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!
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.
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!
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?
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
You:
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.
I understand the fallacy, thanks.
Did I say “Ignore A” though? I just meant to highlight the contradiction.
Also, your link clearly says:
Looks like we’re not getting A. But! If we stopped wasting money burning fuel for Israel, we could meet those goals!
That’s one part of the article, yes. And your last claim requires a citation.
Again, I understand the fallacy. I trust you will amend your previous statements? “Billions for climate change”?
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
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?