TempermentalAnomaly

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.

The peanut butter wars are gonna rock your world then.

Somehow my brain is now thinking about the temperature and pressure it takes to turn primordial soup into primordial ketchup.

Go far back enough, and we all came from Africa and you might as well say all humans should vacate the rest of the world and return to Africa.

You confusing migration with the colonialism. Colonialism disempowers indigenous peoples from determining how the land they lived on should be used.

Israel took the land and removed the people of that land from the land. Two states do not remediate the harm or re-empower the indigenous people to have a role in determining the use of the land. The extermination of the Israeli population is not the solution, but flooding the region with colonists in three separate ways and leveraging those people to steal more and more land was both explicit and implicit.

Have you ever looked at the two state solution map? It is insane.