Should Fox, Newsmax, OANN, Alex Jones, Tucker, Bannon, the deputy director the the FBI (in a prior gig, to be fair), the president of the United States (current & prior gigs), members of congress, MAGA influencers like Tim Pool, the company paying Tim Pool, the people paying the company that pays Tim Pool, etc, etc, etc, and etc, be allowed to?
They do, but the vast majority of fluids the average person consumes comes in products made elsewhere, along with restaurants, etc. So you can RO your home water, but unless you don't eat anything made elsewhere, water your own crops, etc, you need comprehensive protections to avoid them.
Bit of research suggests even counter top filters help, though with very wide range of opinions as to how much it helps and which PFAS it does work against (there are thousands)
lawlessone says: "...since most of them were killed.
Not sure how the colonization of America justifies other colonization's.
Unless you think everyone is owed a 1 free genocide pass?"
Most of them died from disease. Far more of them died from disease than died from say, hand to hand combat or warfare on the plains.
The American Indians were toast as soon as the first coughing European stepped ashore. The native Americans had no immunity to the stew of diseases that had been brewing in Europe and Asia for centuries, so the Indians simply died. Once an Indian had a disease (s)he could spread it to other indians (s)he met. The flame front of infection raged ahead of the white man across the continent. The "mountain men" encountered regions where entire societies were struck down: bodies everywhere, tools, lodging, structures left intact but virtually no one was around (and many the infected likely fled to more remote lands, worsening the spread).
One estimate is that 61 million people lived in the Americas prior to European contact. Between 1492 and 1600 about 50 million native Americans died of disease.
"Killed?" Yes but rarely intentionally. "Genocide?" No.
You're skipping over the whole "manifest destiny" bit, where the remaining natives were systematically hunted down and destroyed. Trail of Tears ring any bells?
And note this was perpetrated by The United States, not the "American colonists". This was happening in the 1800s, a good 300 years after the initial disease front came through.
If the United States had respected the native populations the American West would look very different today. Compare with current Central and South America for example (which were certainly still victims of both disease and genocide, but it was less thorough due to differences in colonizers and geography).
What are you talking about? the original commenter rejected the idea of a Jewish state because ethno states are bad. I made a counter claim.
I’d be happy to live next to a Palestinian country, if it will recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and be a peaceful neighbor. Unfortunately, they reject the idea of 2 states, or they want 2 states where 1 is Palestinian, and the other is paletwith a Jewish minority.
Are you talking about native Americans? Germans that used to live in Poland? Jews that used to live in Syria? Israelis that lived in Sinai before it was returned to Egypt? Mexicans that lived Texas? Australian aboriginals? Inuits in Canada? How about the one million afghans Iran just expelled?
If you’re not happy, that’s on you. Time moves on, you need to accept the existence of the Israeli state.
> If you’re not happy, that’s on you. Time moves on, you need to accept the existence of the Israeli state.
Fair enough, but what happens when the US (inevitably) decide that they're not going to support Israel anymore. Bibi has basically turned support of Israel into a culture war argument, and without consistent US support, I'm not sure Israel will survive in it's current form.
Mind you, climate change could make the whole Middle East uninhabitable before then, so it's possible that the Israeli state will last until then.
And lets be clear, I don't think most people have an issue with the existence of an Israeli state, but what's been happening in Judea and Samaria for the past twenty or so years and Gaza currently is deeply, deeply wrong and reminds me of my favourite phrase, "the only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns from history". One would think that the Jewish people would have learned better lessons from their persecution, but apparently they learnt different lessons than I expected.
Well, Israel successfully won several wars without the US support in its early years. And right now the Israeli weapons manufacturers are booming, look at deals with the romania and Germany.
Its great that most people don’t have problem with our existence, but our neighbors do. That’s why we have wars.
And comparing it to the holocaust is quite different, in the entire Jewish history we never seeked to destroy anyone, we were always targeted because of antisemitism. The Palestinians? They are taught in schools that we are the devil.
Mmmm, maybe you should read the Bible? Lots of violence committed by the Israelis there.
> comparing it to the holocaust is quite different
Sorry, it's mostly the same (and incredibly similar to Irish history between Catholics and Protestants). Both sides dehumanise each other, and that leads to violence and suffering. How often does Israeli media cover the bombing of Gaza? Like, a lot of the footage didn't appear on most Western media until 12months + into the conflict.
One could also make the argument that what's happening in the West bank/Gaza is basically ghettoization, which was something that happened to the Jews a lot in Western Europe. It's profoundly depressing that all the Jewish people have learned is to inflict this kind of suffering on other people.
And the current plans to basically force all of the Gazans out is again, incredibly similar to historical pogroms and treatment meted out to the Jewish people.
> So thinking Iran will simply nuke Israel because it has that capability is silly - it would mean mutual destruction.
100%. The Iranian regime is not stupid. The "existential threat" bs being peddled by a certain government is simply to give cover to illegal attacks on a sovereign nation. This is "WMDs in Iraq" all over again.
This was Israel's thinking with Hamas - they're deterred, they're comfortable and in charge and they wouldn't do anything to jeopardise that, etc. Israel's thinking was wrong, and they've learned to believe their enemies when they say they want to destroy Israel. There isn't a country in the world that would allow their enemies, who have repeatedly stated that said country's demise is a key goal of theirs, to develop nukes if they have with the capability to stop it.
I think they are stupid for broadcasting the program and threatening Israel with it.
Believe people when they tell you what they are going to do. Even if Iran wouldn’t use it if they had it, threatening to use it shifts the probability for them using it.
They’re not stupid, the believe in an ideology that glorifies martyrs. If you actually believe in martyrdom nuking Israel is the sensible thing to do even knowing you’ll get it right back.
If we should call things what they are, we should definitely start by calling Americans who emigrate to other countries what they are: immigrants in the other country. Of course most choose to cutely refer to themselves as "expats".
Sure, I agree you should call them that. "Expat" is short for "expatriate" which is about where they come from. They are both expatriates of America and immigrants to wherever they go.
I'm just pointing out that the most plausible reason your fellow countrymen choose to call themselves "expats" wherever they go, is because the rhetoric in your country has dehumanized or made the word immigrants/illegal "dirty".
Not hard to imagine such rhetoric can lead to nastiness all around, ending even in violence against said group. If you don't mind that and see no problem with that, then of course there's absolutely no common ground for us to have any discussion on :)
I don't agree with you that the words "illegal immigrant" create violence. Also, "immigrant" does not carry a negative connotation in most uses as far as I can tell. The negative connotation comes from the word "illegal," which marks someone who commits a crime (illegal immigration) as a criminal. Of course, aside from arrest and deportation, they do not deserve to be subject to violence or maltreatment. That is how every country in the world treats people who immigrate illegally.
I am a second-generation American and actually have been told "go back to your country" and been given the "you don't belong here" before, too. The people who say that shit are assholes and are worth ignoring (it's very easy). But thank you for informing me that disliking the people who jump the line invalidates my perspective.
Just big sounding words to make it sound like something nefarious is happening. Nothing of that sort actually happened, just OpenAI trying to save face.
Their point is that cowardice isn't necessary to explain the obvious. He's a CEO, he's going to do what's most profitable. "Cowardice" suggests that if he were more brave he would sacrifice profit on the basis of some principle, but as a CEO principle was never part of the equation to begin with.
