UniLang

Yasna wrote:It's funny how distorted of an impression social media gives you about the Democratic primaries. Top Facebook comments on posts by even mainstream media like the NYT are generally by full-throated supporters of Bernie or Warren, to the point of viewing Bloomberg as beyond the pale and not even a "true" Democrat. Yet if you sum up the poll numbers for the major candidates in terms of far left or moderate, the far left candidates are at about 40%, and the moderates at about 48%. Bernie would be screwed if the two wings of the party consolidated around Bernie and a moderate candidate respectively. It's probably not going to happen soon enough to stop Bernie though.

Tous mes amis sur Facebook, dont je connais presque tout en personne, préfère Bernie ou Warren. Je suis lesbienne donc j'ai plein d'amis LGBTs, mais tous détestent Pete Buttigieg. Je crois que les sondages sont parfois biaisés. Les sondages sont normalement faits par des médias, n'est-ce pas ? Et ils changent tout le temps.

What is really the capital of Israel now?

Israel's is Tel Aviv. I think Jerusalem is pretty important to religious people too

I also thought it was Tel Aviv, but I happened to mention it to somebody today, and he did not agree at all and he said it always has been Jérusalem. Maybe it has something to do with the US recognition two years ago, but what about the rest of the world? Has it really changed?

Depends on who you ask. Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital (at least since 1967) and a couple of countries officially recognize it as such (including the United States)

Anyway, regardless of the official status and international recognition, Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel (in the sense that all official institutions are located there)

I always thought it'd be interesting to see how Palestinian people view Jerusalem. Would it have any religious significance to them?

Gormur wrote:I always thought it'd be interesting to see how Palestinian people view Jerusalem. Would it have any religious significance to them?

Hopefully this answers your question: https://pij.org/articles/646.

tl;dr: Yes. Jerusalem is a holy city for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and all three religions have important sacred sites located there.

That's pretty much what I'd thought except a slight detail here. The Palestinian Muslims regard it as sacred but Mecca, Saudi Arabia is really the only place highly regarded by Islamic culture elsewhere. Anyway, feel no need to reply. It's just what I've heard from various media over the years

Not even valid as a hypothetical scenario, but if nobody voted this year wouldn't the current person in power be re-elected unanimously or would it be termed anonymously? I bet that one can't even be answered it's so ridiculous

Gormur wrote:That's pretty much what I'd thought except a slight detail here. The Palestinian Muslims regard it as sacred but Mecca, Saudi Arabia is really the only place highly regarded by Islamic culture elsewhere.

That's simply not true. The most common Arabic name for Jerusalem, القُدس‎, literally means "the [city of] holiness".

linguoboy wrote:That's simply not true. The most common Arabic name for Jerusalem, القُدس‎, literally means "the [city of] holiness".

Iran's Quds Force (سپاه قدس) is even named after it.

I've had this thought lately

If we have rights, is it only in practice? In other words, say that you vote in an election. Then you automatically have the right to vote, but if you don't exercise the right to vote then you don't have it

Hopefully this makes sense. To me it makes perfect sense because the person is demonstrating their power or right rather than actually expressing that they have rights

Thoughts?

I would say it depends on your political philosophy and your level of analysis.

The US legal system distinguishes pretty clearly between having the right to do something and not doing it (e.g. sitting out an election), not having the right (e.g. because you're a noncitizen), and having the right but being prohibited from exercising it (e.g. because you're a felon).

Inherent rights is a term, I think. To me though it just seems like inherited rights. That's comprehensible to me, even if it hasn't got a logical basis

People in the EU probably read about the so-called coronabonds, a return of the idea of eurobonds, a proposal by mostly southern EU countries (but also Belgium) to borrow money from international markets as a Union and not individual member states. The idea is that countries like Italy and Spain who are faring very badly during this pandemic can borrow cheaply and fund their immediate needs, by leveraging the good credit rating of countries like Germany and the Netherlands.

The Netherlands, Germany, and Finland are completely against the idea and believe that any support to member states during the pandemic should come internally from ESM with at least some conditions attached.

In any case, Cyprus is neutral into all this. Our government said nothing either against or in favour of coronabonds, and it's funding a non-trivial stimulus package from our taxes and announced intentions to issue national bonds soon. We have an EPP government so they are ideologically closer to the governments of NL and DE.

But like with the Europarl elections and the disregard for the leading candidate process, it just shows how awkward the level of integration in the EU is. It either has to be more integrated, or less. The current degree is just not working.

md0 wrote:It either has to be more integrated, or less.

Wouldn't less integrated cause more problems? From my limited understanding and perspective, I've always thought having a unified monetary system but separate political systems made no sense and was a recipe for strife.

Welcome back!

Osias wrote:Welcome back!

Obrigado!

dEhiN wrote:

md0 wrote:It either has to be more integrated, or less.

Wouldn't less integrated cause more problems? From my limited understanding and perspective, I've always thought having a unified monetary system but separate political systems made no sense and was a recipe for strife.

Maybe I shouldn't talk, but I'm not so sure about that. What do you mean by "separate political systems"? In India, from what I understand, each state has its own government although the federal government also has authority over all of them, but strife starts when the prime minister decides they don't like what people in one particular state are doing.

vijayjohn wrote:Maybe I shouldn't talk, but I'm not so sure about that. What do you mean by "separate political systems"? In India, from what I understand, each state has its own government although the federal government also has authority over all of them, but strife starts when the prime minister decides they don't like what people in one particular state are doing.

I know there'll still be strife. The same happens in America and Canada - two countries where, like India, there are three levels of government: federal, state/provincial, and then municipal.

But I've always seen the EU as analogous to if Canada had no federal government but everything else about the interconnectedness and relationship between the provinces stayed the same, so, instead, all premiers got together every so often for discussion. I know the analogy is flawed: the EU member states aren't quite interconnected the same way Canada's provinces are with respect to them being provinces of the same country.

I guess I just think that having separate nations that are partially connected like states/provinces (that are part of a larger nation) and at the same time maintaining their individuality doesn't make sense.

I think pretty much the opposite. I think people from different "nations" (in a broad sense in which e.g. the Roma are a "nation" despite being stateless) can be connected yet maintain their autonomy just fine. Forcing everyone into a nation-state with any particular organization does not end strife, only attempt to suppress it. Strife as I see it does not come from people trying to maintain their autonomy per se; strife comes in part from people trying to suppress it. I think alliances can be beneficial and even necessary and don't have to come at the cost of autonomy.

In other words, I think the source of the strife you mention is different from what you seem to think it is. You seem to think it's because of the organization of the state; I think it's in large part because there is a state to begin with.

EDIT: In a way, I think you could even say India is proof of this. People love talking about the Sentinelese, which is so awkward; their hostile response to any outside contact is perfectly understandable given that the British deliberately murdered almost the entire indigenous population of the Andaman Islands. It is precisely because the Sentinelese have complete de facto autonomy over their own affairs that there is no strife between them and the rest of the world.

The linguistic reality of India is that there are so many languages spoken that there is no language spoken by the majority. The first prime minister was aware of this and realized that favoring any one language over the rest would be precisely what would cause strife. What he did instead was to try to recognize as many of these languages as possible. Meanwhile, next door in Pakistan, Urdu and English were imposed on everyone at the expense of all other languages. The result has been that almost every ethnicity in Pakistan wants their own state whereas most people in India do not.