Well, 2 wrongs make one right, don't they?!
I wish we'd first fix women's rights and then extend their duties. What the OP does is just egoistically trying to make other groups also suffer.
I don't have intentions to justify an injustice. I'm saying why should we try to make it even harder for a disadvantaged group? It does not help a single German man if women also have to comply to this law.
Fixing women's rights on the other hand gives everybody the benefit of living in a society that is more fair. For me, that's a valuable goal.
As you said, you can only object if it goes against your conscience, but if you are against it for political reasons (e.g. you don't think its worth it to die for Germany), that's not a valid reason and your objection will be denied. They were also incredibly strict during the Cold War, only easing off a bit afterwards when they wanted a smaller military.
What's a reason that is politically and not against one's conscience? I assumed that one's political beliefs would also manifest in conscience.
The cold war has been over for a very long time. The whole process was reformed in 1984 by removing the mandatory oral hearing. Sources say that acceptance rate was above 90% after 1995. That's not good enough (should be 100%), but not terrible either.
> What's a reason that is politically and not against one's conscience? I assumed that one's political beliefs would also manifest in conscience.
For example, I don't think it's in my interest to defend or die for the German state. However, I would use violence to protect my life if someone tried to kill me or threatened my life directly. The German state would interpret this as a political objection rather than a conscientious one, since I am willing to use violence in principle. If I could convince them that I would let someone kill me without defending myself because I categorically reject violence for any reason, they might consider that a conscientious objection.
> Sources say that acceptance rate was above 90% after 1995.
Yes, as I said, after the Cold War, Germany no longer wanted to maintain such a large army, so they started accepting any reasonably well-written argument. But in any war, you can see that nation states will start struggling to recruit new soldiers as it becomes obvious to the population that it's a rather pointless endeavour to die for their state. So, they start forcing people. We've seen that in Russia, Ukraine, Israel, USA, etc.
>If I could convince them that I would let someone kill me without defending myself because I categorically reject violence for any reason, they might consider that a conscientious objection.
That is a complete fantasy of yours. Political convictions are explicitly stated as a valid type of justification for conscientious objection by the Act on Conscientious Objection to Military Service. It even states the reasons do not have to be logical or objectively comprehensible, which easily covers your "I'm not opposed to all violence in all theoretically cases, but I fundamentally reject service for the German state".
Thanks for clarifying! I did some own research and apparaently in those oral hearings, objectors were often tricked into contradicting themselves with quite absurd scenarios.
On the contrary, it says that even if you object, they can force you into "alternative service" without the use of arms. So they make you a soldier without a gun, or rather - a state slave.
Why does Deutsche Bank pop up in every shady financial deal? Cum Ex, business with Russia, Epstein, some shady deals with his Wingman Trump, and many more. Billions paid in fines, penalties, and settlements. How rotten can an institution be?
Is this based on your experience or is it just an assumption?
I only have anecdotes, but it does not reflect your claims, rather the exact opposite.
A lot of the boilerplate code doesn’t need to be type annotated, but annotating the main business logic doesn’t take more time and is not more complicated, but instead type annotations help write code that is more clear, more obvious, and it adds some kind of documentation.
It really depends on how you tackle gradual typing on a project level. The easiest way to sabotage is a "any new code must be fukly type checked" requirement, because it often means you also need to add type hints to any code you call, which leads to Optional[Union[Any]] nonsense if you let juniors (or coding assistants) go wild.
As always, no fancy new tech is a substitute for competent project management.
reply