• 0 Posts
  • 58 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 1st, 2023

help-circle

  • If I have a gun but the government doesn’t care, am I not exercising my 2a rights?

    No, you are not.

    You have a right to not be unduly burdened by the government in owning or procuring a gun.

    It does not follow that because the government is not allowed to arbitrarily restrict your ability to own a gun, you therefor have a “right to own a gun”. For example, if you do not own a gun, and everyone who does own a gun doesn’t want to give/sell you a gun, your 2a rights were not violated.

    ……

    Putting up a lost cat flyer, and having some random person yell at you for it is not exercising the “right to free speech” (for either party).

    You have a right to not be unduly burdened by the government in speech/expression.

    It does not follow that because the government is not allowed to arbitrarily restrict your speech/expression, you therefor have a right to speech/expression in all contexts. For example, if you want to go on a rant about your personal beliefs, the government unduly burdened you. However this will not stop the owner of the grocery store from calling the cops to have you trespassed for bothering all of the customers.






  • The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.

    Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”

    https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

    Colloquially, it’s genocide, but legally it does not appear to be. And that’s a problem if you’re trying to charge Israel with genocide in a court of law. Inevitably it’s going to be found to not be genocide and that’s one more thing Israel can point to. Crimes against humanity would probably been a better route.

    It’s going to be hard, if not impossible to show in court that Israel, as a policy, is deliberately targeting Palestinians. Showing Isael’s actions is resulting in shit tons of civilian casualties seems pretty easy. Maybe there’s super secret documents that show it’s a deliberate act, but I highly doubt they’d be that dumb if genocide is their intention.


  • and that is demonstrably false or they wouldn’t have let Portal Revolution release. if they were going to be litigious about the Portal IP, why would they DMCA Portal64 but not Revolution?

    Revolution is a mod for Portal 2 and requires the purchase of Portal 2 to play. Anyone who wants to play it has already given money to valve, or needs to. Revolution Is great for Valve, they do basically nothing and get they more sales of Portal 2. Portal64 does nothing for Valve.

    There is a very clear incentive for Valve to not only allow but boost Revolution.

    While Valve permits Revolution, a game that benefits the company, it does not imply they would also permit Portal64, a game that lacks benefits for Valve.