It’s not 3 times lower than that. It’s about 1 in a million, not 1 in 400. That’s 3 orders of magnitude less than the post claims. This is so hilariously wrong it undermines the credibility of the post.
Which is sad because all these points are really important things to draw attention to.
You’re focusing on the wrong part of the post. The point of the post is that despite all of these horrible (and for a lack of a better word, fixable) things going on in the world right now, people are wrongly focusing on trans people as a problem.
Also, there is such a thing as hyperbole, and it doesn’t mean that the point is invalid; instead it’s used to emphasize the point.
Not everything needs to meet scientific rigor. If that were the case, you would’ve provided me with at least three scientific studies demonstrating your side of the argument. But you didn’t, because it’s wholly unnecessary for a normal conversation.
If that’s the hill you want to die on, that’s your prerogative, and I won’t fault you for it. I do disagree with you, but I also appreciate your time discussing this with me and challenging my assertions.
I don’t think it was trying to be factual, but more trying to make a point.
It’s not 3 times lower than that. It’s about 1 in a million, not 1 in 400. That’s 3 orders of magnitude less than the post claims. This is so hilariously wrong it undermines the credibility of the post.
Which is sad because all these points are really important things to draw attention to.
Over what time frame? Did you include gun facilitated suicides? And in general getting shot, doesn’t mean getting killed.
Yes, I included suicides and non-fatal injuries, and I used the same “daily” timeframe as the original post.
You’re focusing on the wrong part of the post. The point of the post is that despite all of these horrible (and for a lack of a better word, fixable) things going on in the world right now, people are wrongly focusing on trans people as a problem.
Also, there is such a thing as hyperbole, and it doesn’t mean that the point is invalid; instead it’s used to emphasize the point.
If someone can’t make an argument factually, they should not present it as if it’s actual science. This is not hyperbole, it’s lying.
Posts like this damage the message because it gives the right ammunition to say that we are liars.
Much better to be scientifically rigorous.
Not everything needs to meet scientific rigor. If that were the case, you would’ve provided me with at least three scientific studies demonstrating your side of the argument. But you didn’t, because it’s wholly unnecessary for a normal conversation.
No, not everything needs scientific rigor, but it’s a false equivalence to suggest we should tolerate blatant misinformation.
If that’s the hill you want to die on, that’s your prerogative, and I won’t fault you for it. I do disagree with you, but I also appreciate your time discussing this with me and challenging my assertions.
Indeed, it’s always nice having reasonable discussions online!
We can at least agree on that. 🙌 😊
“Being blatantly wrong is fine, as long as you have good intentions.”
The average person in the USA only makes $140 per year. Well, it’s not really that bad, but it draws attention to wage inequity in the USA.
Unfortunately since it’s relying on numbers to make it’s point it would hit a lot harder if it was factual…
The point being that math is hard, and doesn’t care about feelings?