Okay, no. First off, it is misleading to say they were forced out of their homes, they are the remnants of the dead-enders who refused to accept the formation of the Nation of Israel, took up arms against it, and lost. That's why they left (forcibly or otherwise). More ethnic Arabs stayed than left, and the ones who stayed became Israeli citizens with full rights. They are also not the same people as in the West Bank, which is a different situation entirely and is not run by Hamas.

On multiple occasions, all of Israel's neighbors launched simultaneous invasions. War changes borders. Having parts of Jordan and Syria on the West side of the Jordan River became an unacceptable threat, so Israel seized those territories. Having Egypt in Gaza was too great a threat. When you're surrounded by mortal enemies, you act accordingly or die.

As for the West Bank settlements, you are not being accurate in your portrayal. That is an active controversy in Israel, with angry politicians on both sides. The ones you're talking about are in the minority and are now mostly pissed at Netanyahu for tearing settlements down.

As for evidence, you're not speaking the truth. Hamas has explicitly stated that its goal is the eradication of Israel and the Jewish people. "From the river to the sea" is an explicit demand for ethnic cleansing. They were the people who did not want Israel to exist in the first place, did not want Jews alive in the region, and have never changed their minds. Israel has been forced to defend itself from them for almost eighty years now, and I don't blame them for trying to eradicate Hamas. Not the people who live in Gaza, Hamas. Therefore, not a genocide.

Stop regurgitating the talking points of f-ing terrorists. Hamas is evil. They murder children. They throw gays off of rooftops, and stone women for dressing wrong. The world is better off without them. Gaza is better off without them.

I think you misread my point. I'm not talking about the oft-misrepresented "separation of church and state", I'm talking about a wall between two approaches to finding truth that prevents either from succeeding.

It is strange to see you demonstrate my point without understanding it.

Are you going to tell me that the Democrat party is not overtly hostile towards Christianity?

I'm sorry, but I don't have any good vegetarian recipes. Sautéing some Brassica Oleracea cultivars and garlic bulbs in olive oil, then topping with salt, pepper and parmesan is as close as I can get.

Why isn't it depressing to anyone else that only by accident of birth (cf. Rawls' veil of ignorance) we weren't born in Gaza?

Why would that be depressing? You won the birthplace lotto. Wouldn't it make more sense to be grateful, not depressed? Heck, I'm going to go ahead and recommend gratitude generally. It's hard to be both grateful and depressed at the same time.

No, but don't forget that the US government was caught completely off-guard when the USSR collapsed. For all of our spying, there was quite a lot going on about which we were completely unaware. They were very good at keeping secrets and building facades.

That reminds me of an amusing fact. The most reliable churchgoers and the most reliable Democrat voters are the same group - black women. Which is odd given that the Party appears to be hostile towards their religious beliefs.

The really odd part is that science was invented by profoundly religious people, including a number of monks and priests. For example, Mendel was a monk who noticed how traits were being passed on in his garden. It was, in many ways, a project to learn more about Creation and thus become closer to God.

St. Augustine said something appropriate, but as I'm having trouble tracking down the exact quote I'll paraphrase - When scripture and our observations of the natural world appear to contradict each other, we don't fully/correctly understand one or the other.

Sadly, we have now created pointless barriers between them, mostly for bad, or at least misguided, reasons. A lot of it seems to be based on misunderstandings, like people on each side assuming the other approach questions the same way. That is, each side looks at the world through its own lens, but assumes they are both using the same lens. Heck, half the time they aren't even looking at the same things, but each still thinks they are. They ask questions that sound the same but are in fact very different and hate each other for what appear to be wrong answers.

It's not a destruction of science, it's a shift in government spending priorities.

So no, it isn't scientific, it's political - a dispute over resource allocation.

Like I care what a barely-literate coward thinks.

Here's the problem - Services don't win wars, manufacturing does.

I still don't understand why a Taiwanese company would want to do business in China. That's like an Israeli company doing business in Iran. "Let's help the mainland make money and material they can use to invade us", doesn't make sense to me.

The statement was retracted yesterday anyhow. The linked article was published afterwards but doesn't include the update on Nature.

From Nature: https://www.nature.com/article...

Update: On 2 July, one US government agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the National Institutes of Health (NIH), appeared to walk back its earlier statement to Nature’s news team saying that it was cancelling contracts to Springer Nature. Now the HHS says: “Science journals are ripping the American people off with exorbitant access fees and extra charges to publish research openly. HHS is working to develop policies that conserve taxpayer dollars and get Americans a better deal. In the meantime, NIH scientists have continued access to all scientific journals.”

1923.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...