That’s always been his MO. He literally used to be a eugenicist (likely still is privately) until the backlash from that started threatening his career, and all of a sudden he flip flopped and started pretending that eugenics doesn’t even exist let alone him being a vocal part of it.
It should also be noted that huge parts of the Church also rejected William Thomson’s age calculations for the Earth. Even though he massively underestimated its age, the Church asserted that the Earth was even younger.
Also pets. Gifting someone a pet does neither the recipient nor the animals any favours unless you know for certain that they both want a pet (and that it’s an actual informed want with all the required forethought and self assessment for both the advantages and disadvantages of having a pet, and not just “a puppy running around my house would be so cute!”) and have the means to support a pet.
Especially if the recipient is a kid and/or you’re giving them a fish or rodent or some other small cheap animal that is considered low maintainance or disposable. News flash, no pet is low maintainance or disposable and you might as well just step on the animal instead to spare them the suffering because a dumb little kid will kill them slowly and horribly. I see this happen all the time and it pisses me off so much. Pets aren’t toys, they shouldn’t be given to children who can’t even take care of themselves.
Actually, please just stop giving people animals without their prior input in general. If you truly want to gift someone a pet, you should be involving them in the acquisition process, taking them to the shelter to choose a pet for example, because the personality of the individual animal and whether it’s suited to the personality of the people that will be caring for them is absolutely critical. If you can’t do that but still want to support their having a pet, then see if a shelter will sell a prepaid adoption certificate, that way they can still choose to not go through with it, or just buy them pet supplies if you know for sure that they plan on getting a pet. There are even species agnostic gifts if you don’t know what kind of pet they plan on getting.
Even completely ignoring all the history of the region and how the current State of Israel came to be and only focusing on the present in a vacuum, there is still is a glaring contradiction that I have never heard any sort of coherent answer from people who support Israel’s actions: If you truly believe that simply having a negative opinion of Israel’s actions against Palestinians is antisemitic (or simply being a Palestinian that’s still alive is antisemitic according to too many people), then surely it also holds that both Israel’s outright killing of Palestinians and their ongoing apartheid policies preventing Palestinians from existing in the same areas as Israelis is anti-Arab right? Is being anti-Arabic somehow preferable to being antisemitic? Are Arabs not human beings and do they not deserve the same rights and protection as Jews or literally any other human? What makes it okay for Israel to be anti-Arab then?
One of the half baked arguments I have heard is that Israel is “justified” in being anti-Arabic because “it’s in self defense against Palestinians that want to kill them,” but if you make that assertion, then what makes the other side different? Israel is certainly not just attacking the Hamas and there have been more Palestinian civilian victims than Israeli civilian victims so wouldn’t you saying that also automatically imply the inverse and equally justify the Hamas’ actions against Israel? You can’t attack someone while claiming self defense and then cry foul when they defend themselves against you.
“Yes but what did you do to de-escalate the situation?”
Reading this and all these other comments I wonder if at least part of it is just petty bullshit by the school administration, like “How dare the two of you create more work for us at our jobs for which we have licenses! You both need to be punished for that!”
It’s also not unheard of either. IIRC Japan had speed governors on their cars for a time, which limited them to their national highway speed of 100 km/h (which is still very fast to be fair).
I’ve legit heard people say things along the lines of “The largest SUV or trucks are safer for Americans because it can hold up better in a collision with deer which we have a lot of.” (Because apparently large wildlife aren’t common anywhere at all in the rest of the world.)
They have a point though, and they’ll hold up especially well against a specific, extremely common subspecies of deer called “humans.”