• 0 Posts
  • 30 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle
  • I think you have a super healthy view of this dilemma through your experience. As a person who has experienced the worst Down’s has to offer with a very close relative, i can’t imagine a happier thing they could have told my mother than, “your child doesn’t have to be born with down’s syndrome”.

    Due to religion, terminating the pregnancy was never an option, so a set of cosmic dice was spun in how positive or negative this experience would be. Let me tell you right now, I wouldn’t wish my family’s experience on anyone, and that breaks me apart to say more than I’m willing to admit.











  • 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.










  • 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.