Ergo he exploited the poophole loophole, thus our brother in Christ was (is?) an ass man.

The court found him guilty, and then in a super sketchy, never before seen, closed door jury free appeal, a federal judge overturned it. Regardless, throughout Francis maintained support for Pell, including the period between his conviction and his incredibly sketchy appeal. There’s no lense where I can accept anybody as moral, Catholic or otherwise, when they have publically supported a convicted abuser of children.

This is also only a a single example, there have been numerous cases of the vatican, under Francis, offering insultingly low settlements to silence victims based on their inability to afford to pursue what’s fair (the average is $268,000). There’s a clear pattern of the vatican, including during Francis’ leadership, of shirking the victims of their organization. This suggests is what little progress they actually do (very publically) achieve is more about marketing than justice.

There are lots of ways the Pope behaves that make it seem like anything he’s doing to address child rape by clergy is theatre.

Pope Francis stood by George Pell and even let him have his funeral at the vatican. Standing by someone who’s been credibly accused of sexual assault of a child (and has definitely facilitated it by others) isn’t, in my view, something that can be done in parallel with an honest and good faith attempt at fixing the problem. It looks even more shady if you look at the conditions of Pella conviction being overturned (definitely special treatment because of his connections).

Children should be raped, but not killed

-Pope Francis (probably)

You mean that what appeared to be a meticulously planned and masterfully executed assassination, such that there was little to no usable camera footage wasn’t likely to be undone the perp wandering around with a written confession and the murder weapon days later?

I’m shocked there haven’t been more conspiracy theories on this.

I’m not sure I could be happy if I hadn’t made the choices I made, poverty felt like a prison so I did what was necessary to set myself up. I played the hand I was dealt and I think I played it reasonably well, but if I was born in easier times I’d have definitely made different choices.

I don’t the insinuation that “millennials had the opportunity to achieve wealth like their parents” these type of articles make, it feels dismissive of the sacrificed youth and relationships.

This is" true" for a (tiny) subset of the Australian population. I know that I straight up sacrificed my 20s to an engineering degree and fifo job and now, at 35 I have comparable material wealth to my dad when he was my age (who was a sheet metal worker in a major city). But even still, the tiny population who did what I did will never get another run at what should’ve been the best 15 years of their life.

I’m unconvinced that my decision was better than the ones my (much poorer) friends who now have families made…

Why blur the profile picture but show the selfie? Isn’t that a bit pointless?

No need to be a dumb cunt mate. -18C to 38C is the closest you’d get to the 0-100F range I mentioned earlier. It’s a stupid-ass interval. Just as stupid as 5280 feet in a mile

Yeah, and people in metric round the exact same as they do in f. You think the hot parts of the US don’t hit 122 or something equally arbitrary? When talking range, anyone who isn’t unhinged approximates to the nearest whole number.

Why use negatives at all? There’s a perfectly good temperature scale that largely doesn’t need negatives, is conceptually similar to the base 10 construction of other SI units, and is more precise than Celsius.

Why the fuck not? It makes literally no difference. Some people like freezing to be at a focal point of a scale, and some based on this thread have some bizarre fear of negatives. Either preference is equally arbitrary and neither is objectively right.

Negative C is absolutely common what the fuck are you talking about. Canada, Russia, the US, some deserts. Several countries experience regular highs in the 0Cs during winter months and therefore negative lows. Someone should get out more.

A few degrees is common. Most populous county in the world is India, how common do you think it is there? Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico etc etc etc. it’s a minority of countries that experience anything substantially below zero c. You know, I’ve been to literal mt Everest base camp, lived in western pa and been to the winter Olympics in South Korea and still have never seen -20C. Does it exist? Obviously, but for day to day ease of use for like 80% of the worlds population it’s irrelevant.

Why do yanks insist picking such idiotic numbers when they speak in metric, seriously wtf is -18 to 38? If those were realistic temperatures, surely you realize it would be -20 to 40, no?

-20, or any negative c, is rare to most ff the worlds population so your comment is dumb on two fronts.

