If something is worse than the problem currently being discussed, then
The problem currently being discussed isn’t that important at all.
I. Didn’t. Say. This.
I haven’t said that. I am not saying that. I don’t know why you keep fucking accusing me of saying it.
I trust you will amend your previous statements? “Billions for climate change”?
Sure sounds like there’s only one billion per year. Billion.
So, sure. Let’s say 1 billion per year for climate change. Compare that to 17.9 billion in the past year for Israel.
The priorities are fucked. That doesn’t mean I’m using the “not as bad as” fallacy, that means I’m highlighting how we could be spending a whole hell of a lot more on climate change. I just want the money spent on Israel to be spent on climate instead.
I understand the fallacy and what you said. The article seems to report more than 17.9 billion in total. Now it sounds like the goal posts are shifting.
Your original complaint (spending more on Israel than climate change) was at least an order of magnitude or two off from what is actually going on, and the “millions” part was easily disproven. Confronted with that, your new complaint (to the same ends) is now the time span under which these sums are dedicated, no longer the actual amount, despite that being satisfied now. I know what that sounds like.
Did you find a source that proves we could meet our climate goals if we didn’t fund Israel?
17.9 billion is an order of magnitude higher than 1 billion. Do you know how orders of magnitude work?
Also… you didn’t quote anything? Here’s what I said:
I’m under the impression that it would be a lot easier to improve things if the billions spent supporting Israel were instead spent on climate change mitigation.
Easier. We do have to stop supporting Israel to meet our climate goals, but that alone will not be enough. We need to do way more than that. If I miscommunicated that I apologize.
Again.
I. Didn’t. Say. This.
I haven’t said that. I am not saying that. I don’t know why you keep fucking accusing me of saying it.
Sure sounds like there’s only one billion per year. Billion.
So, sure. Let’s say 1 billion per year for climate change. Compare that to 17.9 billion in the past year for Israel.
The priorities are fucked. That doesn’t mean I’m using the “not as bad as” fallacy, that means I’m highlighting how we could be spending a whole hell of a lot more on climate change. I just want the money spent on Israel to be spent on climate instead.
I understand the fallacy and what you said. The article seems to report more than 17.9 billion in total. Now it sounds like the goal posts are shifting.
Thanks for the discussion.
You asked me to amend what I said.
I did, and because I did, you accuse me of moving goal posts. What??
I hate this website.
Removed by mod
Comment removed, thereby proving my point.
Or it could be based on the way you act just because someone is disagreeing with you.
Your original complaint (spending more on Israel than climate change) was at least an order of magnitude or two off from what is actually going on, and the “millions” part was easily disproven. Confronted with that, your new complaint (to the same ends) is now the time span under which these sums are dedicated, no longer the actual amount, despite that being satisfied now. I know what that sounds like.
Did you find a source that proves we could meet our climate goals if we didn’t fund Israel?
That’s still an order of magnitude more support for Israel than climate, which still supports my point about the administration’s priorities.
I doubt we could meet our goals if we simply transferred Israel’s funding to climate, but I never claimed that.
No it isn’t (math) and yes you did (quoted).
17.9 billion is an order of magnitude higher than 1 billion. Do you know how orders of magnitude work?
Also… you didn’t quote anything? Here’s what I said:
Easier. We do have to stop supporting Israel to meet our climate goals, but that alone will not be enough. We need to do way more than that. If I miscommunicated that I apologize.
Mmk
Edit: I’m not sticking around to discover how these arguments evolve again and again.