Squiddlioni

deleted by creator

Alright, you’ve convinced me that you’re either a disingenuous troll or a genuine fool. Either way, I think this conversation isn’t going to be productive. Have a good one.

Since you duplicated your link I’ll duplicate my response.

You’re linking to a statute of the ICC, The Rome Statute, which provides that inciting or committing genocide is against the ICC’s definition of International Law and the ICC will attempt to prosecute accordingly. That statute was not ratified by the United States, so the United States is not bound to uphold that statute. Israel also did not ratify, so is also not bound. That doesn’t mean that the ICC can’t prosecute Israel or the US under the statute, but it does mean that they are explicitly not responsible for upholding it. Your argument is that the United States is bound by whether the ICC determines genocide has occurred, and that is explicitly not the case according to the statute you linked.

Edit to add: The Rome Statute is the document which established the ICC. As a nation that did not ratify the document, not only is the United States not limited by the ICC determining if genocide occurred or not, the US explicitly rejects the ICC’s authority to do so. It means the exact opposite of what you’re saying.

You’re linking to a statute of the ICC, The Rome Statute, which provides that inciting or committing genocide is against the ICC’s definition of International Law and the ICC will attempt to prosecute accordingly. That statute was not ratified by the United States, so the United States is not bound to uphold that statute. Israel also did not ratify, so is also not bound. That doesn’t mean that the ICC can’t prosecute Israel or the US under the statute, but it does mean that they are explicitly not responsible for upholding it. Your argument is that the United States is bound by whether the ICC determines genocide has occurred, and that is explicitly not the case according to the statute you linked.

Edit to add: The Rome Statute is the document which established the ICC. As a nation that did not ratify the document, not only is the United States not limited by the ICC determining if genocide occurred or not, the US explicitly rejects the ICC’s authority to do so. It means the exact opposite of what you’re saying.

Which law? Laws have names and titles. They are published publicly and they can be linked to. Please provide a link to the law you are referring to.

I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea that the ICC is the sole arbiter of whether something is genocide or not. Can you cite a source or precedent?

No, the ICC does not dictate if the United States formally recognizes a genocide. In fact, there is no singular domestic source for recognition of a genocide. See the Armenian Genocide for an example. US recognition of the Armenian Genocide was codified by US House and Senate resolutions in 2019, but even then the White House under the first Trump administration rejected the resolutions and declined to recognize it as a genocide.

This article in particular relates to Rep Tlaib hoping that the Amnesty International report will lead to her colleagues accepting this as a genocide, resulting in a change of policy and an arms embargo. I’m sure she would also like for there to be a formal recognition through a House resolution, but that is not necessary for arms supply policy to change.

ETA: The ICC was established to prosecute war crimes, including genocide, but is not the arbiter of whether the United States and its Congressional representatives recognize actions as genocide or not, which is the subject of this article.

Like many respondents on this decorporatized FOSS wang-dang-doodle, my answer is some variation on “Linux for desktop/laptop unless I’m forced to use the W-word” and “Whichever mobile OS makes the browser happen while I’m away from Linux, but I’m sad that it’s not Linux”.

No one here can adequately answer your questions, since they’re not really questions. You were annoyed by something and think that there is no reason for it to not be in the general settings UI. Fair enough, I kinda agree, but I’m also a power user and don’t mind tinkering in about:config, so it’s no skin off my nose. There’s nothing wrong with venting if that’s all you needed, but if it’s really rubbing you the wrong way why not file a feature request for them to change it?

That’s entirely fair. My kid’s aversions are mostly about familiarity and not about flavor or texture, or random whim. What we did ended up working out, but you’re right that it isn’t necessarily going to be the case with every kid, and I probably shouldn’t have implied that it was the “right” thing to do. It was certainly lucky, but as with many parenting strategies, that it worked with my kid doesn’t mean it would work with others.

Yes, posted in a parenting community, where discussing parenting is presumably fair game. It’s a relatable experience, but as the parent of a kid with involuntary food aversions, who grew up with family members getting into screaming matches over kids not trying food at holidays every year, I thought it was worth raising that this isn’t always within a child’s control.

