Luckily I still have my family, but my parents are conspiracy theorists, my dad especially vocal, so that's not fun. I'm just going to try to avoid the topics.
The amount of bonus a worker gets is based on the number of miles they complete each month.
I understand what they're trying to do, but this is just not equitable. You'd have to figure out how to handle this for people who cannot run (such as wheelchair users). This greatly favours those with more free time and less obligations (such as people with no kids). It favours those already in shape and those who have fewer health issues.
This will favour those who already have it better off, which is the opposite of equity.
Good idea in theory, but I don't like the model where it's applied based on output.
I agree that a fatality by a car is no different to a fatality by an SUV. But I would say that there is a difference in accidents involving cars vs SUVs because the fatality rates differ, which is what is being discussed.
I might be misinterpreting your argument, but my understanding is that you're saying because both cars and SUVs can cause fatalities, they are all too dangerous to be around people. But many things can cause fatalities, even bikes. We'll never be able to reduce accidents entirely. But there's a rate at which the fatalities become too high compared to the benefits. So that's why I believe talking about the rates of fatalities is more useful than talking about whether something can cause a fatality at all. In this case, I think your acceptable rate for fatalities is at a level where all motorised vehicles clear the threshold, so that's why you're saying there's no difference. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Replacing tall-fronted vehicles with short-fronted vehicles would reduce fatalities, which is why I believe there is a difference and we should try to do that where possible.
My parents fell into conspiracy theories during the pandemic. My mum has been kind of conspiratorial for a while but kept it hush. My dad is very loud about it. They have entrenched themselves into the community. They live with several other people on their property who believe the same. They have attended anti-vax protests and have demonstrated. My dad shares this shit on Facebook all the time.
How has it changed me? I think it has improved my researching, scientific literacy, and critical thinking skills. Whenever they send things through, I go and look at the sources they provide. I have noticed a pattern. Whenever they use sciency sources, they are almost always:
misinterpreted
misrepresented (taken out of context)
or they outright lie about the contents of the source
The speed at which you can spread misinformation is much faster than the rate you can debunk it, so I don't do it so much to try to change their mind but more to learn about and keep informed on the science myself.
I don't know what to do. We are on good terms and I just try not to talk about it or ignore their remarks. I'm not good in real-time "debates"; I feel much more comfortable taking my time and writing responses or findings. My dad is also very assertive to the point of aggressiveness in real-time discussions, so I get a bit intimidated. Sometimes they surprise me with reasonable takes that remind me that they do actually have values.
You are correct, and I agree with you, but it's still incorrect to say there is no difference when research shows there is. I understand what you're trying to go for, but stating false information won't help to convince people.
Even if the number of cars on the road remains the same, but utes and SUVs were swapped to lower vehicles (when possible), then there would still be positive outcomes of fewer pedestrian fatalities (even if the number of accidents remains the same) and reduced carbon emissions.
Removing most cars would reduce these even more, which I assume is your desired outcome, but even just reducing the proportion of utes and SUVs would have positive effects
I feel like this is must've come to the creator in a dream