Because rockets and mortars aren't capable of clustering their explosions like you can with bombs and missiles?
Peaty
joined 1 year ago
Oh, so you're one of those. You don't know anything about modern economics or philosophy if you think the two are even remotely similar.
Seriously a question in modern economics would be "did the tax policy instituted by placeistan in 2008 positively or negatively impact school enrollment?" While a question in philosophy would be "is the tax policy instituted by Placeistan an ethical or nonethical policy?" Those aren't the same and the only reason why you would think the subjects are similar is if you know nothing about either one.
Im willing to be you know little about what constitutes a science based on the ignorance you have displayed so far.
Prestidigitation is not part of science and it is weird that you think the inability to predict everything is somehow unique to social sciences.
Carpet bombing is indiscriminately bombing a specific concentrated area oftentimes with unguided ordinance. That is neigh impossible to achieve with rockets. You could do that with missile systems but Palestine also doesn't have many of those.
The fact is only Israel is capable of carpet bombing in this conflict.
No you can't carpet bomb with rockets. That's not how rockets work.
Israel is the only party engaging in this specific war crime in this conflict.
Carpet bombing requires an air force. Israel has one and Palestine does not.
You think kids in private schools have loving homes?
The wine is good for you did not ignore the benefits of wealth.
It first ignored the fact that the initial study was of Japanese doctors and maybe having a medical education made you more likely to adopt healthier practices.
The next study ignored wealth.
The next study ignored education and wealth.
It proceeds to be bad study after bad study until 20 or so years after the first study when someone thought "what if the non-drinking crowd included people who were alcoholics and people who had to stop drinking because of health problems?" Turns out when you only focus on non-drinkers who never regularly drank and compared them with wine drinkers the wine drinking crowd has a lot more health issues.
I work in the wine business and I laugh every time I see a new study to see what they ignored to conclude wine was a health food
I have a study with a sample size of one that concludes that people shouldn't drink milk tea because of the intense gas pain that follows. You should see my p value. It's glorious.
Im not saying discount all their theory though. Neoclassical economics took the stuff that works from guys like Marx and Smith and dropped the stuff that was incorrect.
Suggesting we should bring more of Marx back in would mean adopting more of the stuff we know is invalid or incorrect in Marx's case.
Your post makes it seem like you think sociology and economics aren't sciences. Economics in Marx's time was certainly closer to philosophy but that hasn't been the case since the 1960s.
The problem the Marxists who are not formally educated in philosophy or science face is that they don't realize economics in the modern age isn't concerned with the kinds of thinking Marx engaged in because it isn't based on empiricism.
Marx was wrong about a bunch if stuff most importantly is he was 100% incorrect about the labor theory of value. Why should economics incorporate ideas that are without question not correct?
No it isn't semantics. You can't carpet bomb with rockets just like you cannot with RPGs. It's like you can't shovel things with a hammer as it isn't the tool for that job.