First off, if anyone wants to address my points directly its more likely I've got to step up to you all. I BARELY know my own government and am playing catch up all the time on the science in this thread. Basically, despite being in my late 40's, I'm like the annoying kid brother trying to hang out with the older ones.
Second, the only reason I keep flogging the GND is because I don't know what it'll cost. I know some estimates of some of the stuff proposed, but the one article I was able to find clearly states throughout that the actual numbers are speculation.
Lastly, I AM naïve. I say that because I still believe that my own federal government CAN implement and maintain a very expensive 20 year plan to work towards green initiatives. I do NOT trust that corporations will do the same, even when incentivized. Instead, I cynically believe that big companies can be counted on adopting whatever energy strategy is the cheapest for the most potential impact.
So, if solar is becoming more viable, I want my government to subsidize it. Doing so should help it become even more lucrative, which should, in theory, get more big corporations to adopt it. That might be a bit simplistic, childish and yes, naïve, but that's one road I'm seeing towards a better future.
If my government decides to do that, I'll expect my taxes to be adjusted based on that initiative and then I'll pay them. Just as I have when oil has fluctuated. Just as I have when money disappeared into healthcare initiatives. Just as I have whenever my country's government has pushed to make meaningful changes in other directions.
But yeah QB, change on the scale of fixing crumbling infrastructure or regulations and funding for mass transit and so on... that kind of big change takes time. And it also takes money. Historically though, from NASA to the highway system to the New Deal to public education it also partially offsets those costs with jobs along the way.
And public education is not a failure, or at least, it wasn't ALWAYS as bad as it is now in the US. The US government IS capable of great things, or at least it has been capable of them.
The problem is (and again, this is my cynicism again), it's not a government of the people, by the people anymore Blasterstar Qualactica. It's a government where corporations are people, at least as far as speech is concerned. Its a government that is less interested in doing the work to do the hard things that approximately 70% of the us voting populace wants (by some polls) and more interested in not cheesing off current donors.
THIS is why I say it's back on us, the voters, to actually do the work, regardless of whether we put our money into higher taxes, or charities, or corporate profits. WE have to MAKE the people taking our money do the stuff WE say they should do with our money. And I personally say that we should find a way to implement cleaner energy types while reducing emissions of fossil fuels.
Again, I SUCK at the science so I'm looking to all of you smarter than me to help me understand HOW we do those things.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: First off, if anyone wants to address my points directly its more likely I've got to step up to you all. I BARELY know my own government and am playing catch up all the time on the science in this thread. Basically, despite being in my late 40's, I'm like the annoying kid brother trying to hang out with the older ones.
Second, the only reason I keep flogging the GND is because I don't know what it'll cost. I know some estimates of some of the stuff proposed, but the one article I was able to find clearly states throughout that the actual numbers are speculation.
Two things.
1) The government is not composed of the smartest people. I really shouldn't need to lay down any arguments in support of that proposition.
2) Yes sirah, we don't have "hard numbers" for the various flavors of GND. But we know it's not billions. Or even a few trillion. The highest I've seen is 93 trillion. That's why my arguments have been assuming a GND of $10 trillion or less.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Lastly, I AM naïve. I say that because I still believe that my own federal government CAN implement and maintain a very expensive 20 year plan to work towards green initiatives. I do NOT trust that corporations will do the same, even when incentivized. Instead, I cynically believe that big companies can be counted on adopting whatever energy strategy is the cheapest for the most potential impact.
So, if solar is becoming more viable, I want my government to subsidize it. Doing so should help it become even more lucrative, which should, in theory, get more big corporations to adopt it. That might be a bit simplistic, childish and yes, naïve, but that's one road I'm seeing towards a better future.
If my government decides to do that, I'll expect my taxes to be adjusted based on that initiative and then I'll pay them. Just as I have when oil has fluctuated. Just as I have when money disappeared into healthcare initiatives. Just as I have whenever my country's government has pushed to make meaningful changes in other directions.
