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.
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.