If your MBTI is fixed because it is based on how you answer questions so long as it is without the intent to alter its outcome, then it is not anymore deterministic than a horoscope.
I fail to follow your logic here. The idea is that the answers you give - which are assumed here to be "without the intent to alter" - are based on your personality, and can therefore be used to measure it. I'm not sure what the word "deterministic" means in this context, but the answer do not determine the personality - they are determined by it.
"Fixed" is also not a good word - one's personality, and the way they answer such questions, can change during their lifetime as they get older and shaped by experiences.
Not necessarily. A good therapist can foster an environment where you can feel safe to be honest. Or, at least, safer than you feel with friends and family.
Even when it's repeat violent offenders - why would you want to prevent them from getting jobs? What do you think will happen if you release them from prison, once they finish serving their sentence, and they can't get jobs?
I'm not sure we are on the same page here. I'm claiming that since the invaded country needs to send its own troops (not UN troops) to protect its land and its people from the invading army, then the soldiers of the invaded country are positioned to make sure the resources of the invaded country reach to the citizens of the invaded country and not get stolen by the invading army.
At no point in this process any country needs to sends forces to another country to protect the nutritional rights of the citizens of that other country.
You'll need to send your own army anyway to protect your people from the invading enemy, and one of the duties of the troops stated there is to make sure your resources are not stolen by the enemy.
Shy of magic, that’s not a policy you can implement. Either people in a region have access to food or they don’t. You can’t just put a stamp on a loaf of bread that makes it inedible to anyone carrying a gun.
Again - I believe Albert was specifically talking about denying food from the soldiers of the invading enemy army. Unless the enemy is in there long enough to start farming your land, their only have two options to get food - they can bring it from their home country (or some other country they control, or one that's friendly enough to sell it to them) or they can try to get it from your country. You can sabotage their first option by attacking their supply lines, and as for the second option - hopefully your own citizens won't give them food, either because they don't want to be invaded or because they are afraid of their own government. Or both. Either way, you'll have to protect them, of course, because the invading army may try to steal food from them. Even if you do everything right you probably won't be able to hermetically block their food supply - but you may be able to dwindle it enough to starve them. It takes a lot of food to feed an army.
Regardless - never underestimate the human ingenuity when it comes to inflicting harm on other human beings.
Finished reading. Paragraph (is that the right name for these things?) number 30 was the only thing even remotely related to the question of an invading army. And even that relation was very, very remote.
Then again - I could have missed it. This is my first time reading a UN resolution, and man... these things are obfuscated. Why are they so obfuscated? Not as obfuscated as patents, but at least there there is a (nefarious) reason for the obfuscation. Why does the UN want to obstruct people from understanding its resolutions?
Stresses that all States should make all efforts to ensure that their
international policies of a political and economic nature, including international trade
agreements, do not have a negative impact on the right to food in other countries;
Only "of a political and economic nature". Are military actions considered as "political"?
What's actually important about these italicized words is the division between the preambulary and operative clauses as a whole. Whereas the preamble uses gerunds such as "Reaffirming" and "Recalling" and similar terms, the operative clauses, which are binding, use terms such as "Decides" "Appeals" and "Approves".
So... I need to look at the first word of each paragraph, determine whether or not it's operative, and if it is it's worth reading the rest of the paragraph?
So government will decide what to censor? What do you think government will decide to censor?