But yeah QB, change on the scale of fixing crumbling infrastructure or regulations and funding for mass transit and so on... that kind of big change takes time. And it also takes money. Historically though, from NASA to the highway system to the New Deal to public education it also partially offsets those costs with jobs along the way.
And public education is not a failure, or at least, it wasn't ALWAYS as bad as it is now in the US. The US government IS capable of great things, or at least it has been capable of them.
The problem is (and again, this is my cynicism again), it's not a government of the people, by the people anymore Blasterstar Qualactica. It's a government where corporations are people, at least as far as speech is concerned. Its a government that is less interested in doing the work to do the hard things that approximately 70% of the us voting populace wants (by some polls) and more interested in not cheesing off current donors.
THIS is why I say it's back on us, the voters, to actually do the work, regardless of whether we put our money into higher taxes, or charities, or corporate profits. WE have to MAKE the people taking our money do the stuff WE say they should do with our money. And I personally say that we should find a way to implement cleaner energy types while reducing emissions of fossil fuels.
Again, I SUCK at the science so I'm looking to all of you smarter than me to help me understand HOW we do those things.
I only have two more points on this whole section.
1) The New Deal is broad concensus considered a ####### #### program by economists. If it wasn't for the Second World War the Great Depression would've lasted two decades longer than needed. It is the 'poster child' of how not to intervene by federal government.
2) I boldified how citizens of a free country ought to view their government. Heartily agree.
Quark Blast wrote: Devon Northwood wrote: You did not say "federal US government". You said "government". Do you really want to continue this helpless mirage? GND proposals all come in at many trillions of dollars!
Of course I'm talking federal government. That was not at all clear from your posts, given how you constantly jumping back and forth between arguments.
But ok, let the states do it. Texas, for example, has an annual budget of about 200 billion. If we take the number from the American Action Forum, the 93 trillion dollars flying around here, that is 186 billion a year for 10 years. A lot of money, but already less than the budget, and we are looking at the absolute, over-the-top, pie-in-the-sky-highest possible estimates for EVERYTHING. Including things that have nothing to do with climate change like a job guarantee that slots in at about 8-44 trillion dollars and universal healthcare for about 36 trillion dollars. Take those out and you are already at half the pricetag, at the very least. If we take out the high numbers, than we are looking at a wooping 13 trillion dollars, or 26 billion per state, which would not even make it in the top 3 things the Texas government spends money on (public education, medicaid, transportation). In fact, in that report the AAC says that it estimates the costs of eliminating carbon emissions from the transportation system at $1.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion, so about 3 billion per state per year. And that is before we come to the financial benefits of the bill and the fact that we are talking about VERY rough estimates for programs that have not been outlined AND the fact that the costs may be stretched over more than 10 years.
So what is your opinion on a GND-like-program on the state level? For example, take the "Low-carbon Electricity Grid" and "Net Zero Emissions Transportation System" for around 18 billion a year. Would that be a thing you support?
Quark Blast wrote: 1) The government is not composed of the smartest people. I really shouldn't need to lay down any arguments in support of that proposition. (..)1) The New Deal is broad concensus considered a ####### #### program by economists. If it wasn't for the Second World War the Great Depression would've lasted two decades longer than needed. It is the 'poster child' of how not to intervene by federal government. I would ask you for arguments why that is the case, but I think I will get more snark and goalpost-changing...
