You’re missing the point here entirely.

Is Fahrenheit intuitive? No, proven by the fact that it can’t be used without prior understanding, as shown in my example.

The rest is sealioning.

ok, so you genuinely think, that people who use celsius cannot experience the sensation of “hot” and “cold” without a number referencing the temperature directly in front of them? Specifically that of the celsius system?

No and that’s not what I claimed. What I’m saying is that if you tell someone accustomed to Celcius “it’s 42F° outside, oh by the way fahrenheit goes from 0=really cold to 100=really hot”, they have no idea about the actual weather. The points of 0 and 100 Fahrenheit are way to arbitrary to be understood without having experienced them.

“Really cold” and “really hot” are completely subjective. They depend on the climate you’re used to and come down to personal preference even. Your “really cold” might be my “pleasantly chilly”. And even if I knew what 0F° and 100F° were in C° I’d have no idea how that relates to the (probably much more common) values between them. Percentages of subjective temperature tell me nothing. 20F° would basically have to be 20% warmer than “really cold”, right? Intuitively I would have guessed somewhere around 7°C (nice autumn morning), turns out 20F° is still way below the freezing point. The idea of 0F° and 100F° does not, in fact, help me interpret these values “with no prior understanding”.

It’s simply not an intuitive frame of reference - except if you have at one point learned what the numbers mean. And at this point it’s exactly as useful als Celcius.

and this is generally the case. I’m sure if you were to sample the opinion of people randomly, this is roughly what you would get back.

Only if you asked people accustomed to Fahrenheit. People who aren’t used to it cannot use it without prior understanding at all. To think otherwise just proves your confirmation bias again.

I may have said that it was an intuitive feature of fahrenheit, and it is, and so is the 0-100 scale of water freezing/boiling in celsius, but that’s irrelevant aside from the fact that it’s intuitive

Then what should “intuitive” even mean if not “intuitive to use”? Because it certainly isn’t that.

Originally you replied to me, replying to someone else claiming fahrenheit was “a 0-100 scale of how hot it is outside” and required “no prior understanding to use it as such”. This was never about Celsius being intuitive or not, it was about Fahrenheit. If you didn’t disagree with me there, your replies to me were pointless. Since then you seem to be arguing against a straw man.

I never claimed Celcius to be intuitive, in fact I claimed the opposite - neither scale is intuitive. Therefore Fahrenheit and Celcius are equally useful in measuring the weather and the idea of Fahrenheit being especially suitable is incorrect, based on the confirmation bias of those who are already used to it. That’s the only argument I’m making here.

i mean, fundamentally that’s what that statement would have to mean, unless you’re referring to a rock being more intuitive or something.

ultimately yeah, neither system is more intuitive than the other.

¯_(ツ)_/¯

“Fahrenheit isn’t more intuitive” doesn’t not mean “Celcius is more intuitive”. You’re mistaken if you think that’s what’s being argued here.

Neither one is intuitive. Intuition isn’t a useful metric here anyway. After all we could ask: Which one is more intuitive - kilometers or miles? Kilograms or pounds? Do we have to change how me measure time (base 12) to a base 10 as well, would that be more intuitive?

Answer is no. All those units have to be learned and filled with experience anyway. Nobody can interpret temperature scales intuitively, neither Fahrenheit nor Celsius.

Fahrenheit simply has no advantage over Celcius. And it doesn’t have to. Some people are used to it, so keep using it by all means. Don’t argue that it’s superior and we’re all good.

arguing that celsius is “more intuitive”

Nobody is arguing that though.

Yeah, which is why most people here in favor of Celcius argue that Fahrenheit isn’t, in fact, more intuitive and therefore more suited to describe the weather. Both are arbitrary, both can be learned and used very easily, the only difference is what you’re used to.

If your example cannot be proven on any existing person I’d argue it’s hardly relevant to our reality.

°F most definitely isn’t intuitive enough for people who aren’t accustomed to it to use. If it is more intuitive at all, it’s not to any meaningful degree.

But the intelligent world will keep using both.

Lol

If you somehow knew nothing about each temperature unit, but you did know base 10, I feel like Fahrenheit would be more intuitive.

Would it though? Because it’s not like people who didn’t grew up with Fahrenheit can just intuitively use and interpret it. Maybe base ten is “more intuitive”, but I’d argue not to any meaningful degree. Both scales have to be explained, experienced, and tied to personal reference points.

If that was true outsiders should be able to use Fahrenheit without much explanation. I’ve never got a clue what the °F values mean, I always have to use a converter. It’s really not as intuitive as people who grew up with it seem to believe.

