unlike Democrat and Republican voters have morals and will not tolerate genocide no matter how hard they fearmonger.

And yet their principled opposition not only did nothing, it’s very clearly made things worse for basically everyone. The genocide didn’t stop, but now there’s not even token opposition. Iran is being bombed. Civil rights are being rolled back across the country, food aid is being taken from millions, and it’s just starting.

The Democrats were never “doing genocide”, just like the Republicans aren’t now. The Democrats weren’t saying they would do enough to stop someone else from doing it, and the Republicans were saying they would encourage them to do it harder.

Red MAGA … Blue MAGA…Democratic party is a bigger cult than Republicans

Congratulations on being an unwitting mouthpiece for the RNC. "Maga is just a rude word to call someone! It’s not literally what we have on our hats!” "staunch opposition to fascism is closed minded and just as prejudicial as wanting to eliminate trans people!”

I hope your movement does stop Trump and cause effective change and reform. I’m not holding my breath, because I don’t think they were counting on your votes in the first place and the next time they think about you will be when they want you to be mad at the Democrats again to keep you from voting for them.

And then Jill Stein won, and the genocide stopped, right?

Like I said, I don’t question the intention or code of ethics for the people involved, but there’s a reason they and people like them get a lot of support from the RNC.
They aren’t voters who are realistically going to vote Republican, so the best they can do is be diverted to a spoiler candidate.

Thinking that that translates to political leverage against the Republicans is just naive though. They didn’t vote for them in the first place, so it’s an empty threat.

The people who might opt to not vote for Biden or Harris aren’t people who would have voted for trump in the first place, so I don’t see them having a lot of leverage.

I can’t tell you what code to follow, but the whole thing reeks of people who didn’t get the memo that trump doesn’t need them to bleed votes from the Dems anymore.

“no propensity” is still equal. :)

My take is that 6-7 is the “kids can be pretty great sometimes”, with room for “I have one or more that I really care about”. 8 is for those people who just get legitimate pure joy out of kids. Usually grandparents or certain types of educators. 9 is creepy, and 10 is vile.

It’s likely phrased in the law as closer to while serving on a swat team, as in they’re actively wearing a ballistic face shield and gas mask for legitimate reasons.

It’s a prime opportunity for things to get lost in translation between the law, the person talking to the press, and the report.

While money is used to by goods and services, it isn’t those goods and services. It’s essentially a measure of resource allocation. More money means you get more resources.

People don’t go hungry due to lack of money, they go hungry due to lack of food. In an area undergoing famine, you can give people money and they’ll buy food. This means people who were eating before are now going hungry. If you keep giving out money, the price of food starts to rise. Keep going, and eventually it’s cheaper to leave the country than it is to buy food.

The systemic causes of hunger are complex. The complexity is sufficient that fixing them would take more money than any billionaire has.
In the US for example, we keep production high and costs low by subsidizing agriculture to the tune of $30-60 billion a year. We give individuals about $115 billion a year in money to buy food. Another $3 billion for emergency food aid. Another $25 billion for lunch for school children. Then there’s intangibles, like a side effect of food subsidies being the government owning millions of tons of milk, cheese and produce that it just gives to people. Not cheap, but difficult to quantify exactly.
This all has side effects and weird consequences. Like agricultural subsidies driving down costs of grain for the entire world, making it unprofitable to be a farmer in areas with borderline arable land and causing communities to depend on imports for food, making global food market fluctuations another source of famine risk. There’s also some obesity and other health impacts, as well as things like improved academic performance, but those aren’t relevant to this.

To actually solve the issue, you need to invest in agricultural development. The US government spends another $200 billion a year on this. Basically, instead of just buying food or paying people to grow it, you need to invest in the tools to do so, and to manage pests and everything. Roads, water, tractors, bulldozers, powerplants, education, and all the things that support those things.

All told, the US government spends about $500 billion a year on this, and it’s given us a consistently high ranking in food security indexes, with food being generally affordable and safe, and slightly less available, depending on the economy. All that, and only about 50 million people are in food insecure positions in the country.
This is before we get to the costs of doing foreign food aid.
There are billions of food insecure people on earth, and 700 million hungry.

Elon musk liquidating all his assets at face value couldn’t cover the bill for one year in the country that needs the least assistance.

That being said, while they can’t solve it they’re certainly part of the cause. The systemic failures that have led to hunger are embodied in them. If we decided to not allow billionaires to exist, we’d be making changes to society that would actually allow us to make those expensive and overwhelming changes to solve the problems above.
One person doesn’t have the resources to build roads and infrastructure needed to build the infrastructure needed to support modern farming in areas that can only scrape by, teach people the new methods needed, teach the people needed to support those people, and all of that again for getting the food to the people who need it. But if society decided people like that shouldn’t exist, the resources spent so that some portion of the resources end up in their pocket would be enough to do that.

Yes, I understand what you’re saying, it’s not a complicated position.
Your position is that national reputation matters more than anything else. And most pointedly, the national reputation of your allies matters more than any other argument.

What I’m saying is, is that the actions the US, or any other nation, took before the people currently running things were even born have no bearing on current events. Nations aren’t people, and they don’t possess a national character that you can use to try to predict their behavior or judge them.

Would the world be justified in concluding that it’s only a matter of time before Germany does some more genocide? Before Japan unleashes atrocities across Asia?