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: First off, if anyone wants to address my points directly its more likely I've got to step up to you all. I BARELY know my own government and am playing catch up all the time on the science in this thread. Basically, despite being in my late 40's, I'm like the annoying kid brother trying to hang out with the older ones. Don't talk yourself down. No one here is an expert scientist or politician (as far as I know). In fact, whatever the plan for fighting global warming is, it would need to be understood and approved by the people.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Second, the only reason I keep flogging the GND is because I don't know what it'll cost. I know some estimates of some of the stuff proposed, but the one article I was able to find clearly states throughout that the actual numbers are speculation. I think that is the problem with the GND. Right now, it is pretty much whatever you want it to be. The "AOC-proposal" includes things that don't have anything to do with climate, like healthcare.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Lastly, I AM naïve. I say that because I still believe that my own federal government CAN implement and maintain a very expensive 20 year plan to work towards green initiatives. I do NOT trust that corporations will do the same, even when incentivized. Instead, I cynically believe that big companies can be counted on adopting whatever energy strategy is the cheapest for the most potential impact. Well, I think that governments, both in the US and in general, can do a lot towards fighting climate change. The problem is that many people still see CC as a distant threat, secondary to the "real" threat. But there is awareness out there, and it is growing every day. The EU is working on a EU-GND, and China is producing more solar every day. Corporations are ready to invest, but they need incentives for the next years. So it is important that you lobby your government for green solutions with the covid-money that is pumped into the economy now.
What helps right now is that, as CBDunkerson has pointed out several times in this thread, solar and wind are already viable economic alternatives to gas and coal, so the "cheap energy" argument is really just propaganda by now. And that means that we can expect the good old corporations to come to our side out out of pure capitalistic greed.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Again, I SUCK at the science so I'm looking to all of you smarter than me to help me understand HOW we do those things. Talk to people about climate change. Inform yourself and others. Look at your politicians and vote for those that put the problem at the top of the agenda. If you can save carbon yourself, thats good, but individual action really only does so much.
Quark Blast wrote:
List of said programs:
NADA
I gave you a list above. Some American, some Canadian.
You even admitted that the American ones I gave were correct. You claimed that they were small but you DID admit that they were well managed and well thought out.
pauljathome wrote: Quark Blast wrote: List of said programs:
NADA
I gave you a list above. Some American, some Canadian.
You even admitted that the American ones I gave were correct. You claimed that they were small but you DID admit that they were well managed and well thought out. Two things:
1) You're quoting me replying to someone else! Mystery solved.
2) New challenge just for you. List GND-scale programs that were well thought out and managed*
* Government programs of blowing #### up don't count. Destroying is way too easy, but even there the government fails that one from time to time.
Quark Blast wrote: pauljathome wrote: Quark Blast wrote: List of said programs:
NADA
I gave you a list above. Some American, some Canadian.
You even admitted that the American ones I gave were correct. You claimed that they were small but you DID admit that they were well managed and well thought out. Two things:
1) You're quoting me replying to someone else! Mystery solved.
2) New challenge just for you. List GND-scale programs that were well thought out and managed*
* Government programs of blowing #### up don't count. Destroying is way too easy, but even there the government fails that one from time to time. Wait, all due respect QB, I think this is what folks are talking about when they use the phrase "moving the goalposts." A couple people have brought up answers to your original query, and your dispute of them have been largely opinion based. I get where the New Deal is argued as bad by economists, but just because you don't like US transportation fluctuations doesn't mean that the entire program is garbage.
More than that though, you clearly stated a challenge. People answered it, a couple times. Rather than EVER point out where they're right in some instances, you've instead just issued a NEW challenge.
Upthread, your original challenge was to name any government program that was long term and sensible I think. Several folks have responded, one of which was the German Healthcare System. This system dates back in part to the 1880's and seems to have pretty high ratings of low infant mortality, longevity and such. All in all, Germany's health care, which is both government AND private, seems to be pretty decent.
You just breezed right past that like a tourist on the Autobahn.
Now the GND will be big and expensive, but as several folks have pointed out it COULD be distilled down to smaller, bite-sized chunks. The environmental portions could be factored into the fed's budget, if extended over 20 years, even IF the estimates were 100% accurate.
