4 ms·

This is the only data point the poster had which supported their argument and it was factually incorrect, whether you look at inflation adjusted or as a percent

by enkid 5y ago

This is the only data point the poster had which supported their argument and it was factually incorrect, whether you look at inflation adjusted or as a percentage of GDP. Now, whether to use inflation adjusted or as a percentage of GDP is a valid argument, but doesn't change the fact the poster is wrong, and I don't think this is the forum where it really is going to get resolved.

adjkant 5y ago
> but doesn't change the fact the poster is wrong Again, I think you're missing the point. The very specific, non relevant way you interpreted the claim is factually wrong. To me, the claim read as: > the military spending is never cut in a significant way Which again, at an absolute level, is generally true when looking at inflation adjusted spending. Within context, absolute is relevant here though as this is about government process. The whole context makes this claim incredibly tangential to the whole point, which more or less boils down to "government has a lot of inertia". > doesn't change the fact the poster is wrong Again, did it ever really matter how the cold war affected spending here? What's the point of calling this super nuance out? My point is not to argue about 1990-2000 military spending and the measures of it. I'm calling this out to say "arguing over small irrelevant details to an argument is not very productive if you care about the real topic at hand". Are you trying to make this case because you believe that the government does not have a lot of inertia when it comes to these things? Great, then make that case instead of this rabbit hole. Or is this rabbit hole just about the non relevant fact itself?
- enkid 5y ago
  Your missing why I'm making my comment. I'm not arguing for anything. I'm arguing against making any conclusions based on what the original poster said, because the only factual evidence they present is at the very least questionable. I'm not making a positive assertion that government inertia is not a problem, simply that the above post does not provide sufficient evidence that it is a problem.

by enkid 5y ago

adjkant 5y ago

> but doesn't change the fact the poster is wrong Again, I think you're missing the point. The very specific, non relevant way you interpreted the claim is factually wrong. To me, the claim read as: > the military spending is never cut in a significant way Which again, at an absolute level, is generally true when looking at inflation adjusted spending. Within context, absolute is relevant here though as this is about government process. The whole context makes this claim incredibly tangential to the whole point, which more or less boils down to "government has a lot of inertia". > doesn't change the fact the poster is wrong Again, did it ever really matter how the cold war affected spending here? What's the point of calling this super nuance out? My point is not to argue about 1990-2000 military spending and the measures of it. I'm calling this out to say "arguing over small irrelevant details to an argument is not very productive if you care about the real topic at hand". Are you trying to make this case because you believe that the government does not have a lot of inertia when it comes to these things? Great, then make that case instead of this rabbit hole. Or is this rabbit hole just about the non relevant fact itself?

enkid 5y ago
Your missing why I'm making my comment. I'm not arguing for anything. I'm arguing against making any conclusions based on what the original poster said, because the only factual evidence they present is at the very least questionable. I'm not making a positive assertion that government inertia is not a problem, simply that the above post does not provide sufficient evidence that it is a problem.