There were like 2.3 million people living in Gaza and at best guess 42k have been killed. That’s a best guess and most estimates say at least.

Initially, Germany had around 500k Jewish people. Around 300k of those people were able to flee, although many not far enough. Of the remaining 200k, about 25% were killed in concentration camps or through some other horror.

As the Nazis gathered more territory, they began the systematic, machine-like murder of European Jews. As a direct example, Poland had over 3 million Jewish people, 90% of them were killed in the Holocaust in concentration camps.

I don’t think we really need to compare genocides to say this is a genocide, especially not to the Holocaust.

Yeah, that’s a fair point, honestly.

I feel you, it’s for sure gray.

I get what you’re saying, but my point is it’s not really accepted. It’s actually an incredibly controversial process that has recently been updated in the US to include not targeting civilians specifically.

Totally respect it’s not your idea, I’m just pointing out that I think it’s much more complicated when you involve civilian collateral damage, which is actually terrorism in a mask with an overcoat.

People are pretty universal in their condemnation of American attacks that kill civilians, that’s why we see the names of those people less, Trump made that change. Biden rolled back those changes finally, but you’re not gonna believe some of the new rules, stuff like stop fucking drone striking civilians you sociopaths: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/us/biden-drone-strikes.html

So yeah, America is both complicit in and has been (maybe still is) a sponsor of terror in many situations. And if one of those people affected by America in that way were to somehow get a bunch of cell phone bombs on GI’s hips while they were out with their families, to those people it might be justified while I would still call it terrorism.

You know, I bet they have a problem with both! Shooting a rocket at a market is comparable to putting explosives on a possible combatant and detonating it while they are in a market. Let alone 3,000x that latter scenario.

Like I don’t care for terroristic acts on civilians no matter where they come from. I’m unironically ok with them mass targeting the rocket sites, though!

“show me to the non-verbal panel control, okaaaaii”

That’s not the definition of a strawman. We can discuss this philosophy from outside of it. That’s a thing that’s ok to do!

But you did construct a strawman which I addressed. Anecdotally the bit about pets for vegans being “companions” came directly from the person who posted the initial thread calling out rookie (which by the way, rookie seems like kinda of a jerk and probably shouldn’t be making decisions like these).

An animal is incapable of providing any consent, they are incapable of understanding the ethical choices a vegan may make, or the reasons behind it. The fact that instead of many viable alternatives, they selfishly choosing to keep an animal that would need to have those choices made for them is an ethical problem in their own philosophy.

These vegans choose to keep a cute kitty or puppy, even old and sick kitties and puppies are cute and rewarding, for selfish reasons. If you truly need to keep an animal, keep a vegan pet. Then you don’t need to participate in the food system, and a non-vegan pet owner can provide for the animal best suited to their lifestyle.

Like there is an understanding that engaging in the meat industry, even on the fringes, perpetuates that industry hurting animals. The same is true for pets, even good pet owners engage and support a system where by animals are exploited and hurt, even if it’s not THEIR animal. I don’t see why this is so hard, honestly.

I think that’s the point, the ethically vegan argument is not to own a pet that eats meat, and it’s odd these particular vegans in the channel couldn’t see it, and all the non vegans were pointing it out.

Pet ownership in general is not vegan, even if you gaslight yourself into calling them companions.

I just googled guy Fieri controversies and got a couple juicy hits.

https://www.salon.com/2023/07/17/anthony-bourdain-was-right-about-guy-fieri/

https://www.mashed.com/1551664/guy-fieri-forgotten-failures/

Also there’s a non zero chance he’s not being honest about being on ozempic based on this entirely BS article.

https://people.com/guy-fieri-lost-30-lbs-intermittent-fasting-weighted-vest-8652310

Doing more research, candidates that were picked from contested conventions are absolutely less likely to win in historically.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/02/04/contested-presidential-conventions-and-why-parties-try-to-avoid-them/

So close enough with a candidate as strong with his party as Trump.

Actually the presidential candidate was selected on the day of the convention up until around 1970. They had conventions that would last days, they would lock the doors until a candidate was picked. Then ideally everyone stacked behind the final candidate.

I’m pretty sure there was actually almost a contested convention in like 1980. So no, this is objectively wrong and a bit of a modern convention.

Bold of you to assume this person has friends!

Fair points, all of them, I’ve heard from a friend that the most recent episode is excellent. I’ll keep giving it time.

What does this mean, you admit this particular show is not very good but might eventually be good?

This stupid woke/dei shit is just the culture war du jour, if the product that was being released was excellent, there wouldn’t be as much fuel to call a show bad for whatever reason.

But as the previous poster noted, there have been properties that were celebrated on release because they are good. The first Mandalorian episodes meet a near orgasmic fervor.

Acolyte at best is maybe just ok to not very compelling imo, that’s up against the other now recent star wars properties like Andor, which is and was critically acclaimed. The argument just falls apart when you use an objectively not very good show like Acolyte.

Unlikely, yes. More likely an implementation of principles in ways we just don’t have reference for in documentation, we just discovered that Roman concrete was mixed hot with quick lime. This shit always seems crazy until we figure it out.

Although I don’t see anyone saying there were as low as 1,600 workers on the great pyramid. So you right to question that one.

Actually I bet this is where that number came from lol:

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna46485163

I’m not even sure where you’ve developed that strawman from what the dude said, his original statement or his future back and forth with you. He said that the brute force argument isn’t the best one based on research like the water experimentation on dry sand. That doesn’t mean they didn’t use brute force in labor, just that it may have been supplemented by techniques we’re still investigating. He’s not saying they used magic.

Now we know they not only had a easy source of water, we know they had enough water to supplement the power of human labor. You just really wanted to argue so you focused on whatever points you could find disagreement.

The whole argument is based on you really wanting to be unequivocally right about your understanding of how something was built when the article you posted is about a literal groundbreaking discovery that may change our understanding of how it was built. Just seems silly on this one I guess.

Yeah, if that’s your take away I guess posting a pictograph and saying “nuh uh” being the crux of your argument on a body of study who’s modern history goes back to sprinkling mummy dust on your breakfast makes perfect sense.

Keep up this good!

I think you might be one of those expert on everything types, it works really well with political garbage, but when you’re talking about historical studies of the Egyptian old kingdom that they base on modern calculations of physics using pictographs as a reference… Like it’s just sounds silly I guess.

You are arguing for a heterodox interpretation of labor based on pictures drawn by the ruling party that has potentially tens of thousands of people building a giant stone monument, when modern scientists JUST discovered a river they only JUST realized might be there.

Like you just really really need to be right about a field of study that’s had like 15 sea changes over the last couple hundred years. It’s odd!