3 ms·

Many countries and governments recommend having atleast 2 weeks supply of food and water incase of a natural disaster. Not to mention for people who live in rem

Many countries and governments recommend having atleast 2 weeks supply of food and water incase of a natural disaster. Not to mention for people who live in remote places. So I want to say that you were not laughed at by everyone. Now... there is a possibility of 'I was correct once... so I am also correct on other unlikely things that might happen' fallacy. Not saying you are wrong on this case. Just that you remind me of my dad. He always thinks things are going to go wrong. Like every day he thinks he'll get robbed or his car will get stolen. So the one time he hits on a bad situation he'll remind us how no one listens to him and that he's always right.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> Now... there is a possibility of 'I was correct once... so I am also correct on other unlikely things that might happen' fallacy. As you don't know what else I am predicting that will happen, you can't call it a fallacy. These things WILL happen: serious epidemic (woops, ticked that!), highly destructive solar flare, catastrophic climate change, diseases caused antibiotic resistant bacteria, food production problems from widespread use of what are effectively plant clones (monocultures)[0]. Now tell me I'm wrong, that any these can't happen. They might take a while but when they hit they could be serious to extremely serious. Low risk but high consequences. > Not saying you are wrong on this case. OK > Just that you remind me of my dad... So you are saying I'm wrong or what? I think you're talking down things the same way as the other poster for the same reason. Well, I'm not your dad. I'm not here to show off being right. I'm trying to avoid catastrophic situations. The first step to doing that is identifying the problems (listed above, I will presume you agree with them?) then deal with them by actually... dealing with them. That's step 2, which the great majority of people won't take because it's uncomfortable. Easier to deny.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

> Now... there is a possibility of 'I was correct once... so I am also correct on other unlikely things that might happen' fallacy. As you don't know what else I am predicting that will happen, you can't call it a fallacy. These things WILL happen: serious epidemic (woops, ticked that!), highly destructive solar flare, catastrophic climate change, diseases caused antibiotic resistant bacteria, food production problems from widespread use of what are effectively plant clones (monocultures)[0]. Now tell me I'm wrong, that any these can't happen. They might take a while but when they hit they could be serious to extremely serious. Low risk but high consequences. > Not saying you are wrong on this case. OK > Just that you remind me of my dad... So you are saying I'm wrong or what? I think you're talking down things the same way as the other poster for the same reason. Well, I'm not your dad. I'm not here to show off being right. I'm trying to avoid catastrophic situations. The first step to doing that is identifying the problems (listed above, I will presume you agree with them?) then deal with them by actually... dealing with them. That's step 2, which the great majority of people won't take because it's uncomfortable. Easier to deny.