[-] spiderplant@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Already using libre wolf with containers so not sure how much of a benefit I'd get from moving to an app.

Again back to minimalism I'd rather move away from it completely than have to have a another service to continue using discord. Could change if I start using matrix.

[-] spiderplant@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

According to both the Peel commission and the 1946 British survey, there was basically none. “Arab illegal immigration is mainly casual, temporary and seasonal,” said Peel, and the 1946 survey states “"… the expansion of the Moslem and Christian populations is due mainly to natural increase…"

The Jewish Historian Roberto Bachi estimates only about 900 Muslims per year immigrated between 1923 to 1946.

Where did the increase come from? According to the British register of Births and Deaths, it came from a natural net increase of 2.7%. (One of the highest recorded birth rates of all of the British controlled lands at 5%, and a high mortality rate of 2.3%.) In fact the estimated number of Muslims in 1947 is simply the number in the 1933 survey plus the net gain.

Peel: https://biblio-archive.unog.ch/Dateien/CouncilMSD/C-495-M-336-1937-VI_EN.pdf

1946 Survey: Population in Palestine and the Increase in Population. British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine: Volume I

Bachi: http://www.cicred.org/Eng/Public...

Vital Statistics figures from The Fertility and Mortality of the Population of Palestine, By: Hinden, Rita. Sociological Review (1908-1952). Jan/Apr40, Vol. 32 Issue 1/2, p29-49.

You seem to get all your information from Israeli propaganda with no verifiable sources.

[-] spiderplant@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

According to both the Peel commission and the 1946 British survey, there was basically none. “Arab illegal immigration is mainly casual, temporary and seasonal,” said Peel, and the 1946 survey states “"… the expansion of the Moslem and Christian populations is due mainly to natural increase…"

The Jewish Historian Roberto Bachi estimates only about 900 Muslims per year immigrated between 1923 to 1946.

Where did the increase come from? According to the British register of Births and Deaths, it came from a natural net increase of 2.7%. (One of the highest recorded birth rates of all of the British controlled lands at 5%, and a high mortality rate of 2.3%.) In fact the estimated number of Muslims in 1947 is simply the number in the 1933 survey plus the net gain.

Peel: https://biblio-archive.unog.ch/Dateien/CouncilMSD/C-495-M-336-1937-VI_EN.pdf

1946 Survey: Population in Palestine and the Increase in Population. British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine: Volume I

Bachi: http://www.cicred.org/Eng/Public...

Vital Statistics figures from The Fertility and Mortality of the Population of Palestine, By: Hinden, Rita. Sociological Review (1908-1952). Jan/Apr40, Vol. 32 Issue 1/2, p29-49.

You seem to get all your information from Israeli propaganda with no verifiable sources.

[-] spiderplant@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Imagine being this cringe

[-] spiderplant@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

So you support a terrorist state attempting to eradicate safe spaces for Jews outside of Israel by funding antisemitic groups in those countries, and getting Jews killed in the process. Good to know.

[-] spiderplant@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Hate to break it to you but violence has been the solution in every successful civil rights movement.

All your rights we're violently fought for and defended at some point in history.

Saying killing Nazis would have made the holocaust worse has to be one of the dumbest things I've read. How could it be any worse!?

[-] spiderplant@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How many dead? Oh yeah its almost like the billions poured into Israel by the US gives them an unfair advantage and allows them to be the oppressor.

Israel has bombed Gaza with the equivalent of two Hiroshima nukes. 9000 rockets is nothing.

[-] spiderplant@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

That wouldn't be the white house that has lied every time it's in it's interests to?

[-] spiderplant@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

It gets even better when you ask where the parents got the money. Since its a closed loop you can't really create money from nothing.

Let's keep things simple, say the rich parents own all the shops and services in the town. All their money comes from the other parents of the town. The poorer parents have no choice where to buy things like food that they need, they can't not pay their water bill or their heating. Buying their kids clothes and toys means giving more of their money to the rich parents. Now most of the parents can only afford a couple of eggs and the rich parents can afford a ridiculous number.

The ability for some to make large profits off humans basic needs is wrong and if you say any of this is fair then you should try and figure out why you think like this.

[-] spiderplant@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Its usually cheaper to give everyone a small amount of money than it is to set up and pay a whole department of civil servants to figure out who qualifies and who doesn't.

Also the poor and disabled suffer disproportionately when you start putting strict restrictions on financial aid. Just look at universal credit in the UK, in trying to save money/protect against the boogyman of welfare queens, they government has unqualified assessors trying to fail people even if they have serious disabilities.

[-] spiderplant@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Hindsight is 20/20 does not make a good argument here. Cars are bad for people, we have the studies and the research.

  • they kill a higher number of people than other modes of transport.
  • on average car drivers are more unhealthy and die earlier than people who self propel/use public transport
  • fumes and particles from cars lower the air quality in cities and are responsible for more deaths than just collisions
  • even if you go full electric particles from the tyres released at speed are terrible for people
  • car parking is a massive waste of land in city centres
  • commerce benefits more from cycle infrastructure than car infrastructure because more people are likely to get off their bike to go in to a shop they didn't intend to go to than car drivers who have to find a parking space

There are definitely more examples of why cars are bad in urban settings. Banning cars in city centres is the very easy solution that would make everyone's lives in the cities better today. It's also not a super crazy solution, cars didn't always occupy space in cities.

Also car drivers are not the majority in cities or even some contries but somehow the whole population is beholden to them.

[-] spiderplant@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

You think Poland or Ukraine are English?

view more: ‹ prev next ›

spiderplant

joined 1 year ago