My worst one was expressing doubt about all information we get regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict because it is definitely being used as a wedge to divide Americans and make us easier to manipulate. Context: the IDF found Super Evil Battle Plans on dead Hamas soldiers, instructing them to kill civilians. Because they need to be reminded that that’s their mission I guess.
My second worst one was saying that we shouldn’t euthanize every pit bull. Context: a pit bull attacked someone, and everyone in the thread thought the right move was to euthanize the whole breed.
My third worst one was saying that the Fahrenheit temperature scale is more useful for average people than Celsius. Context: shitpost about fahrenheit being a bad temperature scale
For the first one, yeah there’s a lot of missinformation going around and a very heavily politicized debate. On the one had Israel response is disproportionate and inhumane, on the other hand if you go back further enough they were attacked first (the day after being formed, so no chance of that attack being retaliation for something). At the end of the day I think both sides are at fault and supporting either is morally wrong, and claiming that you need to support one of them is a false dichotomy.
I’ve had similar arguments, people who hate pitbulls for some reason fail to see the stupidity in their argument. Last time I had this discussion the person was using an argument that would also be applicable to eliminating blacks in the USA, i.e. statistically pitbulls are disproportionately dangerous (low population vs high number of incidents). And refused to acknowledge that correlation does not imply causation, so the only possible explanation for that disparity was pitbulls are dangerous, not that assholes who mistreat their dogs and use them to fight prefer pitbulls (despite me showing studies concluding that race is not a good predictor for violence).
On this one I have to disagree, you think it’s more useful because it’s what you’re used to. For me that have never used it it’s a weird scale that has no bearing on anything. I’ve heard the argument of human comfort, but I’m comfortable from 59 to 77, and my wife prefers 73 to 86. I consider it cold below 50 and hot above 86. I have only gotten to 0 once in my life, but got temperatures above 100 every summer. If it was indeed a scale for human comfort 0 would be what most people consider comfortable, i.e. 21C or 70F, or the temperature where you can start to freeze to death (which I’m not sure but I think it’s around 5C or 41F), not an arbitrary low temperature that most of the world never gets to.
Regarding the first one, it really helps to read the case South Africa filed with the ICJ. It’s only about 80 pages, but it’s filled to the brim with evidence of “super evil battle plans” as you call them. You should really inform yourself on this conflict, it’s pretty significant.
My worst one was expressing doubt about all information we get regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict because it is definitely being used as a wedge to divide Americans and make us easier to manipulate. Context: the IDF found Super Evil Battle Plans on dead Hamas soldiers, instructing them to kill civilians. Because they need to be reminded that that’s their mission I guess.
My second worst one was saying that we shouldn’t euthanize every pit bull. Context: a pit bull attacked someone, and everyone in the thread thought the right move was to euthanize the whole breed.
My third worst one was saying that the Fahrenheit temperature scale is more useful for average people than Celsius. Context: shitpost about fahrenheit being a bad temperature scale
For the first one, yeah there’s a lot of missinformation going around and a very heavily politicized debate. On the one had Israel response is disproportionate and inhumane, on the other hand if you go back further enough they were attacked first (the day after being formed, so no chance of that attack being retaliation for something). At the end of the day I think both sides are at fault and supporting either is morally wrong, and claiming that you need to support one of them is a false dichotomy.
I’ve had similar arguments, people who hate pitbulls for some reason fail to see the stupidity in their argument. Last time I had this discussion the person was using an argument that would also be applicable to eliminating blacks in the USA, i.e. statistically pitbulls are disproportionately dangerous (low population vs high number of incidents). And refused to acknowledge that correlation does not imply causation, so the only possible explanation for that disparity was pitbulls are dangerous, not that assholes who mistreat their dogs and use them to fight prefer pitbulls (despite me showing studies concluding that race is not a good predictor for violence).
On this one I have to disagree, you think it’s more useful because it’s what you’re used to. For me that have never used it it’s a weird scale that has no bearing on anything. I’ve heard the argument of human comfort, but I’m comfortable from 59 to 77, and my wife prefers 73 to 86. I consider it cold below 50 and hot above 86. I have only gotten to 0 once in my life, but got temperatures above 100 every summer. If it was indeed a scale for human comfort 0 would be what most people consider comfortable, i.e. 21C or 70F, or the temperature where you can start to freeze to death (which I’m not sure but I think it’s around 5C or 41F), not an arbitrary low temperature that most of the world never gets to.
Regarding the first one, it really helps to read the case South Africa filed with the ICJ. It’s only about 80 pages, but it’s filled to the brim with evidence of “super evil battle plans” as you call them. You should really inform yourself on this conflict, it’s pretty significant.