"Please read this sentence: I am NOT defending the massive Israeli attack on Gaza, which is undeniable. This is more about critical thinking in the consumption of news sources, versus simply repeating the most outrageous accusations one can find."
For the record, I find disclaimers like this, which you use quite frequently, to be unnecess…
"Please read this sentence: I am NOT defending the massive Israeli attack on Gaza, which is undeniable. This is more about critical thinking in the consumption of news sources, versus simply repeating the most outrageous accusations one can find."
For the record, I find disclaimers like this, which you use quite frequently, to be unnecessary and condescending. If you write a sentence, you don't then need to instruct people to read it.
If, in their reply, you feel that they've made an unfair assumption about your motives, it's obviously appropriate to point that out. But I think it's sensible to give people the benefit of the doubt that they'll at least read what you've written and aren't going to react like irrational children.
This is just my feeling on it, of course. Others might feel differently. But thought I'd offer the feedback, as stuff like that just makes it exponentially more likely I won't bother replying.
Anyway, that said, I appreciate this comment. We completely agree that accurate, clearly expressed information is important. And while I did check the figures for myself, I didn't go into the same detail you did regarding tonnage vs direct explosive force. So, looks like the correct figure is around one Hiroshima's worth, no? Google is telling me that the explosive yield of a bomb is typically around 30-40% of the weight. 65,000 x 0.3 = 19,500. Little Boy, according to Wikipedia, was 15,000.
I don't have any great problem using information from Hamas or Gaza as long as I do some verification myself. Hamas' figures have proven to be accurate over the many years of this conflict, there's no good reason to believe they aren't here. I think a lot of people constantly trying to cast doubt on the "Hamas figures" are doing so because the reality of what Israel is doing is tough fro them to swallow. And while Hiroshima comparison are undeniably emotive, I think it's also quite difficult for the people to get a sense of what 65,000 tons of bombs means. Is that a lot? It sounds like a lot. But there's no context.
Anyway, I'd repeated the "3 Hiroshimas" in an article, which I've now corrected (I'll just stick with tonnage rather than "Hiroshima units" until I find a better way to convey the scale), so again, really appreciate the correction.
"Please read this sentence: I am NOT defending the massive Israeli attack on Gaza, which is undeniable. This is more about critical thinking in the consumption of news sources, versus simply repeating the most outrageous accusations one can find."
For the record, I find disclaimers like this, which you use quite frequently, to be unnecessary and condescending. If you write a sentence, you don't then need to instruct people to read it.
If, in their reply, you feel that they've made an unfair assumption about your motives, it's obviously appropriate to point that out. But I think it's sensible to give people the benefit of the doubt that they'll at least read what you've written and aren't going to react like irrational children.
This is just my feeling on it, of course. Others might feel differently. But thought I'd offer the feedback, as stuff like that just makes it exponentially more likely I won't bother replying.
Anyway, that said, I appreciate this comment. We completely agree that accurate, clearly expressed information is important. And while I did check the figures for myself, I didn't go into the same detail you did regarding tonnage vs direct explosive force. So, looks like the correct figure is around one Hiroshima's worth, no? Google is telling me that the explosive yield of a bomb is typically around 30-40% of the weight. 65,000 x 0.3 = 19,500. Little Boy, according to Wikipedia, was 15,000.
I don't have any great problem using information from Hamas or Gaza as long as I do some verification myself. Hamas' figures have proven to be accurate over the many years of this conflict, there's no good reason to believe they aren't here. I think a lot of people constantly trying to cast doubt on the "Hamas figures" are doing so because the reality of what Israel is doing is tough fro them to swallow. And while Hiroshima comparison are undeniably emotive, I think it's also quite difficult for the people to get a sense of what 65,000 tons of bombs means. Is that a lot? It sounds like a lot. But there's no context.
Anyway, I'd repeated the "3 Hiroshimas" in an article, which I've now corrected (I'll just stick with tonnage rather than "Hiroshima units" until I find a better way to convey the scale), so again, really appreciate the correction.