Part of the GND is repairing infrastructure. While I fully admit I have not read the proposal in its entirety, as I understand it the GND suggests that while repairing said infrastructure we do so to reduce or eliminate emissions the best that can be managed. So wouldn't the GND then be working, at least the first 10 years WITH existing energy infrastructure?
I feel like we should leave the "goalposts" where they are and instead get back to the main points. What am I missing with my broad overview of the GND? What do you say to German healthcare?
Others repeatedly move the goalposts by misrepresentating my prior statements and so trundling off on tangential, and usually asinine, side treks.
Question from MH
What am I missing with my broad overview of the GND?
That the proposals are top down driven. The proposals are paternal and non-transparent.
Question from MH
What do you say to German healthcare?
One of my internships was with a German engineer (PhD at KIT) who has worked in the USA for 17 years now. He said, "After moving here and starting a family I realized that your country has the very best doctors and hospitals; and also the worst."
German healthcare, outside of Big Pharma, is about the same price as in the USA for about the same overall results.
Germans typically plan thoroughly and follow through on those plans.
Now, Germany has to spend about 10x that amount of money on various GND efforts while maintaining spending everywhere else. Then so do about 100 other governments. For the next thirty years. In some coordinated manner.
That ^ is a BIG ask and seems vanishingly likely to be done well at all.
Quark Blast wrote:
2) New challenge just for you. List GND-scale programs that were well thought out and managed*
Well, obviously I can't be certain since we have no idea what the GND will cost but the Canadian health system costs on the order of 11.6 % of our GDP. Germany is almost identical at 11.7%.
That seems fairly comparable with the GND if you ignore the bullshit $100 trillion estimate. About double your "10% of that (ie, 1 trillion a year).
So, I take it you'll now be intellectually honest and admit that you were wrong?
So in 2017 American HC spending ran about $2.9 trillion. Out of pocket, consumers spent $980 Billion. The article though cites how, through a convoluted means consumers end up eating the cost of the remainder though. That lost wages really hit me b/c I know for a fact from an HR person no longer w/my company that I don't have a competitive salary for my job based on the state I'm in - I make less to offset my benefits package.
So then I looked and saw that GDP in 2017 was $19.49 trillion. IF, and I only saw this one article so I'm capitalizing "IF" here, we consumers do in one way or another foot the final bill for HC, that means that we're on the hook for costs around 14.89% of GDP.
I kinda wish I was paying 11.6% - 11.7%, if I'm getting the same care as other places.
But HC aside, I appreciate you helping me understand the GND a bit better Qbert. I'd re-ask my question though: wouldn't the climate change initiatives suggested largely leave fossil fuels alone, other than to create means of offsetting the emissions? What I've read in overviews is that the GND is more about setting mandates and numbers for us to hit, and then spending TONS of money to help us get there without overtly disrupting the existing energy infrastructure we have in place.
If you cut out all the extraneous/harmful drugs American health care chuffs down our throats, I expect our number is close to 12% GDP.
The target thing coming from the feds tends to #### the poor states and the wealthy states tend to set stricter guides for themselves anyway.
One thing the feds do well that I've not mentioned is funding primary research through universities. They also do a lot of funding through national labs but that path wastes 50% of the funding money at least IMO.
Batteries are good for solar energy storage but still need to be more efficient and lower cost. So the feds could fund more primary research on that front and blow #### up (or threaten to) to keep the supply line of rare earth elements (and other necessary products, e.g. Cobalt) open.
Federal incentives should aim at improving efficiency all along the power supply chain. I prefer they be "carrots" only since "sticks" tend to #### the little guy (the best innovators usually) and let the big guys skate by through accounting loopholes and buying influence.
Quark Blast wrote: If you cut out all the extraneous/harmful drugs American health care chuffs down our throats, I expect our number is close to 12% GDP.
You think that if we remove only the bad pharmaceuticals... that will account for 5% of GDP?
You realize that ALL pharmaceuticals are only 1.7%..... right?
No wonder you live in such a fantasy land.