It’s even worse for Germany - cornflowers are used as Nazi symbolism.

Swiss that hasn’t aged

But “Swiss cheese” isn’t a thing in itself either. The term is used solely in the US.

Switzerland has all kinds of very different kinds of cheese. Aged and young ones.

The difference is that you as the owner are in that case not actively financing an industry that’s slaughtering other animals in order to feed your pet.

That a cat while roaming outside will inevitably kill other animals is not unethical on the cats part. It’s debatable if it’s unethical on the owners part, which is why many people nowadays discuss only keeping cats as indoor pets anyway. It is however a completely separate issue to vegan cat food.

Maybe you think vegans ask for vegan pet food because they want their cat to “be vegan”? Because if so, that’s a misunderstanding. Vegan ethics are always about our own consumption decisions and behavior. Never about those of animals. (Which is why “dO yOu JuDgE LiOnS fOr KiLliNg ZeBrAs As WeLl?” is never a good argument. We don’t.) As caretakers for our pets some of their decisions naturally fall to us. You’re always deciding for them which brand of pet food your cat will get. For example I avoid nestle owned brands, wether my cat supports that decision or not. If he was an outside pet I’m sure he would at least try to murder something occasionally. That has nothing to do with my responsibility to honor the ramifications of my own ethical considerations though. My cat is too dumb for that - literally. It doesn’t release me from the responsibility.

(He gets meat btw, he has chronic digestive problems and needs special food anyway - before anyone here accuses me of murder and torture or something.)

Politely disagree. Saying something (even generalizing, which always tends to be wrong somewhere) about homophobic people doesn’t say anything about non homophobic people. You don’t have to identify with every gay person on earth, and you shouldn’t. There are gay people who just so happen to be assholes, too. Their existence doesn’t say anything about you at all.

It is victim blaming

I don’t think so personally. They are still the oppressor in the situation. “Being secretly gay” is an attempt to explain, not to shift blame to you.

we are not the reason homophobia exists or that people become extremely homophobic

I think it’s useful to seperate a causal explanation and the idea of responsibility. The fact that people are individuals and not unanimous blobs is - purely causally speaking - the reason why animosities based on our differences exists. Does that mean that the victims of hate are to blame? Definitely not. It’s always, always the responsibility of the one who commits discrimination.

It is not oppressed people that cause their own oppression

I agree, but more precisely it is homophobic people, gay or not, who cause the oppression of non homophobic gay people. I think this is true independently if the stereotype is true.

we don’t in some way “deserve” it.

Absolutely agree. Nobody deserves that.

If they do not see themselves as gay, they are not.

The idea is that they kinda see themselves as gay, or are afraid they might be, or subconsciously know they are; and because of extreme toxic masculinity and sexism they get hateful and aggressive.

There surely are non gay homophobic people as well though. After all, some hetero people happen to be assholes as well.

Athletic people tend to say that, but I really doubt it’s true for everyone. I have never enjoyed sport - being out of shape it sucked more, but while maintaining a sensible training regime I really dislike it as well. For me it’s about as enjoyable as doing housework. I do that too, but not for fun.

The only thing that has helped me is to accept that evolution is a bitch and biology is unfair; I will probably never enjoy working out, but I can do it anyway and find a form of exercise that is kinda okay and allows me to listen to good music while I do it.

For some people, “it will be fun one day” just sets a really unrealistic expectation.

Ha, fair enough. But if you want to save calories, grabbing the non alcoholic alternative is actually a decent choice. (And if you want to get drunk on the least calories possible, pure gin/vodka/schnaps/white rum are your best options. Beer is reeeally energy dense.)

Alcohol has a lot of calories, so that would have to be non alcoholic as well.

Youth corrections staff is still a whole other story than doctors though. A physical examination is probably one of the most vulnerable positions one could be in. These cameras would record people getting naked, multiple orifices being examined, and patients talking about symptoms or things they are unsure and often ashamed about.

The cost would be enormous. I imagine many people would be even more reluctant to go to the doctor than they are now.

And the benefit, in my opinion, would be very slim. Medical malpractice is far more subtle than the examples from the article. As patients we’re rarely worried that our doctor will physically assault us, we’re worried about errors in judgement, delays in care, and prejudices based on gender, ethnicity, age, sexuality, and so on. And those aren’t directly observable most of the time. Even if you get the moment on camera where your doctor decides to trivialize your symptoms you mostly wouldn’t be able to prove it happened for discriminatory reasons.