bhmnscmm @ bhmnscmm @lemmy.world

Posts

111

Comments

510

Joined

2 yr. ago

I agree with everything you've said. Hamas can be a terrorist organization, and still be the elected government. Both can be true, and acknowledging the how and why of that being the case is necessary reach a resolution to the conflict.

The fact that you're trying move this conversation towards the actions of Israel while avoiding the actions of Hamas leads me to believe you're not interested in having a genuine discussion. I think you're trying to play gotcha.

Have Israel and Hamas used terrorist tactics? I think so. Do both sides not care about the well-being of civilians? I think so. Are both sides of this conflict bad? I think so.

My definition of terrorist tactics is irrelevant to how the OP would classify Hamas.

Regardless, here's how terrorism is defined on Wikipedia: it seems pretty reasonable to me.

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants

If Hamas isn't a terrorist organization then what would you call them?

I think you're confusing me with other commentors. I haven't suggested this research in particular is being actively used to support policy decisions. Nor have I suggested this research is advocating for policy.

In my initial comment I simply said policy in general (at least with gun control) shouldn't be based on people's feelings/anecdotes.

I think this study asked a very interesting question, and I find the results to be very interesting. I don't really have any issues with this research by itself.

I can't read the entire article since it's behind a pay wall for me, but graph alone doesn't support or contradict the headline. It simply shows the full time employment of Zoomers is comparable millenials at when they were the same age. It doesn't show anything about income.

I could understand the argument for factoring people's feelings into policy in some cases, but let's take this study as an example.

Handguns are responsible for far more harm than AR-15s, but this study shows people "fear" AR-15s more. A policy that is based on these findings and not empirical data may attempt to reduce gun violence by addressing AR-15 ownership. Thereby not having a major effect on reducing actual gun violence.

A policy focusing on reducing handgun ownership would be much more effective at reducing gun violence, despite people not fearing them as much.

I'm trying to understand your argument against the article and what point you're trying to make by using their chart.

I don't get the point you're trying to make with your graph. Obviously there wouldn't be many Zoomers working full time; most are still in school.

Zoomers born after 2006 haven't graduated high-school, and those born between 2002-2006 are in college. That's leaves only a 5 year window of people you'd expect to be employed full time.

The line for millenials looks about the same as Zoomers.

So you spend $400/month on restaurants?

$150 x 4 = $600/month.

AR-10s have been gaining popularity for deer hunting in my area recently.

Fair enough for a general survey question. However, the point about how policy decisions shouldn't be based on opinion/anecdote is still valid (at least in the case of gun control).

The hip fire point really got me. Hip firing a gun makes it far less deadly. You have to actually aim to hit targets. Real life isn't like video games.

Probably because the vast majority people are capable of using a subwoofer responsibly.

Subwoofer ownership isn't an explicitly stated constitutional right, so it can't be for that reason.

Assuming you're in the US, that's either a really cheap mortgage or a huge family. Where are you seeing grocery expenses exceed mortgage payments?

Absolutely! I really hope they figure out a design that allows them drive in extreme wet contlditions.

The best potential sponsorship location since the LED hubcaps on the 2022 reg concept car.

Personally I don't think it's too far either--I'd agree with you. I just meant I understand how someone might think "embarrassing" the kid infront of a stranger may be too far

Please don't tease. His parents never teased him growing up, so he finds it very disrespectful.

I could see how sending a kid to the store might be a bit too far, but aside from that it's just harmless teasing. Nothing more than a mild practical joke.

Kids can handle jokes. It's important to learn to laugh at yourself and not take everything seriously. Otherwise you just end up being boring and stuck up.