Not quite sure what you were hoping to accomplish with this comment. My kid mainly eats broccoli, tomatoes, berries, rice, eggs, carrots, tofu, beets, beans, fish, and spinach. We’ve recently convinced him to eat french fries, chicken nuggets, pepperoni, and noodles. We knew pickiness was possible so we very carefully chose which foods to expose him to from a very young age so his default comfort zone was healthy food. If he has trouble trying new french fries I think it’s reasonable to accept that he has a legitimate aversion that he doesn’t control.

Yes, but it’s also important to remember that this is universally recognized because it’s a common aspect of preadolescent brains. I know this is just a comic, but I’ve seen a lot of parents treat it like willful belligerence (and sometimes it might be), but that’s not necessarily accurate or constructive. Kids don’t choose that their brain makes them prefer certain things and have a visceral aversion to new foods. Some kids can be encouraged to try things and will enjoy them once they’ve tried them, but some kids just can’t do it until their brain is more developed and the disgust reaction to new food dampens.

It’s an extreme example, but I’ve watched my kid try to force himself to eat something because I asked him to try it and he was literally shaking and dry heaving trying to put it in his mouth. IIRC it was a french fry that was shaped differently than the ones he usually eats. Like I said, extreme example, but kid brains are legit wired differently when it comes to food, and that should be respected.

Even proper TED talks can have some big issues. I’m thinking specifically about Kary Mullis getting up on stage and saying anthropogenic climate change isn’t real because he found a study that says there’s a current that fluctuates and absorbs anything we do–or something to that effect. If you didn’t know anything about Kary Mullis and just heard “Nobel prize winner” you might assume he’s credible. In actuality he was a pariah for talking out his ass about things he doesn’t have expertise in and doesn’t understand, specifically his climate and HIV/AIDS denialism.

It’s always a good idea to approach any lecture with a critical view, but I can see why TED talks might warrant extra scrutiny. They project expertise and authority which may or may not actually be credible. The organization has a mottled record of vetting their speakers for actual expertise. (ETA: actual expertise in the content of their talk. Obviously Kary Mullis had actual expertise, just not in the things he said on stage)

Not sure why you’re being downvoted. The anecdote happens to parallel the scientific consensus, but “I’m told that dentists can tell” isn’t an appropriate argument when discussing medical research.

The link above is not reputable and was directly refuted by, among others, the American Dental Association, the American Dental Education Association, the American Association for Dental Research, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Harvard School of Dental Medicine itself. From the response letter signed by the dean of the HSDM:

The magazine article states that CWF “does not appear to have any benefits in adults” based on the results of the Cochrane systematic review. However, the Cochrane review did not make this conclusion. Rather, the review specifically states “We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review’s inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.” Due to the lack of studies that met the inclusion criteria, the Cochrane authors were not able to make any conclusion on the effect of CWF on adults. In fact, there are studies that were not included in the Cochrane review that demonstrate a caries preventive benefit of CWF in adults.

See the letter I linked for the studies it’s referencing with a demonstrated benefit to adult teeth. The Cochrane review’s inability to conclude whether there was a benefit or not was a limitation of the Cochrane review’s inclusion criteria, and not an absence of studies indicating a benefit.

The source is not as reputable as it appears. The article in question is not from the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, and in fact was condemned by the HSDM. The actual dental experts at Harvard requested a formal retraction of the article: “Based on the significant flaws in the magazine article, we respectfully request that the article be rescinded, and a correction be published to clarify any misleading information that was provided.”

Thank you for the link. It’s worth mentioning that there are response letters to the publication you linked from other experts, the majority of which are critical and point out misinterpretations and omissions by the author. It’s always good to question, but in this instance it looks like the consensus amongst experts evaluating that publication is still that fluoridation is safe and improves dental health. The response letters can be read here.

Edit to add: The responses include a letter from the dean of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine stating that the publication is deeply flawed and requesting a retraction, and a similar condemnation from the students of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. The article was given greater weight by being linked to Harvard, but in fact Harvard dental experts explicitly disagree.

Hand of Juno just released their first album, Psychotic Banana, and I’ve been binging it for a solid two weeks. Good mix of heavy and melodic, and good variation between songs. Got its hooks in me.

I will say, some songs are different enough that they almost sound like different artists, so if you check them out it’s worth trying a few tracks. “Polline” and “Destroy the Line” are my favorite heavy songs. “The One”, “We’ve Built the Line”, and “Not a Game” are my favorites on the melodic side.

I’m assuming, given that the water company’s reaction included a threat for immediate disconnection, that this is not for the first month of service. It’s just the first time they “paid”.