So you never learned basic English? And now you have to refer to your passport in order to be able to distinguish men from women? lol, sure bro.

Man/men, woman/women, people, humans.

Male and female are adjectives to describe sex. Man and woman are cultural gender roles, which would be the right choice here.

Probably a bit complicated in some cases, as all this a a fairly recent cultural topic and some people actively struggle with a changing culture that‘s not strongly patriarchal, but either way, male and female is something you use maybe in more clinical or scientific settings, i.e. a female human.

Using female for woman is a bit like using „Weib“ in German.

Only, that‘s not „one of the reasons“ these people protest. That‘s a dumb culture war talking point, but not based in reality. I‘m sure you can find people that moan about women not having the same rights as men to die for their capitalist nation state, but as I said, that‘s not a protest reason. Inform yourself.

Also, you explicitly chose that non-reason to give as an answer (instead of actual reasons), which would be either ignorant as hell or willful agitation as a divisive tool by the use of half-truths. And I‘m inclined to think you‘re usually doing the latter.

You are the one using derogatory language towards women, calling them „young girls“. This whole whiney bullshit, how women are so privileged when it comes to the hard burdens, that the poor men have to suffer, but women are exempt from is straight up right wing incel yapping. It‘s chauvinist and sexist.

Sure, there is a debate to be had about this, but the societal progressive perspective would certainly not be to also invite women to die at the frontlines, but to actually not reinstate compulsory military service, but get rid of it altogether.
And then maybe open up the service for everyone that‘s willing to participate by their own motivation … oh wait, that‘s already the case …

The basic law dictates compulsory military service, but that has been suspended for a while now, because after the fall of the Soviet Union the need for that went down, the Bundeswehr was of little relevance.

The basic law also grants you the right to refuse the service for conscientious reasons (like not willing to kill, religion). Usually in those cases you‘d end up doing some substitute civilian service, anyway, if otherwise you‘d be fit for military service.

What‘s happening now is, that Germany is gearing up for war against Russia. Militarization is in full swing, money is funneled towards military spending, as well as infrastructure spending that benefits the military (west-east axis to transfer equipment and units), all while spending on social, cultural and educational sectors is being cut.

And with that the state has a renewed interest in human military stock that would be available, if that war actually happened.

So the suspension is cancelled and slowly, but surely, the younger generation will be compelled to join the compulsory military service. And you‘re right, for changes in the basic law, you would need a two thirds majority.

Now here comes the „conscientious reasons“ into play, because the threshold of what counts as such is defined through normal laws and these can be changed more easily (simple majority, I believe).

Basic law defines: „you can refuse for conscientious reasons“; normal law defines: „what actually is a conscientious reason in case of refusal“.

So the problem here is, that citizens are granted the right to refuse, but the state dictates the conditions on what counts and what not.

In practice the state will create the conditions to get the amount of people into the military, they think they need. Against the will of the individual, if need be.

So the youth is protesting against compulsory military service because of gender inequality, that‘s your take here? I wish you‘d just not comment at all, if you have no idea, what you‘re actually talking about. That‘s really the dumbest take I‘ve heard, yet.

Also, if anything: „If you‘re a young girl woman“, because I do hope you‘re not talking about child soldiers, but are merely a sexist dipshit.

Schönen Frauentag.

How do you think the museum makes sure you don‘t touch or steal the exhibits, which you don‘t own and never will, but only are there to sell the tickets, clean the floor or walk around in nostalgia?

And how does that affect the nature and/or reality of those violations of basic human rights? Is your point that those violations shall only be prosecuted if there’s no-one else to benefit from it?

Don‘t do this lame ass shit, where I‘m now supposed to argue in favor of human rights violations. That‘s not the point. You‘re shifting the discussion. Bad faith argumentation is for losers.

My points are quite clear:

1. NATO is not the world police, but in contrary acted against international law by bombing a sovereign state. Accusing other countries for not acting or vetoing only works, if you have a western chauvinist perspective (yes, you do seem to have that), that bombing a country and its people is the rightful and just solution. (Only true, if the West does it, right?) (Also what‘s happening in Iran right now)
2. NATO did not bomb Yugoslavia to pacifiy it, but to force regime change, balcanization and to expand their sphere of influence, so for geopolitical reasons, not for moral reasons. It strengthened the hegemonic power of the USA in territories of the former Soviet Union. Possible human rights abuses were an excuse used as a propaganda tool, not the reason, just like every time the US is involved (like right now with Iran).

Either way, NATO was the aggressor with no mandate to bomb a sovereign state. They acted against international law and did some human rights violations themselves, while they‘re at it.

Are you able to agree with (at least some of) these points without reacting with strawmen or whataboutisms?

You’re almost there! In fact (…)

I never said that there are no other bad actors, that‘s bad faith argumentation. I‘m also not going to give you a China bad! Russia bad! nod, just so you can further feel validated in your restricted horizon. That’s coping, you cope, hard. The West is the world‘s cancer.

The violations of basic human rights (however tangible they might have been) were propagandized and used as a pretense to exert political violence on a sovereign state, in order to advance geopolitical interests. The same as the US is doing now with Iran, has been doing for the past century. You are very much acting through your propagandised ideology by aligning with their narrative.

If NATO or the USA were to care about international law or human rights, they would have acted through the UN Security Council, which they consult and insist on at any time a state of the global south does something they don‘t like. They usually do not apply to themselves, though.

But the US or European states, like Germany, France or Great Britain will hold their own interests above international law and basic human rights at any time these constructs do not align with said interests. The latest examples would be Palestine and Iran, also to an extend Ukraine.

The fact that human rights violations have occurred is not a factor for the global north‘s decision to exert power through violence. If it was, they wouldn‘t extend or explicitly cause more suffering by indiscriminately breaking international law at will, independent from the UN. But that’s what the NATO did by bombing Yugoslavia.

Also not a technicality, lol.

Your argument is the internalised version of reality, that a normal westener grows up to have, through the environment they live in, the media they consume.

But we are not the good guys. And that‘s not an empty phrase, it‘s a fact. We are the baddies. And sadly, you argue for the baddies on the internet.

Edit: lol, if that doesn‘t fit:

Merz: Iran should not be protected by international law

The very premise that NATO, a military alliance consisting of the terrorist state and world hegemon USA and its vassals (the so-called global north, basically), does act on principles regarding human suffering in other countries is not based in material reality, but propagandised ideology.

Ich beiße:

Auf Krampf einheitliche und auch noch (hoch-)deutsche Sprache erzwingen ist nationalistische Kackscheiße in Maimai-Form gepresst.

Eine sich auf exklusiv nationale Einheitssprache berufende Kultur ist regressiv im Sinne der geistigen Einengung und sollte nicht in Form einer offenen Zwischennetz-Gemeinschaft verfestigt werden, da diese sich per Definition ausschließend manifestiert.