A few days ago I shared some news that the Eurovision song from Israel would be named “Your land is mine now” to later realize it was from an onion kind of website, lol.
I hope I’m not alone in this kind of f’up.
This happened in a biology class where we had groups of people trying to get the DNA out of fruits and vegetables, my group had chosen an onion, in an effort to try and be the cool kid I ate some of the onion, no one noticed.
Do fruits have DNA?!? Like unique DNA like human do?
They do! Though I think their genome is a lot simpler
Except for onions, ironically.
Oh man, sometimes yes but sometimes not so much. Know how humans have 23 chromosomes? And we’re diploid, which means they come in pairs of 2?
Some plants have a few more pairs than that - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy And some plants have way WAY more than 23 chromosomes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count There’s a plant at the bottom of that list that has 1260 chromosomes.
I only took 1 botany class back in college, so I don’t know or remember enough to talk about this in more depth. I really only know enough to be shocked by how crazy a plant’s genuine can be.
The way I’ve had it explained to me, plants as a general rule have a much, much larger genome than animals. The reason is simple. When an animal runs into a problem like not enough water, it can just get up and move. Plants are rooted where they are, prey to whatever comes along. They have to develop an arsenal of genes to deal with different situations, whether that’s drought resistance or producing various toxins so that animals don’t make a meal of them. It’s not like animals don’t do this to some degree - the immune system is incredibly elaborate - but not as much.
I learned a few years ago that the Duke is, in fact, not frozen waiting to be resuscitated. Of course I only learned this after arguing with my prof in film class about it. Classic urban legend. Now I’m worried about any other hoaxes I might have absorbed in the pre-Internet years. At least I know that the Glomar Explorer was not looking for manganese nodules.
Who’s frozen? Who is “the Duke?”
I like that you are passing off a clear case of your own unexamined antisemitism as a cute conversation starter.
Cool cool finger guns
Edit: anybody downvoting really should be obligated to explain how somebody falling for such a thing isn’t an antisemite at worst or a pure moron at best.
Antisemitism is about hating jews because they’re jews. That’s completely separate from criticizing a nation for crimes against humanity. The first is a group of people with no central government, the second is an administrative entity with a military that is violating the Geneva convention in another country.
If you press a lot of the people you are getting your information from, you will in fact find they hate Jews for being Jews.
When you are claiming the world’s oldest conspiracy, you have to start from the position of, "I not one of the other antisemites who has claimed this thousands of times over the years and always been wrong, it’s true this time.
If you truly believe this far right conspiracy is true now, that’s fine, but if you are at all wrong, you are the same kind of person who has always made this claim.
You literally have no reading comprehension. You pressed me three times, and each time I responded with ‘Any country that deals with a population it considers problematic by completely restricting access to food, medicine, and potable water is committing a genocide’
Each time you ignored that and tried to ‘press’ me again.
It’s almost like you’re looking for an answer you’re not getting.
It’s a yes or no question.
Are you willing to accept the ICJ’s ruling when they ultimately reject your claim of genocide?
Not if the government in question is completely restricting access to food medicine and potable water to a population it considers problematic.
But, you certainly won’t either. You certainly don’t now that the ICJ has found Israel is plausibly committing genocide.
Plausible is what the recent case was about, if you actually read.
It was too determine if South Africa has standing, and if it was plausible that Israel was committing genocide for a full trial. As a result of its finding, it called on Israel to stop killing Palestinian civilians and to preserve evidence for the eventual trial.
Asking me if I will agree with their finding is pointless, as it will be years before the trial is finished.
So, now that you know that the ICJ has found it plausible, will you stop accusing people who claim Israel is committing genocide are antisemitic, or are you willing to admit that claim came solely from nationalism in bad faith?
You are using plausible to mean likely, i’m just wondering if the ICJ’s quotes are using the word in the same way you are.
A problem I am having is whenever I ask for actual quotes and their context, i am either ghosted or bullied.
Do your own research. That was literally the point of the court hearing.
It’s why they ordered Israel to preserve evidence.
Seriously, watch all three presentations. It’s worth doing. Unless you don’t want your obvious world view destroyed.
If you don’t want to be `bullied’ (although, I can’t for the life of me understand why you’d use that word for people defending themselves from your accusations of antisemitism due to them pointing out a genocide), then don’t attack people with the bad faith accusation of antisemitism.
You still haven’t answered the question.
Come on, I answered yours. It’s your turn.
What would it take for you to admit that recognizing a genocide isn’t antisemitism?