Quark Blast wrote: If you cut out all the extraneous/harmful drugs American health care chuffs down our throats, I expect our number is close to 12% GDP Where is this going?
Before we even talk about those numbers, can you please explain how this is in any way relevant to the debate?
Quark Blast wrote: One thing the feds do well that I've not mentioned is funding primary research through universities. So the US federal government can do things efficiently?
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: But HC aside, I appreciate you helping me understand the GND a bit better Qbert. I'd re-ask my question though: wouldn't the climate change initiatives suggested largely leave fossil fuels alone, other than to create means of offsetting the emissions? What I've read in overviews is that the GND is more about setting mandates and numbers for us to hit, and then spending TONS of money to help us get there without overtly disrupting the existing energy infrastructure we have in place. I think you missunderstood the GND there. Fossil fuel should NOT be left alone, it should be replaced under GND regulation. You cannot "offset" the emissions, because those emissions are what cases climate change. To hit those nunbers you need reduction. That's pretty much undisputed. Yes, the government isn't personally blowing up all the coal plants, but the green new deal would give companies incentives to doing that.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Sorry, can't save the world. I mean we all live here and its nice at all, but if we waste anything more than 10% on a government project I don't want there to be a planet anymore.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Sorry, can't save the world. I mean we all live here and its nice at all, but if we waste anything more than 10% on a government project I don't want there to be a planet anymore.
We need to save it. It's where I keep all my stuff.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Sorry, can't save the world. I mean we all live here and its nice at all, but if we waste anything more than 10% on a government project I don't want there to be a planet anymore. Name a government project costing several trillion dollars where there wasn't copious waste.
Ha! 10%.... we could only hope.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Devon Northwood wrote: Mark Hoover 330 wrote: But HC aside, I appreciate you helping me understand the GND a bit better Qbert. I'd re-ask my question though: wouldn't the climate change initiatives suggested largely leave fossil fuels alone, other than to create means of offsetting the emissions? What I've read in overviews is that the GND is more about setting mandates and numbers for us to hit, and then spending TONS of money to help us get there without overtly disrupting the existing energy infrastructure we have in place. I think you missunderstood the GND there. Fossil fuel should NOT be left alone, it should be replaced under GND regulation. You cannot "offset" the emissions, because those emissions are what cases climate change. To hit those nunbers you need reduction. That's pretty much undisputed. Yes, the government isn't personally blowing up all the coal plants, but the green new deal would give companies incentives to doing that. Yes, sorry; I should have been clearer. You said perfectly what I was getting at D to the N. The GND wouldn't outright eliminate certain fossil fuels or their locations; rather it would generate incentives to accelerate the moving away from those energy sources. I originally brought up that point b/c it seemed like some were saying that the GND would try to eliminate oil and natural gas.
From what I've been reading, even the miners agree that coal is on the way out. Regardless of campaign rhetoric though, regardless of which candidate wins, I don't suspect any short-term restrictions on oil speculation or fracking. Frankly, I wouldn't mind having more robust legislation in place that makes it more lucrative for industries to shift gears to renewables. Also, Blaster Quaster upthread suggested I get involved in reforestation with my personal resources, but as I understand it there is also a reforestation initiative suggested in the price tag for the GND.
Once again, it seems that a lot of the suggestions folks have had for my personal funds would be resolved with the passage of much of the GND and the associated tax increase that would necessitate. Considering I'm being starved for disposable income as it is, spending my money as a private consumer or giving my money to the government in the form of taxes would be equally frightening.
At least with the government I have a theoretical fantasy of threatening my congress with voting them out if they don't do what I want with said taxes...
