More specifically: “4 people died from covid” is also true

AFAIK they would get the info “which user said what”. The source would be what ever instance you are from tho, not your own ip. So the owner of a instance knows as much as everyone else.

I always thought that people hired to pen test are white hat hackers? What is the difference to red team?

Could you point me to where it is in the quran?

I think they meant your info being sold on dark web markets, not your behaviour on the dark web being sold.

No, they just put it as background music in their videos, but didn’t actually pay for it. I would guess it constitutes fair use?

I am not sure as well, but maybe they meant “maybe an early and public disclosure increases the urgency of the fix for the developers”?

BMW did it: Video link

The 1949 geneva conventions have been rattified by (afaik exclusively): all UN members, palestine, the holy see and the cook islands. The singning binds the signee to uphold these rules for themselves. How then could the UN, who as you said is “just an extension of its member states”, not follow the morals you yourself held as the absolute standard?

If you agree that humans alone can’t claim what is universally right and wrong, then that is a first step towards religion, but I will leave that aside.
It seems like you agree that you have no basis on which to claim, with a degree of authority, that someone has to adjust their actions in your vicinity. If you don’t contest this then I will leave this discussion, as you have confirmed, that you can’t just forbid others from dressing in a certain way.
If you do not agree then I would like to understand how you can say that “morality is an entirely human inventes concept, no one has any foundation for it…” and then go on to say that somehow you can in fact impose your morality on others, as I understood it because their “made up stories are just way stupider than others”? According to which scale? One that does suddenly pop out of nowhere and is absolute for all humans?

Most governments indoctrinate their people with lies. Christianity and islam and strongly against xenophobia (I don’t have much knowledge about judaism, so can’t speak for or against it). Same goes for rape. Slavery is legal to this day in the USA for example.
I hope you can see my point, that standing on the moral basis of the modern western societies can make it seem like people, who live their lifes following different rules, may be “backwards” or “morally inferior” but you are lacking the logical foundation to claim something like that.

Ah where did this debate take place with ehich people? AFAIK all 4 sunni schools are unanimous in their intepretation, that people have to cover their bodies.
It is also very much telling men what and what not to wear. The specific body parts that have to be covered differ from school to school, for women and for men, but every muslim scholar says that every human has to cover certain parts of their body from the gaze of other people.

What means dangerous in this case? And what makes the major religions dangerous?

I am interested, what exactly constitutes a “religious symbol” for you?

I mean yes there is the command to cover yourself in the quran, [24:31] for example (“… And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments except what normally appears. Let them draw their veils over their chests, and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornment…”).
Still, the idea of women generally being forced to wear it by their family/social circle is wrong.

It is very much real: https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1724392576516600204?t=F9xr0ij1FAKbIH_NXNvpsg&s=19

Ah wow, I didn’t know that, thanks!

How would you derive that someone “dislikes jews because they are jews”? Do you listen to them talk and make a decision following your gut? Do you make an MRI image of their brain and measure their brain waves to read their mind?
You would have to work with their past actions. And then it becomes non trivial to define “anti-semite”.
So it is not really about “what does the word mean” but “how do you decide who fits the definition and who doesn’t”. People are concerned about this because it is very hard to make a law that 100% only fits to the people you want to target (leaving asside wether the principle is correct or not).

They are asking which way the minister wants to define the term.

Yes, but the point is that, afaik, that is not a crime, no?