HappycamperNZ @ HappycamperNZ @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

1,281

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yes they could - but they aren't being used.

Plus, you know, that's socialism or communism or something else people don't like for some reason.

You could easily exploit borderlands- but live action? Its like a live action Kerby.

NO MR TORGUE!!!!

I don't have the right rant to express my displeasure at this, someone wanna help me out??

EXPLOSIONS!!!!!

Oh snap

So how much money someone can make from a property has no relationship to the decision to build more property?

Really?

It shouldn't be - but ill tell you right now that no one will be a landlord unless they can make money from it, and people who move out of home at 18 won't have the money saved to buy straight away.

Make no mistake, I don't like the housing crisis and its causes either but I know rent caps isn't how we fix it long term.

People don't like applying economic theory because it reminds us of the core part of being human - I only care about myself and will act in a way that benefits me. Even altruistic people act as they do because they want to disadvantage themselves to help others and you can't force them to change.

Rent caps are one of those that sound good in theory - like telling ticketmaster to lower the price of tickets, or 0% unemployment. But doing so just means other things suffer.

Supply/demand is usually micro....

Almost like no one wants to build any because they can't be invested in and the only people it works for are those who already got one.

Not OP but ill do you one better and link the free online textbook that is used at a number of universities.

Look up "The core Economy 1.0" chapter 11, section 10. Case study on fixing rent prices and the following consequences, along with a step by step diagram.

You forgot the other thing they teach.

Never discuss that with anyone who hasn't studied economics - the same as how we will deliberately reduce GDP to increase the unemployment rate, or sometimes a country is better off by axing a productive market and putting 50k people out of work. They don't see how and will only take it out on you.

Its just not worth the arguement.

Usually - yes they do. Everyone acts in their own interest.

First person I've seen who didn't say it increases supply.

Nice.

In the case of war crime, no they don't.

Shooting in self defense isn't a war crime when applied to a country (article 51 of UN charter), and your second one is because its a direct attack on civilians... and if you're claiming there is one fighter inside its non proportional attack.

Interesting point, article 51 is what was used to justify the US attack the second gulf War, and will likely be use to justify the Israeli response in this one.

I had a discussion on this point when we went over this at uni.

They aren't signatories to the Geneva convention, UN Charter or any of the other rule based systems we have, however they can still done under crimes against humanity.

No criminal ever signed a declaration before they crime that they agree to follow our laws, but are prosecuted all the same.

I've also never met any afgani women who openly accused the Taliban regime since they took back over - lack of evidence isn't proof of something. Nor do I belive you can just casually say "oh, your point doesn't matter" and dismiss it out if hand.

Woops, good point

i would argue neither is worse - but the intent would be much harder to defend against in court when you are also bragging about being able to put a round through a specific window.

It also runs the very real risk of a little war crime being accepted if.... for example you're just "protecting your home" or "the other side is worse" or "you don't have a choice".

Point 0 - that you for engaging with facts and opinion rather than instant accusations.

Point 1 - correct, asymmetrical warfare is very common among weaker forces and is a great way to negate tech advantages. Nothing wrong with it, the issue is where and how they are conducting it.

Point 2 - interesting part of the point you mentioned regarding dressing up to murder civilians in hospitals. Hamas was doing such things - terrorists dressing up as civilians to access medical care, who took arms into a hospital that removed its protections, who were then killed by an opposing force in a way that minimizes civilian casualties.

I haven't seen anything on the legality since, but discussions I had when this video came out was that it is probably justified as they did drop the disguise before opening fire. Lack of uniform does make it questionable.

This goes back to my original point - armed combatants aren't allowed to use civilian infrastructure as it removes its protections. Hamas blatantly used it and yet its Israeli fault for killing them there?

For your last point, im sorry I've got a splitting headache and struggling to connect the dots, but you do raise an interesting point. I cant blame Palestine for wanting to fight, but I can blame Hamas for their conduct and choices within the conflict - just like Israel.

Not OP.

So your saying Hamas actions that are war crimes are justified because they are defending their home, therefore they are not the same?