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Once again, it seems that a lot of the suggestions folks have had for my personal funds would be resolved with the passage of much of the GND and the associated tax increase that would necessitate. Considering I'm being starved for disposable income as it is, spending my money as a private consumer or giving my money to the government in the form of taxes would be equally frightening. Well, the original idea for the GND was to combine social programs with ecological programs. That way the poor shouldn't suffer from the fight against CC. Other ideas are a tax offset, so that a carbon tax comes with tax rebates for the poor. I think canada will try this model, and I think that could be a way to implement a carbon tax.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Well, we already handed in our midterms on scientific realism vs scientific empiricism. I'll let you know what I get.
In case you're worried that he's a hack, feel free to watch a lecture from him.
Clearly though you could use a brush up on the concept of burden of proof in regards to when someone makes a positive claim.
Quark Blast wrote: Lots of words. Conclusion still wrong. If I'm "100% correct", as you say, that's good evidence that the federal government can't manage projects a fraction the size of GND proposals. Ipso facto the feds can't manage any proposed GND. Me, literally the post before wrote: For starters, no one was talking about the US healthcare system, because it is largely privatized. We were talking about canada and germany, and only in relation to the GND.
Irontruth wrote: Well, we already handed in our midterms on scientific realism vs scientific empiricism. I'll let you know what I get.
In case you're worried that he's a hack, feel free to watch a lecture from him.
Clearly though you could use a brush up on the concept of burden of proof in regards to when someone makes a positive claim.
Also Irontruth wrote: By not citing anything, you are proving me right. Right there dude!
Not anything = something.
Double negative will kick you right in the brains every time.
:D
@Mark Hoover
This AP Article outlines the problem quite well. And as you can read, unless you're exceptionally charismatic and/or wealthy, what you can do is plain to see. It ain't much to stop eating meat and dairy but it is within your control 100%. Note too that organic options also benefit the soil and, as the article indicates, is a significant carbon sink in itself given proper agricultural practices.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
Right there dude!
Not anything = something.
Double negative will kick you right in the brains every time.
Will it kick you in the brains as hard as saying that the word "any" is a negative modifier? Because that's what you just did.
Anything = something.
Not anything = nothing.
When a negative and a positive are used in the same clause they create a negative, not a double negative.
dirtypool wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
Right there dude!
Not anything = something.
Double negative will kick you right in the brains every time.
Will it kick you in the brains as hard as saying that the word "any" is a negative modifier? Because that's what you just did.
Anything = something.
Not anything = nothing.
When a negative and a positive are used in the same clause they create a negative, not a double negative.
Sure, misread the conversation however you like.
:D
Quark Blast wrote: @Mark Hoover
This AP Article outlines the problem quite well. And as you can read, unless you're exceptionally charismatic and/or wealthy, what you can do is plain to see. It ain't much to stop eating meat and dairy but it is within your control 100%. Note too that organic options also benefit the soil and, as the article indicates, is a significant carbon sink in itself given proper agricultural practices.
And adding in this for you to watch. 100 solutions to reverse global warming
Light on details of course but it sets things (problems+solutions) in their proper relationship.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote: dirtypool wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
Right there dude!
Not anything = something.
Double negative will kick you right in the brains every time.
Will it kick you in the brains as hard as saying that the word "any" is a negative modifier? Because that's what you just did.
Anything = something.
Not anything = nothing.
When a negative and a positive are used in the same clause they create a negative, not a double negative.
Sure, misread the conversation however you like.
:D That’s not a misread. You said that something was a double negative when it is not. You made this false claim in yet another attempt to prove your point by making yourself out to be smarter than the person you are attempting to “school” on the internet.
Not anything isn’t a double negative, nor is it the correct way to diagram the clause you in question.
Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: Well, we already handed in our midterms on scientific realism vs scientific empiricism. I'll let you know what I get.
In case you're worried that he's a hack, feel free to watch a lecture from him.
Clearly though you could use a brush up on the concept of burden of proof in regards to when someone makes a positive claim.
Also Irontruth wrote: By not citing anything, you are proving me right. Right there dude!
Not anything = something.
Double negative will kick you right in the brains every time.
:D "Not" is one negative. Which word is the other negative?
