Criticizing Biden is basically giving Trump the presidency for life. Don’t you know he’s the greatest living president ever to exist between a president whose been elected for non-consecutive terms?

Several cultures do use it to mark the middle of winter. Celts and Chinese come to mind. They are communiting a different set of information when they do it.

I wrote that, posted it, and check it. I discovered it was wrong in under 30 seconds and didn’t think you would have read it. I was wrong. I had finished editing it before you posted your reply. I’ve edited the link to reflect my edit.

As for your second edit, if you see no fruits in understanding the basic concepts then you and I operate in different ethical worlds. Reading your writings is difficult. It’s meandering and unclear without a clear idea that you’re building an argument around. Layered on top of it a sense of certainty that you haven’t earned and allergic defensiveness when others notice and point it out. It’s not worth discussing anything with you until you have some ability to demonstrate even the most basic understanding of the core concepts.

Tangent is Greek. <-- this is wrong, it is Latin.

You display no working understanding of even the basic concepts. You haven’t read it. And you won’t.

I don’t think you’ve read Capital. You haven’t displayed an understanding of what the proletariat is, what class and class relations are, how it functions in capitalism, or the role of slavery when it exists in a capitalist society. All of this is discussed in Capital.

You’re responses are filled with insinuations, ad hominens, tangents and non sequiturs. We won’t have a productive or interesting discussion.

That was a fascinating read. Thanks for sharing.

The reason one feels sick is because the bacteria found in the food were able to make a colony despite the innate defenses of the immune system such as the gut biome. As the bacterial colony is established, it creates an environment that is beneficial to the bacteria, but not beneficial to the surrounding tissue. This leads to cell death of the tissue. Upon cell, there are chemical markers released and enter the surrounding tissue and then the blood stream. Both of these signal to nearby and far off cells and tissues that there is somerhing happening and the cellular immune system, white blood cells, responds. These white cells have a host of defenses including raising the body’s temperature resulting in a fever.

From here many things can happen, but in the case of most healthy people in the developed world, the type of bacteria faced in food poisoning will be dealt with with little need for any medication that directly assists the immune response. Staying hydrated helps and mitigating digestive discomfort are the best things.

The body does not have diarrhea as a protective mechanism to purge the bacteria that caused the food poisoning. The bacteria is secreting a protein that inhibits water absorption which causes diarrhea.

Preventing or reducing diarrhea would be a beneficial outcome for a bacteria infection such as ETEC whose cause of death is dehydration.

This is by no means an endorsement of OP’s hold it in strategy.

You wouldn’t be absorbing “bad food”. The body has diarrhea because it is unable to absorb water in the colon. It’s unable to absorb water in the case of food poisoning because the bacteria that grew in the food is creating a protein that blocks the water absorption receptors in the colon lining.

A major function of the colon is water absorption. The membrane is so small that viruses would be too large to get through.

I think I’d like something more specific and I don’t think you are capable of doing that.

I don’t know how you support the statement that “their first instinct was war, not trade”. Even the war you referenced was because trade negotiations broke down. For about 80 years they had been granted trading rights by the Mughal Empire. Skirmishes during that time were with other European powers and not with the Mughal Empire. What events transpired that support their role as colonists and not trade partners?

My second issues is claiming that these activities were for the crown. They were not “founded to make it easier for the crown to colonize and control those colonies.” You are regularly ascribing intention to the founding by flattening activities across 100-150 years.

I’m really not sure what your point is or how it is a response to my comment. I’ll respond to what I understand.

First, I agree, Phoenecian and ancient Greek societies would be classified as slave modes of production according to Marx. I wasn’t suggesting otherwise, just responding to OP’s comment that Roman society was capitalist.

I’m not quite sure what argument you’re building in the second paragraph, but there is a curious absence of proletariats in regards to subjects.

From here on our, I’m rather confused and I don’t think you have a clear grasp of what Marx means by capitalism. You seem to be most concerned with initial funding sources and not how one social group is able to exploit another through various economic means and subsequent social means as the capitalist class becomes the ruling class.

Again, how does any of this relate to my comment?

I don’t disagree with anything you said in this comment, but in the previous comment that the EIC was created to control the colonies for the crown. This really only begins to happen after the fall of Aurangzeb.

There’s much more details to discuss about how the EIC plays a role in developing capitalism and capitalist control considered it existed for two and a half centuries. But I think we’re bracketing our discussion to their activities in the 17th century.

It was not chartered for the crown to more easily colonize and control those colonies. It received a chartered from the crown on 12/31/1600 (with non-chartered operations beginning the year before) to serve as a monopoly trading company operating east of the cape of good hope. Initially, they made profits as pirates despite some initial successes.

They open up lines of trade with Mughal empire which starts trade colonialism. After the death of Aurangzeb, the east India company grabs land,extracts wealth through taxes and labor and they enter into being an exploitation colonializer. and then when the state is leaned on more and more, the state takes over operations and nstionalizes the company in 1858.

The Roman mode of production wasn’t capitalist exploitation of wage earners who sold their labor, but through their exploration of slaves in an agregarian system. There’s some arguments to be made that capitalist systems start as early as 12th century Italy, but it becomes dominant in 1600s England and is able to radically transform that society.

Cheers! It seems like your attitude is healthy and not self injurious. So that’s good. In posting this, you’re open enough to consider a possible blind spot. You’re curious, but not vexxed.

I wanted to pursue the answer to the second question in a moment but wanted to ask a couple of follow up questions first.

• How do close friends and family regard you when you are trying to live this pure life?
• Are you able to be vulnerable with them?
• Do you hold them to these standards as well?
• Do you hold them to standards that they don’t hold themselves to?

So as whole, I suspect you’re well adjust especially if the above isn’t negatively effecting anyone. The following is a deeper set of questions. Their resolution, as far as I know, doesn’t necessarily bring about increased health and could, for certain types of psyches, be destabilizing. I don’t think you are that type of person, but listen to your own heart of course.

Regarding the second answer, you wish to die knowing you lived life to fullest. What does this wish give you? If you do stumble and you do have a regret at the time of your death, why does it matter? Another way of asking this would be, if there is no after life and you are dead, what does it matter that you then died with a regret? What purpose does dying with no regret serve? In a similar vein, does not wanting to die with regrets keep you from pursuing parts of life that you might have pursued if you did not have that goal?

I want reiterate that that these questions aren’t an indicator of mental health. I also want to say that the framing of the issue and the questions lend itself to seeming like there’s a right answer. There isn’t. Honestly, the right answer could be that it feels right. And not having that feels wrong.

What’s the feeling you get when do well with this moral project?
What do you think you’ll feel like when you reach your goal? If don’t think the goal is attainable, what value does its pursuit bring?