No, what I don’t understand is what relevance that has to this situation. The US using nukes on Japan 80 years ago doesn’t make Iran making nukes justified. It doesn’t validate Iran not having nukes. It neither strengthens nor weakens Israeli claims of an Iranian weapons program, and it doesn’t make a preemptive strike to purportedly disable them just or unjust.

It seems like you’re arguing that the US nuked Japan and therefore Iran, a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, is allowed to have nukes. Israel is falsely characterizing their civilian energy program, and we know this because of their backing by the US.
It’s just a non-sequitor, particularly when there’s relevant reasons why US involvement complicated matters. .

What does that even mean? How is what a nation did generations ago relevant to two different nations in a totally different scenario?

The USs actions in world war two are an odd thing to bring up in this context. It was a radically different set of circumstances, 80 years ago, and none of the people involved are alive anymore.
It’s entirely irrelevant.

May as well point out that the US was the driver for the creation of those watchdog groups and is a leading force in nuclear disarmament. It’s just as relevant to if Iran has a nuclear weapons program or Israels justification for attacking.

Iranian opposition to US strategic interests in the region giving the US a strong motivation to let anything that makes them weaker happen is a perfectly good thing to mention.

Yeah, it’s to protect them from disease. In almost all circumstances a place with tap water from a municipal source is fine.

Premature infants might be advised to only get sterile water for a bit as an extra precaution, and people might also hold off a little longer on well water.

Purely to keep the inaccuracy from spiraling: “not personally liable” is not the same as “legal”.

They ruled that the person holding the office isn’t personally liable for official acts unless certain extremely high bars are passed.
The act can still be illegal, you just sue the office of the president, rather than the individual who is president.

To him it’s the same, but since it’s not default legal, there’s still lines for others to stop at. It’s much easier to disobey an illegal order than a legal one.

While I agree with you, legally speaking the state is prohibited from establishing a religion, not from having religious symbols in general.

Traditionally many have opted to entirely separate them, but this has led some to claim that an antipathy for religion is also a lack of the required indifference to religion.
In my opinion this is well over the line, since a permanent display installed by the school is different from a student initiated activity or cultural event with religious context.

Given that line of argument though, it’s much easier to overturn these types of laws by showing that they have preferences, rather than it being too much.
The satanic temples whole thing is basically saying that if you want the ten commandments, you need to display our commandments too. Right up there with arguing abortion is a religious sacrament.

It’s a setup for a lawsuit, not a serious demand.

some of them are pretty reasonable, but others are just outdated, even from a pragmatic “rules for society” sense.
Murder, theft and perjury? Bad, shouldn’t do 'em. Adultery? Super shitty, no argument. Not sure it’s in the same order as murder, or even petty theft.
Coveting, or more modernly called “embracing feelings of strong envy”? Isn’t that just saying not to do the thing that causes stealing sometimes? It’s not really a societal thing, just a life tip.
Honor your parents? Maybe, but some people have really shitty ones, so being sent to hell for not obeying your abusive Dad is actively cruddy. I’ll charitably accept it as “care for the elderly”.

That’s something like 50% that I’d call good rules. Most of the rest are just “God says to like God”.

Where are you getting that no one wants to pay? I always see people saying the world would be better if their taxes were used to give others something.

I would love it if my taxes went to giving everyone healthcare, education and housing.
When you get down to it, I get more value out of my neighbors being healthy, educated and safe than I would out of the money. And that’s setting aside that I’m already paying for those things inefficiently.

It took me too long to figure out that you’re the ubi-style left, and not the pew-pew style and I didn’t know what type of gun an 80M2 was. 80M^2 or 80 square meters is super different from what I was picturing.