Quark Blast wrote: dirtypool wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
Right there dude!
Not anything = something.
Double negative will kick you right in the brains every time.
Will it kick you in the brains as hard as saying that the word "any" is a negative modifier? Because that's what you just did.
Anything = something.
Not anything = nothing.
When a negative and a positive are used in the same clause they create a negative, not a double negative.
Sure, misread the conversation however you like.
:D No, you misread it, and were both grasping at straws to do so. I'd rather not respond to an argument where you're clearly not arguing in good faith, but that tortured logic (the claim that "anything" is a NEGATIVE) was too egregious for me to ignore.
james014Aura wrote: Quark Blast wrote: dirtypool wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
Right there dude!
Not anything = something.
Double negative will kick you right in the brains every time.
Will it kick you in the brains as hard as saying that the word "any" is a negative modifier? Because that's what you just did.
Anything = something.
Not anything = nothing.
When a negative and a positive are used in the same clause they create a negative, not a double negative.
Sure, misread the conversation however you like.
:D No, you misread it, and were both grasping at straws to do so. I'd rather not respond to an argument where you're clearly not arguing in good faith, but that tortured logic (the claim that "anything" is a NEGATIVE) was too egregious for me to ignore. Hate to break it to you after your struggle not to get sucked into this but... you're wrong.
Irontruth wrote: My point right now is that you aren't citing anything. By not citing anything, you are proving me right. So me not citing anything makes it a lack of proof for the position I'm arguing, but at the same time these lack of citations is (positively) proving the metalhead's argument right?
WTF philosophy class do you learn that in? "Philosphy and Psilocybin"?
:D
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote: So me not citing anything makes it a lack of proof for the position I'm arguing, but at the same time these lack of citations is (positively) proving the metalhead's argument right?
WTF philosophy class do you learn that in? "Philosphy and Psilocybin"?
:D
When the guys whole point is that you spam out opinions as facts and don’t back them up with evidence, your refusal to provide evidence does indeed prove his point. This is not a matter of philosophy but of interpersonal communication. More to the point though, it is not a double negative. Double negatives are also not learned in philosophy class, they are learned in sixth grade English class.
dirtypool wrote: Quark Blast wrote: So me not citing anything makes it a lack of proof for the position I'm arguing, but at the same time these lack of citations is (positively) proving the metalhead's argument right?
WTF philosophy class do you learn that in? "Philosophy and Psilocybin"?
:D
When the guys whole point is that you spam out opinions as facts and don’t back them up with evidence, your refusal to provide evidence does indeed prove his point. This is not a matter of philosophy but of interpersonal communication.... His "whole point"? Oh, no afraid not. But it's a good thing you've got his back. He's lost without your support.
Evidence following:
Now add in the cost for all the associated doctor visits - before, during and after to make sure the prescribed poison is working.
Now add in all the associated lab costs.
Now add in all the associated consulting fees for reading/presenting the lab results.
Now add in the cost for all the not-so-occasional side effects and drug interactions that result in more doctor visits and the occasional hospitalization.
And I'm sure I'm overlooking something else....
Oh yeah, add in the cost of researching, making and marketing all the ###### ##### drugs in the first place (especially the ones that do way more harm than good - Oxytoncin anyone? Xanax anyone?).
How is that evidence you ask? Well, the sources the metalhead cited in support of the 1.7% figure made no provision for the expensive and intimately related costs of Big Pharma. The things I just listed above.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: My point right now is that you aren't citing anything. By not citing anything, you are proving me right. So me not citing anything makes it a lack of proof for the position I'm arguing, but at the same time these lack of citations is (positively) proving the metalhead's argument right?
WTF philosophy class do you learn that in? "Philosphy and Psilocybin"?
:D
Leaving aside the insult...
1) You do not provide citations, 2) so you have nothing to back up your claims, which 3) are extraordinary.
