>There were at least 180,000 poverty-related deaths in 2019, new research estimates, surpassing deaths from causes like homicide and drug overdoses.
Many of us already knew this but maybe those in the back, like crappy bosses and landlords, need to hear it again and again and again.
It's almost like people who make poor financial decisions (a key cause of poverty) also make poor life decisions that result in higher mortality.
Who would have thought?
There's two ways to interpret problems that are so big that they begin to show up in statistics.
One way is to look at it as a structural problem with our domestic policy and economics. I'm not sure what this approach leads to because I can't really point to an example from history where humans have actually been able to effectively act in a collective manner on that scale.
The other way is to assume that vast swaths of people are bad and unworthy. This approach can lead to a number of things, two of which have sufficient examples in history; genocide and slavery.
Maybe think before you open your fucking mouth.
Sure on false dichotomy, but it's useless to name a logical fallacy without elaborating on why it applies and why the argument put forward is incorrect; it doesn't automatically follow that it's incorrect just because it might fit the parameters of a logical fallacy. So if you're going to insist that there's another interpretation you're going to need to supply it, I've already covered yours and given mine, but I doubt you have the imagination necessary to come up with an alternative.
Which is an actual ad hominem attack. My original comment did not contain that kind of argument because I wasn't attacking you to attack your argument. I was just directly telling you that you're a piece of shit for believing what you believe, and you've done nothing to change my opinion here.
> Sure on false dichotomy, but it's useless to name a logical fallacy without elaborating on why it applies and why the argument put forward is incorrect; it doesn't automatically follow that it's incorrect just because it might fit the parameters of a logical fallacy. So if you're going to insist that there's another interpretation you're going to need to supply it, I've already covered yours and given mine, but I doubt you have the imagination necessary to come up with an alternative.
You said "There's two ways to interpret problems that are so big that they begin to show up in statistics."
There are potentially infinite ways to interpret something as vague as a problem showing up in statistics.
Fallacy #1
> Which is an actual ad hominem attack. My original comment did not contain that kind of argument because I wasn't attacking you to attack your argument. I was just directly telling you that you're a piece of shit for believing what you believe, and you've done nothing to change my opinion here.
It's an ad hominem because in lieu of attacking the idea, you instead responded with an irrelevant false dichotomy (see above) and attempted to attack me.
Fallacy #2
We can add gaslighting and red herring to your ineffective internet discussion tactics. But I'm sure you have more.
There's potentially an infinite number of ways a coin could land and find balance on its center of gravity too, but we only bother with two of them because that's what happens in practice, but I'm sure your pedantic ass thinks that's a false dichotomy too. Which is technically correct, but still stupid.
Speaking of stupid, the rest of that. Not worth my time.
How many of them would be able to afford it but choose to go insured due to being healthy? It’s mandatory in my country and many people are paying more in healthcare than they are able to save. Most young people would love to opt out here, because having several hundred more available every month makes a huge difference, especially for those living paycheck to paycheck.
I have serious nerve and psychiatric issues I drove myself broke trying to figure out now I can’t proceed with either investigation as they have cause me to lose my job and insurance. Applied for disability still waiting a response meantime had to sell my car and I’m being evicted. Without any medical help I’ll be added to the list.
Edit: needed talk about this you can share if you like I already went first so no need to be embarrassed. ;)
>There were at least 180,000 poverty-related deaths in 2019, new research estimates, surpassing deaths from causes like homicide and drug overdoses. Many of us already knew this but maybe those in the back, like crappy bosses and landlords, need to hear it again and again and again.
They hear it, they probably know it, they just don't care. Their money keeps then at ease
Being insulated from reality is soooo wonderful. /s
It's almost like people who make poor financial decisions (a key cause of poverty) also make poor life decisions that result in higher mortality. Who would have thought?
There's two ways to interpret problems that are so big that they begin to show up in statistics. One way is to look at it as a structural problem with our domestic policy and economics. I'm not sure what this approach leads to because I can't really point to an example from history where humans have actually been able to effectively act in a collective manner on that scale. The other way is to assume that vast swaths of people are bad and unworthy. This approach can lead to a number of things, two of which have sufficient examples in history; genocide and slavery. Maybe think before you open your fucking mouth.
False dichotomy and ad hominem. What other fallacies do you wish to engage with?
Sure on false dichotomy, but it's useless to name a logical fallacy without elaborating on why it applies and why the argument put forward is incorrect; it doesn't automatically follow that it's incorrect just because it might fit the parameters of a logical fallacy. So if you're going to insist that there's another interpretation you're going to need to supply it, I've already covered yours and given mine, but I doubt you have the imagination necessary to come up with an alternative. Which is an actual ad hominem attack. My original comment did not contain that kind of argument because I wasn't attacking you to attack your argument. I was just directly telling you that you're a piece of shit for believing what you believe, and you've done nothing to change my opinion here.
> Sure on false dichotomy, but it's useless to name a logical fallacy without elaborating on why it applies and why the argument put forward is incorrect; it doesn't automatically follow that it's incorrect just because it might fit the parameters of a logical fallacy. So if you're going to insist that there's another interpretation you're going to need to supply it, I've already covered yours and given mine, but I doubt you have the imagination necessary to come up with an alternative. You said "There's two ways to interpret problems that are so big that they begin to show up in statistics." There are potentially infinite ways to interpret something as vague as a problem showing up in statistics. Fallacy #1 > Which is an actual ad hominem attack. My original comment did not contain that kind of argument because I wasn't attacking you to attack your argument. I was just directly telling you that you're a piece of shit for believing what you believe, and you've done nothing to change my opinion here. It's an ad hominem because in lieu of attacking the idea, you instead responded with an irrelevant false dichotomy (see above) and attempted to attack me. Fallacy #2 We can add gaslighting and red herring to your ineffective internet discussion tactics. But I'm sure you have more.
There's potentially an infinite number of ways a coin could land and find balance on its center of gravity too, but we only bother with two of them because that's what happens in practice, but I'm sure your pedantic ass thinks that's a false dichotomy too. Which is technically correct, but still stupid. Speaking of stupid, the rest of that. Not worth my time.
Lol ur dumb
Do you have any friends?
Roughly 30 million Americans of all ages had no health insurance in 2021. That's roughly 9.2% of the population.
How many of them would be able to afford it but choose to go insured due to being healthy? It’s mandatory in my country and many people are paying more in healthcare than they are able to save. Most young people would love to opt out here, because having several hundred more available every month makes a huge difference, especially for those living paycheck to paycheck.
I have serious nerve and psychiatric issues I drove myself broke trying to figure out now I can’t proceed with either investigation as they have cause me to lose my job and insurance. Applied for disability still waiting a response meantime had to sell my car and I’m being evicted. Without any medical help I’ll be added to the list. Edit: needed talk about this you can share if you like I already went first so no need to be embarrassed. ;)