• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle

  • Just to be clear: Dutch people agree that rapists of 12 year old girls (such as the convicted child rapist van de Velde, who raped a 12 year old girl) should be punished and not go on to represent their country at the Olympics. There may however be old farts and creeps in positions of power that try to make excuses for convicted child rapist Van de Velde who believe a technicality over an unprovable state of mind matter when it comes to the damage caused by having a convicted child rapist represent your country both to the victim of convicted child rapist Van de Velde and to the reputation of the Netherlands.

    TLDR: Convicted child rapist Van de Velde should be kicked off his team and the Member of the committee that thought it was relevant whether he is paedophile or not should resign. Both are a disgrace to the country and should not be used as representatives.











  • There is no issue with the source other than it not the new york times or the washington post or the bbc

    1. NYT, WP or BBC are also suspect sources, especially when it comes to the Palestine conflict. You will not find me saying anything else.
    2. Issues with the source you cited (that don’t involve it’s Hezbollah affiliation):
      • It’s not the primary source (that appears to be the Haaretz article, but I can’t confirm that, since that is paywalled)
      • It gets the name of one of the parties involved in the conflict wrong (it consistently refers to the IDF as IOF (replacing “Defense” with “Occupation”). I get why they do it (the IDF claims to “defend” an area that they are actually occupying), but that’s not how you do journalism. Nobody thinks that North Korea is a democratic republic, but any news article about it will still refer to it as “DPRK - Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea”. Because that’s its name.

    So pointing out that the source you posted is biased and potentially unreliable is fine. You citing another source (even one cited in the article itself) is completely par for the course. Hell, now I really would like to know, why you chose to post a secondary source when you had the primary source avaiable to you?




  • Actually, no.

    The science is quite precise, if largely theoretical. Neither the article nor the study it is based on are doomerism. If you’d read it you would have found the following paragraph:

    Their results showed that we’re not necessarily headed for certain climate doom. We might follow quite a regular and predictable trajectory, the endpoint of which is a climate stabilization at a higher average temperature point than what we have now.

    Basically they are saying “this new method (which is a very macroscale perspective) does not predict a stabilization at preindustrial climate given the amount of change the system already has experienced. Also if we really want to we can probably kick earth into a runaway greenhouse system”.

    They do not claim that we are already at that point nor that we will inevitably cross it. Only that it is possible for us to do it.