If you’re getting down to it, the US can’t control other nations, beyond stick and carrot means. And the US has the same right to try to keep Iran from getting nukes as Iran does in trying to get them. Because again, nations aren’t people. They don’t have rights, they have capabilities.

And all of that’s irrelevant! Because the question is, is Israel justified in attacking Iran? The perception of hypocrisy in US foreign policy isn’t relevant to that question.

No, what I don’t understand is what relevance that has to this situation. The US using nukes on Japan 80 years ago doesn’t make Iran making nukes justified. It doesn’t validate Iran not having nukes. It neither strengthens nor weakens Israeli claims of an Iranian weapons program, and it doesn’t make a preemptive strike to purportedly disable them just or unjust.

It seems like you’re arguing that the US nuked Japan and therefore Iran, a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, is allowed to have nukes. Israel is falsely characterizing their civilian energy program, and we know this because of their backing by the US.
It’s just a non-sequitor, particularly when there’s relevant reasons why US involvement complicated matters. .

What does that even mean? How is what a nation did generations ago relevant to two different nations in a totally different scenario?

The USs actions in world war two are an odd thing to bring up in this context. It was a radically different set of circumstances, 80 years ago, and none of the people involved are alive anymore.
It’s entirely irrelevant.

May as well point out that the US was the driver for the creation of those watchdog groups and is a leading force in nuclear disarmament. It’s just as relevant to if Iran has a nuclear weapons program or Israels justification for attacking.

Iranian opposition to US strategic interests in the region giving the US a strong motivation to let anything that makes them weaker happen is a perfectly good thing to mention.

So, my question when I run into that argument is: who do you think people would rally behind?

There’s always this assumption that the party has someone that they know would be super popular but they then make a conscious choice to run the most conservative person to the left of the Republican.

There are primaries. They’re made up of people who can get enough support. The local parties are closer to voters, and it’s much easier for people to join.
Somehow the people who consistently get elected are the sort of people they keep fielding as candidates.

So I’d love it if we had a great inspiring candidate. But literally who are they?

We stopped maintaining a handful of them, but waay later than you would expect. At some point we decided we didn’t need a plan to deal with an invasion by the British empire kept up to date at all times.

The US has a water system effectively comparable to the ones across Europe, FYI. That includes lead levels, since it wasn’t just the US that used lead pipes.

In most circumstances lead pipes are safe to replace with different materials as part of routine maintenance. It’s only very notable incidents where things go wrong that have driven a push for greater haste, since it highlighted the consequences of things going wrong.

Yeah, it’s to protect them from disease. In almost all circumstances a place with tap water from a municipal source is fine.

Premature infants might be advised to only get sterile water for a bit as an extra precaution, and people might also hold off a little longer on well water.

Those are entirely different. Peano developed a system for talking about arithmetic in a formalized way. This allowed people to talk about arithmetic in new ways, but it didn’t show that previous formulations of arithmetic were wrong. Godel then built on that to show the limits of arithmetic, which still didn’t invalidate that which came before.
The development of complex numbers as an extension of the real numbers didn’t make work with the real numbers invalid.

When a new scientific model is developed, it supercedes the old model. The old model might still have use, but it’s now known to not actually fit reality. Relativity showed that Newtowns model of the cosmos was wrong: it didn’t extend it or generalize it, it showed that it was inadequately describing reality. Close for human scale problems but ultimately wrong.
And we already know relativity is wrong because it doesn’t match experimental results in quantum mechanics.

Science is our understanding of reality. Reality doesn’t change, but our understanding does.
Because math is a fundamentally different from science, if you know something is true then it’s always true given the assumptions.

I’m not seeing the relevance.

Only for English, and not for every article.

The motivation behind “fix our sometimes overly dense summaries” isn’t wrong, this just isn’t the right solution.

Not quite. Science is empirical, which means it’s based on experiments and we can observe patterns and try to make sense of them. We can learn that a pattern or our understanding of it is wrong.

Math is inductive, which means that we have a starting point and we expand out from there using rules. It’s not experimental, and conclusions don’t change.
1+1 is always 2. What happens to math is that we uncover new ways of thinking about things that change the rules or underlying assumptions. 1+1 is 10 in base 2. Now we have a new, deeper truth about the relationship between bases and what “two” means.

Science is much more approximate. The geocentric model fit, and then new data made it not fit and the model changed. Same for heliocentrism, Galileos models, Keplers, and Newtons. They weren’t wrong, they were just discovered to not fit observed reality as well as something else.

A scientific discovery can shift our understanding of the world radically and call other models into question.
A mathematical discovery doesn’t do that. It might make something more clear, easier to work with, or provide a technique that can be surprisingly applicable elsewhere.

We discovered one of the postulates was really interesting to fuck with.

It’s better to say that we’ve discovered more math, some of which changes how we understand the old.

Since Euclid, we’ve made discoveries in how geometry works and the underpinnings of it that can and have been used to provide foundation for his work, or to demonstrate some of the same things more succinctly. For example, Euclid had some assumptions that he didn’t document.

Since math isn’t empirical, it’s rarely wrong if actually proven. It can be looked at differently though, and have assumptions changed to learn new things, or we can figure out that there are assumptions that weren’t obvious.

They haven’t been ordered to do something patently illegal as of yet.
Disobeying an order can carry a sharp penalty for soldiers and it’s frankly not worth the risk when the dubious order is to guard a federal building from people who pose no threat.

You want the military to strongly resist illegal orders, but having the military decide policy is a dangerous line to cross.