Mate I have to reply to that, because it’s such an insane claim - the US, the only country that doesn’t use °C, has this huge reliance on a monstrously complex credit system (obviously the entire concept of credit is reliant on the concept of debt and negatives). It’s flat out insane to suggest that the same people who live and function with such a credit system conceptually struggle with the fundamentals negative numbers. It’s a mind boggling claim.

Anyway, have a good one.

as if that logic can’t be applied to every unit system on earth.

Mate that’s my whole point. I grew up Celsius in Australia and use Farenheit day to day now. They are literally interchangable once you learn. It takes a month or two to get used of using them and beyond that, the literal only difference in difficulty of use is that it takes about ten seconds longer to calculate a green tea brew in f, which has no bearing on the weather anyway. All of the arguments above are garbage, as they are garbage when the exact same, inverted arguments are made by metric proponents.

What doesn’t make sense about it? You can tell another person it’s in the 30s outside, and you have efficiently communicated more information than is possible when using Celsius. You’d have to say it’s between 4 and negative 1, which is just lame. And this remains true across every temperature, because of a variety of factors which I explained above.

It doesn’t tell you anything that Celsius can’t with a 5 degree swing. This the absolute peak of arbitrary, both 5s and 10s are easy scales to work with. Your example of between 4 and negative one is deranged. I’m in houston right, it’s 90°f - if I want to comunnicate that to my yankee girlfriend I’d say “babe it’s 90° outside, might get up to one hundred” and so far, you’re right this is easy to articulate. If I want to communicate that same information to my mum, I’d say “hey it’s 30° outside, might get up to 35°”. Both cases convey information with the same accuracy, both cases I haven’t mentioned humidity, which for actual temperature feel has a way higher influence then 5 degrees, the extra information I’d gain by strictly converting 31-37.8°C is junk data, the farenheit measure is approximated to begin with and because of a humidity swing carries a huge variability in actual “feel” anyway. I tried to explain this above and clearly failed, as your response doesn’t touch on this at all and just insists that people who think in metric don’t default to easy to work with numbers.

In every climate which you mentioned above, it’s easier to communicate how hot or cold it is outside using Fahrenheit. This is because all of the numbers being used are non-negative integers (aka natural numbers). Even the triple digit ones are one-ten or one-twenty.

The only place with negative integers was Pittsburg, so that point doesn’t make sense for the rest and even if it was, your argument is insane. Saying negative 5 is no harder than saying 25, plus having negatives where snow and ice come into play makes it obvious when to be careful outside. I mean your argument here just makes no sense, if there is some added complexity to saying “negative” then it is surely comparable to having to remember a random number of 32. Literal kindergardeners understand negative numbers. Neither this or remembering the 32 number add any meaningful complexity and certainly have 0 impact on anyone’s actual use of either scale.

You certainly didn’t win any arguments with those claims.

0-100f is not anywhere close to the scale people see in the weather anywhere most people live. Taking where I’ve ever lived as an example:

• Melbourne ~ 30-120 f vs 0-45c,
• Gladstone QLD ~40-120f vs 5-45c,
• Pilbara ~65-130f vs 15c-50c,
• Dubai ~55-120f vs 20c-45c,
• Houston TX ~ 30-120f vs 0-45c,
• Pittsburg PA ~10-90 vs -15-30c.

The most iimportant number with respect to the weather is freezing, it’s handy knowing if you’re dealing with ice. The standard range for where people live is not -40 degrees, something like 2/3 of the world live between the tropics and will never see freezing or below. The -40 number makes sense if you live in Alaska or Siberia and maybe even somewhere like Minnesota, but certainly not to someone in India or Indonesia…

Neither scale is relative to cooking (which isequally arbitrary for both), though metric is easier for things like brewing 80°C tea since you need 4/5th a cup boiling water and 1/5 a cup and no thermometer.

The “feel” of the weather is hugely impacted by humidity which is why every forecast has a “feels like” measure and why 90°f in Dubai is lovely but 90°f in Houston is miserable. The increments of 10f doesn’t make sense at all, though seems to be a common perception among people who prefer fahrenheit

The comment about farenheit being more granular would be true in an alternative universe where decimals don’t exist, but not in this one.

Americans literally like farenheit more because it’s familiar, any other rationalisation is nonsense. Both measures make perfect sense after you’ve taken the time to learn them and use them daily (I know this firsthand).