Plus, there are demons on Mars

Oh my, you are so far off base with your understanding here.

both require massive investment from nations

This is a misunderstanding of how space industry is funded. Did you know that the majority of funding for space projects these days comes from private industry? There is not one pool this comes from, but multiple smaller pools. You still fail to address the counter example I posed to you about the rainforest.

What makes this a fallacy is that you pose the issue of "we should allocate money differently" in the light of "e should defund space because we need more money". This is clearly the basic structure of a false dilemma since you take the gray area out (such as the counterexample you blatantly ignored ie: space being useful) and make the issue black and white. There are numerous other ways to allocate money and still retain the (as I argued and you ignored) valuable space programs.

Also, you clearly are not really remembering the arguments you pose against me. You literally wrote:

it's something we deal with all the time and you wanna act like this is some special case? Fucking idiotic.

Rather than explain why my argument is bad, you just call it "fucking idiotic". That is the definition of ad-hom, using an attack against the writer rather than the validity of the argument. Please provide me with a clear explanation on why this is idiotic. Can you provide me some points? Something I can look up?

You're just evading and acting in a totally puerile manner, and yes, it's idiotic

Rather than address why my arguments are childish, you accuse me of evasion, don't back it up, and again call my argument idiotic. This again is what you would call puerile reasoning.


Calling it a false dilemma implies that the original problem, an issue where there is a limited number of resources to be allocated and prioritized for their resources, is non-existent

Rather than point out the fallacious reasoning here, I will just explain why this is wrong. Perhaps we have differing definitions of fallacies. What's wrong with thi here is that you take my point that saying the space program is why we don't have sufficient money for the climat, is silly and misconstruing it. You're turning it into a denial of any aspect of the argument, what I am actually doing is denying the causality you imply.

You then go on to argue that nobody benefits from the space program, which I then managed to refute, despite you having ignored it.

/r/WhitePeopleTwitter Thread Parent Link -