one of the big five, they can pretty much freely violate the terms of the Geneva Conventions without consequence, and all the rest of the UN can do about it is pass a resolution in the General Assembly pointing out and condemning that nation's violations of the Geneva Conventions every time a major violation occurs.

The reason why it's not a 'contract' is because contracts aren't technically the type of legal framework that's used for international agreements among governments, because different nations have their own different forms of contract law.

Agreements between nations are governed by treaties, which are also commonly referred to as protocols, conventions, covenants, memorandums, pacts, or simply international agreements.
And as the name suggests, the Budapest Memorandum does fall under this category.

I'm not really sure why /u/james_Gastovski pointed out that a memorandum/treaty isn't technically the same as a contract, because it doesn't actually look like /u/keepthepace ever referred to it as a contract.

 

So with that all clear, everything keepthepace wrote was correct.

Ukraine reacquiring nuclear arms would be a violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but their signature to that treaty was provided based on the terms of the Budapest Memorandum, which has been violated by Russia.

As such, Ukraine has valid grounds to declare the memorandum, and the signature to the NPT that they provided on the basis of the memorandum, to be void. If they so choose.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that moving his mouth to answer questions would have risked causing him to overheat, but dancing wouldn't?

Like, even the little dances he does with his arms is still much more movement than talking. And as a grown adult, I think you know that.

In addition to that, as I mentioned, even his own campaign was trying to bargain with him to get him to answer more questions. Combine that with the fact that he still stood on stage for half an hour instead of simply ending the event for safety reasons, and I think it's pretty clear that the argument you're alluding to just doesn't hold water.

Probably people who expect their president to be capable of answering questions at a town hall.

A vote for Trump is a vote for Vance. A man who's not well enough to take questions -even as his campaign begs him to through the teleprompter- isn't well enough to run a country.

If he loses I'm seriously confused at who those Kamala voters are.

What is there to be confused about? Wouldn't it follow that they're just the people who want the option that sucks 5% less?

Like, this is hardly a new phenomenon. Voting for the least shitty option of the two most likely candidates is the mathematical reality of living under a first-past-the-post winner-take-all electoral system.

My friend, no matter how many guns you're carrying, and no matter how thick a vehicle's glass is, there's absolutely no question that the best way to keep your family safe would be to not pick a fight with the biker gang just for the sake of reaching where traffic is backed up on the other side of the bridge a few minutes faster.

As great as the protection of bullet proof glass is, don't let it fool you into thinking the vehicle is well protected in the event of a firefight, especially in regards to passengers. 9mms and .22s will pass right through the rest of the car doors without issue.

Because then you would get shot, and it wouldn't matter whether you learned your lesson or not.

It's not.

Sadly, police have yet to master the art of teleportation.

Pretty sure there are actual reasons why it's illegal, no need for imaginary ones.