As per Russel's Teapot and all other valid forms of burden of proof, 4) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 5) You have not provided this.
More importantly, 6) You have REPEATEDLY failed to provide evidence. A single instance, even three, could just be you forgetting, if 7) they didn't call you out on not providing sources/evidence/citations. You have failed to provide sources and evidence to back your claims so often that it's no longer a correctible absence of evidence for your claims. It's become evidence of absence, because 8) Everyone else has provided things to back up their claims, and asked you for sources, which you have not provided.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Both sides have made said claims.
You have repeatedly been asked for sources (6 and 7), when you failed to back your claims (1, 5), meaning your words have nothing supporting them (2, 4). Just your own opinion, repeated again and again.
The others have, in both link and summary format (8)
Your claims are thus far 100% unsupported. Meanwhile, their claims ARE supported, and contradict yours.
Claims + Evidence is FAR superior to Claims + No evidence.
Also, you previously claimed that "By not citing anything, you are proving me right." is a double negative. It isn't. There is precisely ONE negative in that. Doubles require TWO, by definition.
THEN, you Strawmanned my complaint about that as saying that the statement was objectively right and moved the goalposts, adding in an ad hominin against me. I'm making that claim NOW, but I wasn't, then.
So, things you have done:
1) claims with no sources or backing
2) moving the goalpost fallacy
3) ad hominin fallacy. Possibly Tu Quoque instead.
4) strawman fallacy
5) ignoring the burden of proof that's on you
5a) both a fallacy, and
5b) when OTHERS do obey the burden of proof.
Under 1-5a, your arguments are 100% INVALID. Wrong? Well, under fallacy fallacy, I can't say for certain. However, per 5b, the others have provided solid evidence, so while what I've looked at thus far isn't 100% conclusive, their evidence is sufficiently vast that it's worth treating them as almost certainly correct.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Let’s look at what was said again. I’ll bold for emphasis the part you didn’t.
Irontruth wrote: My point right now is that you aren't citing anything. By not citing anything, you are proving me right. So, again, if the charge is “you don’t provide evidence” and you continue not providing evidence then your lack of action proves the point.
Not providing evidence after making bold claims is your M.O. As is directly attacking someone’s intelligence and then fumbling as basic a concept as a double negative.
Quark Blast wrote: james014Aura wrote: Quark Blast wrote: dirtypool wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
Right there dude!
Not anything = something.
Double negative will kick you right in the brains every time.
Will it kick you in the brains as hard as saying that the word "any" is a negative modifier? Because that's what you just did.
Anything = something.
Not anything = nothing.
When a negative and a positive are used in the same clause they create a negative, not a double negative.
Sure, misread the conversation however you like.
:D No, you misread it, and were both grasping at straws to do so. I'd rather not respond to an argument where you're clearly not arguing in good faith, but that tortured logic (the claim that "anything" is a NEGATIVE) was too egregious for me to ignore. Hate to break it to you after your struggle not to get sucked into this but... you're wrong.
Irontruth wrote: My point right now is that you aren't citing anything. By not citing anything, you are proving me right. So me not citing anything makes it a lack of proof for the position I'm arguing, but at the same time these lack of citations is (positively) proving the metalhead's argument right?
WTF philosophy class do you learn that in? "Philosphy and Psilocybin"?
:D Nope, that isn't how this works.
You made a claim (that opioid usage is costing 5% of our GDP).
I have pointed out that you provided no support for your claim (you've cited no sources).
I also provided evidence that contradicts your claim (I cited sources that indicate it is most likely around 1% of GDP).
Therefore, until you provide evidence to back up your claim, not only are we justified in no considering it true, but because of the contradictory evidence, we have a reasonable justification to consider it false.
And the US doesn't spend 14.9% of GDP on healthcare, it spends 17.7%. Source for this statistic.
Getting down to 12% would require a 5.7% reduction in the impact on GDP.
If you would like to amend your original statement, please feel free to do so.
|
