fine_sandy_bottom @ fine_sandy_bottom @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

5

Comments

1,679

Joined

2 yr. ago

"Peace" isn't really an objective given that you'd have Peace the day after you ground palestinians into the dust.

Netanyahu certainly cares who the president of the United States is, who do you think he wants to be president?

Why wouldn’t I?

Because you've enabled Trump to grind palestinians into the dust.

Who do you think Palestinians wanted to win the election?

So you didn't do anything to avoid a Trump presidency. That's inaction.

A lame deflection.

It's very obvious to everyone that Palestinians are much worse off now.

Oh man.

First time round you said "The aboriginal people were the first of Homo Sapiens to leave Africa." I merely responded that might be misleading.

it’s not disputable that Aboriginals were in the first wave of humanity to leave Africa.

No one is disputing that Aboriginals, along with every other race, descended from the first wave of humanity to leave Africa. That's what the article you linked from the smithsonian says. Well done.

You're conflating being the first to become Isolated (in Australia and New Guinea) with being the first to leave Africa.

But they did have to sail across the open ocean and did have to construct vessels that would allow them to do that.

Aboriginals migrated to Australia via land bridges and short sea crossings over the course of many thousands of years. If you want to call a hunter in a dug out canoe a technological achievement then you're welcome to.

they lived with them for 17,000 years.

This claim is derived from the existence of a single fossil. As you're no doubt aware, this is a subject of hot debate. Wikipedia says:

the main mechanism for extinction was human burning of a landscape that was then much less fire-adapted; oxygen and carbon isotopes of teeth indicate sudden, drastic, non-climate-related changes in vegetation and in the diet of surviving marsupial species. However, early Aboriginal peoples appear to have rapidly eliminated the megafauna of Tasmania about 41,000 years ago (following formation of a land bridge to Australia about 43,000 years ago as Ice Age sea levels declined) without using fire to modify the environment there, implying that at least in this case hunting was the most important factor. It has also been suggested that the vegetational changes that occurred on the mainland were a consequence, rather than a cause, of the elimination of the megafauna.

Genocide is the worst situation

Very obviously a false dichotomy.

Do you think Palestinians wanted Trump to win?

Yeah well see we talked to all the neighbors but they didn't want them so unfortunately some of them may have gotten in the way when we bulldozed the site ready to lay the foundations for the new condos. /s

I didn’t vote for genocide.

Do you feel ok about that in the context of what's about to happen in Palestine?

It's genuinely saddening to see you're still here parroting these lines after the bots have long since packed up and gone home.

Can you elaborate?

What about Trump's arrival / Biden's departure has enabled 900 aid trucks to start rolling into Gaza every day ?

China was frothing at the mouth any time someone mentioned it.

Australian politician said "there should be an investigation into wuhan" and China slapped a 100% tarrif on Australian wine IIRC.

It might be misleading to say they were the first out of Africa. I think there was 100,000 years or so between homo sapiens leaving Africa and arriving in Australia.

Also I think they might have been able to walk due to lower sea levels at the time.

Finally it's pretty likely that homo sapiens (in this case aboriginals) hunted mega fauna to extinction.

This isn't the reason.

The switch is more likely to attract a toddlers attention. Some have little red lights even. It would be false sense of security at best. You can get those plastic blank plugs to stop your kid putting a fork in there.

The switch is so, if you kid is being electrocuted by putting their fork in the toaster, you can turn it off at the wall without having to touch the electrified kid.

Well, I suspect that most of the money will be used to acquire or costume natural resources, like water and power.

Individuals become enriched because their share holdings are worth more.

While it's correct to say that wikipedia is not an "original" source, it's disingenuous and / or hyperbole to suggest that "it's a bunch of nerds creating a version of reality".

The vast majority of hours invested into wikipedia are provided by volunteers who believe in the freedom of accurate, factual, unbiased information.

Of course the quality or balance of information is threatened by bad actors, but significant resources are invested in mitigating that threat. This post is a great example of cautious, transparent editorial decisions.

I haven't looked but this sounds like something that only Israel-friendly-sources would find news worthy.

To everyone else it's just trolls getting banned.

This has always been a complex dynamic.

For example, is it wrong for me to buy Tuna tinned in South East Asia? The people working there have few rights and are paid a pittance for their work. That said, it's a highly sought after job because the other jobs available in the area are far worse.

Really we're talking about labor arbitrage. Whether or not the labor actually happens locally or in a foreign jurisdiction, laborers residing in a poorer jurisdiction are selling their labor to people in a wealthier one.

I think the answer to whether or not it's "ok" is firstly a personal one, (maybe I'm ok with it while others aren't), but also dependent on the degree of difference.

It might be ok to buy tinned Tuna from a company that invests in foreign communities and pays employees a living wage with good terms, but probably not ok to buy tinned Tuna from a company that chains employees to machines for 16 hours a day before allowing them to return to their cage-box.

What I'm saying is, I'm ok with foreign workers being paid less provided that it's not exploitative, which is subjective.

The article basically says they will form a committee to investigate how to mitigate this type of problem.

Even if it's a terrible idea economically (which it probably is), it may still have support from an ideological perspective, and that depends just how messed up federal politics becomes in the next 3 years.

Brexit was really only purportedly economically motivated - it was really an ideological idea.