4 ms·

It's not just the most charitable reading; it's the only reasonable reading. Of course air quality will improve if you force people to buy the more expensive th

by mhb 4y ago

It's not just the most charitable reading; it's the only reasonable reading. Of course air quality will improve if you force people to buy the more expensive thing. But maybe that's not the best way for everyone to improve their lives or health compared to other ways they could spend that money. There are a zillion things you could require people buy that would make them healthier.

janalsncm 4y ago
Doing X is not going to address Y in most contexts means that X will not fix Y at all. > Eliminating materials like concrete or plastic or replacing them with alternatives is not going to address the fundamental problem with human attitudes and our unparalleled appetite for more. Eliminating plastics will not fix the problem of overconsumption at all. > However, the introduction of the reverse onus at bail is not going to address intimate partner violence and empower women, at least not meaningfully. Placing the burden of proof on accused abusers will not fix intimate partner violence at all. “At least not meaningfully” is an important qualifier because otherwise any amount of mitigation of the problem undermines the claim that X doesn’t address Y. These are the first relevant hits on Google for ‘"is not going to address" -gas’. I excluded some that didn’t seem relevant (e.g. “John Oliver is not going to address”, I am interested in X being a problem not a person). Now if we look back at the lobbyists’ statement it’s clearly a tortured construction. They are contorting it to mean that doing X will not solve Y 100%. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210520-could-humans-really-destroy-all-life-on-earth https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210520-could-humans-rea... https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5245986 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5245986
- mhb 4y ago
  Unclear what the value is of this narrow semantic argument using tenuous analogies. Her point is that there are more reasonable alternatives to improving air quality if people want to keep using gas. You seem to think that spending money on less desirable cooking options is the best way for people to use that money. As if the people proposing this heavy handed approach have considered the cost/benefit for the whole universe of cooks.

by mhb 4y ago

janalsncm 4y ago

Doing X is not going to address Y in most contexts means that X will not fix Y at all. > Eliminating materials like concrete or plastic or replacing them with alternatives is not going to address the fundamental problem with human attitudes and our unparalleled appetite for more. Eliminating plastics will not fix the problem of overconsumption at all. > However, the introduction of the reverse onus at bail is not going to address intimate partner violence and empower women, at least not meaningfully. Placing the burden of proof on accused abusers will not fix intimate partner violence at all. “At least not meaningfully” is an important qualifier because otherwise any amount of mitigation of the problem undermines the claim that X doesn’t address Y. These are the first relevant hits on Google for ‘"is not going to address" -gas’. I excluded some that didn’t seem relevant (e.g. “John Oliver is not going to address”, I am interested in X being a problem not a person). Now if we look back at the lobbyists’ statement it’s clearly a tortured construction. They are contorting it to mean that doing X will not solve Y 100%. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210520-could-humans-really-destroy-all-life-on-earth https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210520-could-humans-rea... https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5245986 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5245986

mhb 4y ago
Unclear what the value is of this narrow semantic argument using tenuous analogies. Her point is that there are more reasonable alternatives to improving air quality if people want to keep using gas. You seem to think that spending money on less desirable cooking options is the best way for people to use that money. As if the people proposing this heavy handed approach have considered the cost/benefit for the whole universe of cooks.