I used to think people who were skeptical of global warming would at least listen to the expert when it came to their health, but no. They’d let a politician operate on them out of belief.

They did so plenty with the Trump administration. Fauci had to constantly correct what Trump said.

They weren’t censored very well, clearly. And considering a lot of COVID misinformation was telling you to inject horse dewormer instead of getting a vaccine, I wish it was censored better. In a public health emergency, I’m pretty okay with requiring statements to be scientifically and medically sound.

Second, it was misinformation at the time. Researchers and the general scientifically community believed the evidence pointed to other theories. It wasn’t until later when we had more evidence that it emerged as a serious possibility.

That’s how science works. Unless an idea is supported by clear and sound evidence, it’s untrue. The lab leak theory can be misinformation at one point in time and viable at another point in time – if I predicted heavy snowfall on a 74 degree day in June, it would very obviously be wrong. If I predict it for a 20 degree day in December however, it’s actually plausible. It blows my mind that this is a novel concept for some people.

I think the court just made a legal contradiction. The hospital can’t perform an abortion until the woman is already in severe harm – but by castle doctrine they can also use deadly force to protect her from severe harm.

This puts Republicans in a hilarious position. The contradiction has to be resolved, and no matter how they do it, they lose:

• The use of deadly force to prevent some else from severe harm is illegal. You can no longer shoot someone who you think poses harm. Gun nuts are furious.

• The hospital can perform an abortion without the woman already suffering.

• You just can’t do it, okay?! This implies abortion is not “deadly force”, which has all sorts of implications against abortion laws. If it isn’t deadly force, there’s no reason it should prohibited, like any other well founded medical practice.

They could always try to force this outside of the legal framework, but if they ignore the law, there’s no reason to follow the law. They also risk reform, which seems increasingly likely.

Republicans fucked around with overturning Roe, and they’re going to keep finding out until it’s back as a national law.

It’s terrible design. If they know their users are going to do this, they’re supposed to work around that. Not leave it as a vulnerability.

None of this really disproves their claim that the Chinese government is authoritarian. It just shows they aren’t the only authoritarian government in the world.

Western in general really. I remember seeing here once Europeans dunking on the US for lead water pipes, and it turned out lead pipes are just as bad in the EU and actually worse in the UK.

One defining feature of Western philosophy and mythos is individualism, which explains why it’s common for each Western country to think it’s the best/least worst.

after they overthrew the Apartheid regime there.

Was South Africa "removed’ though? Or was it a new regime that made a lot of changes? I believe a far left government would work just as well to fix the issue. Plus it’s easier to advocate for a non genocidal government than it is for removal.

Unfortunately I took don’t think there’s the numbers for that. You’d need an installed government in this case.

Maybe it would be possible to change minds if Hamas fought an information war instead, so people would be completely aware of what their army was doing. That’s what got the US out of Vietnam, when everyday people saw what was happening.

School isn’t work.

I think quite a few students would beg to differ. And you do get sent to juvenile detention centers iirc. The parents certainly can be jailed.

The way I see it is that the struggle was justified, but the violence on bystanders was not, if that makes sense. I can understand why it happened. But the mentality behind it is why the senseless violence continues.

The poorly trained teens and rogues wanted vengeance. They attacked and kidnapped Israelis out of anger for the Israeli army killing their families. That results in Israelis losing family members, and subsequently wanting vengeance on Hamas. They vote for Netanyahu to keep bombing Palestinians as retribution. Blaming the entire group for the actions of individuals is how this mess just keeps going.

Because of the power dynamics, it doesn’t really matter if Palestinians forgive the IDF. The IDF will continue. The imbalance in power requires Israelis to move towards a peaceful solution even when they may want vengeance.

Regarding the official orders, we know that kidnapping civilians was likely part of their plan. With the number abducted, I doubt it’s just rogue elements. That’s still evil orders. I agree there’s a big difference from purposely bombing hospitals and refugee camps, but it’s still evil.

I believe leadership expressed this was the outcome they wanted, in terms of creating active conflict. They wanted active warfare to reignite and bring attention to them. I don’t disagree with their ends, but I can’t agree with their means. What Israel is doing is pure evil, and it’s exactly what Hamas expected them to do. The purpose of the attack war to draw out a pure evil response by Israel towards the Palestinians.

What’s the morality of that? Purposely throwing civilians in the way of a known violent entity? Hamas is a group independent of Palestine. It may have Palestinians in its ranks who want revenge, but it isn’t a Palestinian liberation front. The wellbeing of Palestinians is not their primary goal.

Bringing attention to their plight is worthwhile, but not by setting them up for slaughter.

What would you consider school? Grades K-8 are compulsory.

They still very clearly killed some people and kidnapped others though. I agree the more sensational headlines seem unlikely and just IDF propaganda. The IDF has far more blood on its hands.

What’s the name of the distinct ideology? I completely agree though.

Fair enough. I never said those were in contention, and I mostly agree. What I disagree with is saying Hamas didn’t do so much bad, although it’s worth my asking if you mean that overall or just this. If it’s just this, then I apologize and it seems we talked past each other.

Hamas certainly killed innocent people, and also kidnapped innocent people and held them hostage. I took issue with you suggesting this didn’t happen, when it very obviously did.

I appreciate that you’re patiently explaining this as a misunderstanding instead of branding me as an enemy. I think all of us agree that what’s going on is horrible and needs to stop. There’s no good answers and we’re frustrated which causes us to lash out at people who agree with us but have a different answer. For my part in that, I apologize. This is a very easy topic to get heated about and I fall for it too often and assume the worst.

Fair, yeah. We need a different term for the ideology to separate it from conservatism.

Yep. There is value in looking at how things are currently done and have been done in the past. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel, and there may have been good reason for some decisions in the past. We had a safety system at work that had some superfluous quirks, but when we went to remove them, we learned the customer had specifically requested it to be that way. On the other end, we learned that we had some poorly designed equipment because we had specifically requested it in the past.

None of that though is what modern conservatives do.

It would be fair if they had no special exceptions, but it would be a large failure by negotiators if they proposed that. A few exceptions as a show of graciousness would go a long way, and probably do more to thwart any other brexit mentalities than being strict would.

Don’t believe everything that makes “your side” look good and don’t doubt everything that makes it look bad, or makes your opponents look good. Apply the same standard of scrutiny.

Because everyone believes they are the hero of their tale. The Trump insurrectionists on Jan 6 in the US legitimately believed they were fighting to preserve the country. They thought they were doing a moral good, and refused to listen to anyone saying differently. Not everyone who enables and supports a fascist is aware they’re helping a fascist. They may do so unwittingly.

Always question yourself. And I am very aware this applies to my beliefs as well. I regularly question them to make sure I’m looking at the whole picture.

Don’t blindly support Hamas. They’re cruel to the Palestinians as well. They hoard supplies. They don’t hold elections and they’ve violently suppressed protest.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/hamas-violently-suppresses-gaza-economic-israeli-border-protests

Don’t enable oppressors who are fighting other oppressors. Both parties in a fight can be detestable bastards, and they can also be captors of the people they claim to represent. Blindly support one, and you hurt the people you want to help.

Thanks for all the confirmations. It’s clear that any counterargument by me would be a waste of both of our times, so I’ll leave it here. Your comment does a wonderful job of showing your beliefs on its own.

Agreed. That claim is ridiculous, as are most by Israel.