this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
374 points (98.2% liked)

News

23223 readers
3199 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (33 children)

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. That's not black-and-white, but it's a clear conflict between the administration's words and their actions.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (32 children)

Yes, again, letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Very few people here want the money spent on Israel.

That doesn't mean acting like everything else that the Biden administration does is worthless because of it. It is possible to have massive criticisms of a political administration and acknowledge when they do something good.

Domestic clean energy manufacturing is a good thing. Bringing jobs to former coal communities that are depressed communities due to the coal no longer being mined is a good thing. Climate mitigation is a good thing. This helps with all of those things.

Pretending everything is awful because one thing is awful achieves nothing. Neither does making every Biden or Harris thread into a complaint about the U.S. aiding Israel. Who exactly do you think you're going to convince here? How does this constant complaining help Palestinians?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (31 children)

My only point was to highlight how the Biden administration has it's priorities backwards i.e. millions for climate, billions for Israel.

I'm venting frustration. That's all the internet is good for anyway. Complaining doesn't matter, your arguing doesn't matter, nothing we post matters.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You'll be happy to hear that Biden had invested billions into climate change.

https://www.wri.org/insights/biden-administration-tracking-climate-action-progress

Also

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as

The "not as bad as" fallacy, also known as the fallacy of relative privation, asserts that:

If something is worse than the problem currently being discussed, then

The problem currently being discussed isn't that important at all.

In order for the statement "A is not as bad as B," to suggest a fallacy there must be a fallacious conclusion such as: ignore A.

You:

I only said we should demand more and highlighted the Biden-Harris administration's fucked up priorities. I'm not asking for a pony, I'm asking that we stop burning fossil fuels to support a genocidal apartheid state. It's not an unreasonable expectation!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You misinterpreted what I said.

If we stopped supporting Israel, we'd stop burning the fuel we use to support them. Our support for Israel requires burning fossil fuel. We should stop doing that.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I understand the fallacy, thanks.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Did I say "Ignore A" though? I just meant to highlight the contradiction.

Also, your link clearly says:

At COP28, the Biden administration pledged $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund but it is up to Congress to appropriate the funding. In the past two fiscal year budgets, Congress has appropriated only $1 billion annually for climate finance. While the U.S. Development Finance Corporation may be able to increase the level of funds mobilized, it will still not come close to the $11.4 billion mark. In addition, it’s not clear whether the U.S. can meet the $3 billion in funding for adaptation as part of a global pledge by developed countries to collectively double their adaptation finance by 2025.

Looks like we're not getting A. But! If we stopped wasting money burning fuel for Israel, we could meet those goals!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's one part of the article, yes. And your last claim requires a citation.

But! If we stopped wasting money burning fuel for Israel, we could meet those goals!

Again, I understand the fallacy. I trust you will amend your previous statements? "Billions for climate change"?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Again.

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

No it isn't (math) and yes you did (quoted).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Mmk

Edit: I'm not sticking around to discover how these arguments evolve again and again.

load more comments (29 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)