Was the American revolution an "invasion" against the english? Or the French revolution an "invasion" against the monarchists?

So any country that trades with Western countries doesn’t have a right to exist? I will point out that both China and Russia trade with the United States.

Indeed, but do China and Russia import or export with the West? Mainly export, Russian and Chinese economy is based on domestic production and exporting it along with resources to the West, they don't get raw resources from the global South through the West (not in any significant way anyway), they don't enforce the comprador regimes in the global South. The West on the other hand relies on importing resources and production from the global South for half free. Cut the West from the global South and the West starves, do the same with China or Russia and, while not a fun time, they will manage.

It isn't just about trading with the West, but rather if one takes part in the imperialist exploitation of the global South.

Globally were one human race, but we have a variety of countries determined by who can defend their borders.

This cosmopolitanism is baseless. If all humans are the same people divided by arbitrary borders, why not go strike up a conversation with lets say a Mandarin chinese person? Surely an arbitrary border won't limit your communication with your fellow human? I'll use the German example again, did East Germans become a seperate people from West Germans when Germany was split? Korea has been split just little longer than Germany was.

I wonder and under what circumstances in your philosophy would a group of people be allowed just to separate from their parent country?

"Parent country" is a nebulous term, as a country isn't necessarily a nation, and a nation might not necessarily even have a country.

Sorry, i mistook you for the other commentor. Although my point still stands. The majority of pedophiles are heterosexuals yes, because 95% of the populace (in US) is heterosexual. But 21% of pedophiles are homosexual, while only around 5% of the populace is homosexual, meaning homosexuals are statistically way more likely to be pedophiles.

With quick maths when there are 750 000 registered child predators, of which 21% are homosexual, that means there are 157 000 homosexual child predators. That means 0,009 pedophiles per homosexual. The same number for heterosexuals is 0,0019 pedophiles per heterosexual. This means a homosexual is almost five times (4,7) more likely to be a pedophile compared to a heterosexual.

That is quite a significant difference, and certainly warrants discussion wouldn't you say? Why is brining up these numbers forbidden?

Bailouts aren't socialism, nor are subsidies or healthcare for that matter.

Most recreational activies are productive and serve a purpose other than mindless pleasure, be it reading, exercising, creative projects or other such activites. Recreational drug use serves no such purpose and only exists to numb one's mind from the outside world, and likely their troubles, this fact just is covered by pretty words about "relaxation" and such.

Banning a substance (with strategic eye of course, for example a total immediate ban on alcohol would cause more problems than it would solve, a incremental ban is better in this case) that complements this behaviour also discourages this behaviour, as no-one who isn't addicted to the substance will take the risk of procuring it illegally. And the ones who are addicted obviously require medical care.

The decrease of organised crime in drug trade is no argument, one could argue that murder should be legal since the amount of convicted murderers goes down if it is legalised. Not to mention how the ban on certain drugs in America isn't designed to lower the usage of drugs to begin with, rather simply profit off it in various ways.

If you want to go down that road, then every classification is arbitrary as there is no definition of drugs sent down from the heavens. In any case this is just sophistry, call it what you want, it is irrelevant. The point still stands, it is a heavily mind altering substance that has no benefits when used recreationally (this is the point of the word recreational), and as such must be banned.

Yes i agree