Originally posted by Putinbot1I copy and pasted so due to the apostrophes you cannot quote it.
@ Quan it certainly did.Please repost as I can't quote you.
A report prepared for the Senate that provides the most sweeping analysis yet of Russia’s disinformation campaign around the 2016 election found the operation used every major social media platform to deliver words, images and videos tailored to voters’ interests to help elect President Trump — and worked even harder to support him while in office.
The report, a draft of which was obtained by The Washington Post, is the first to study the millions of posts provided by major technology firms to the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), its chairman, and Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), its ranking Democrat. The bipartisan panel hasn’t said whether it endorses the findings. It plans to release it publicly along with another study later this week
Originally posted by SurturThis is the part you ignore the facts and just tell us what you feel. Remember when you pretended majority did not mean the greater number because of your feelings. I sure do.
Is this the part where we pretend russian activity on social media made any real difference in the election? Adorable.
Gillibrand Worried Dems Have A White Guy Problem In 2020 Candidates
Gotta love these racist and sexist leftists.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Who cares? Let it go, surt. This self triggering is eating you alive.
It's pretty important, though. If children keep dying or getting harmed due to this illegal immigration issue, we need to adjust to see how to reduce harm.
I think Children are more important than old people so, yes, I do place higher value on children. A child dying is the loss of decades of productivity, decades of future children that can also contribute, and decades of happiness.
An old person may have decades left but productivity and future children are not there. Economically, there is less value with someone who is 70 or 80 than 8. This is obvious and it is why people get more upset at a dead child than an old person when they die trying to cross the border.
I find all human life to be important. But if the immigration issue is an argument of economics, then the focus should be about economics.
Originally posted by dadudemonI was referring to patreon not this.
It's pretty important, though. If children keep dying or getting harmed due to this illegal immigration issue, we need to adjust to see how to reduce harm.I think Children are more important than old people so, yes, I do place higher value on children. A child dying is the loss of decades of productivity, decades of future children that can also contribute, and decades of happiness.
An old person may have decades left but productivity and future children are not there. Economically, there is less value with someone who is 70 or 80 than 8. This is obvious and it is why people get more upset at a dead child than an old person when they die trying to cross the border.
I find all human life to be important. But if the immigration issue is an argument of economics, then the focus should be about economics.
Originally posted by dadudemonYou see I can't put a relative value on an individual's life based on a criteria like age. I get upset when people die and trust me I've seen lots of people die. In lots of different ways.
It's pretty important, though. If children keep dying or getting harmed due to this illegal immigration issue, we need to adjust to see how to reduce harm.I think Children are more important than old people so, yes, I do place higher value on children. A child dying is the loss of decades of productivity, decades of future children that can also contribute, and decades of happiness.
An old person may have decades left but productivity and future children are not there. Economically, there is less value with someone who is 70 or 80 than 8. This is obvious and it is why people get more upset at a dead child than an old person when they die trying to cross the border.
I find all human life to be important. But if the immigration issue is an argument of economics, then the focus should be about economics.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
You see I can't put a relative value on an individual's life based on a criteria like age.
You shouldn't be putting a relative value on it anyway because it's not a relative value, it's a quantitative value. It's a known quantity and insurance companies have been doing it for centuries. More importantly, governments have been doing it for centuries, as well.
They assign these values and call it a "present value." And have gotten quite good at it. There is room for improvement, however.
https://www.theglobalist.com/the-cost-of-a-human-life-statistically-speaking/
One famous example of human life valuation from 1987:
In 1987, when the U.S. government permitted states to raise the speed limit from 55 to 65 miles per hour, many states did so, and drivers saved time by driving about two miles per hour faster on average.However, fatality rates rose by about one-third. Overall, people in the United States saved about 125,000 hours of driving per lost life. At average wages, the trade-off between the time savings and the increased risk of fatalities suggested that state decision-makers were putting the value of a human life at about $1.5 million.
Remember, the conservatives are making arguments from economics. While you may hate the idea of arguing from how valuable, economically, a human life is, this is the argument being presented for opposition. An appeal to emotion logical fallacy will clearly not work as an argument with them. You must methodically destroy and address their argument at its root.