3 ms·

It's simply extending the line to the obvious next dot. It gets more uncomfortable to think about so we often don't want to, but what exactly do you think is th

It's simply extending the line to the obvious next dot. It gets more uncomfortable to think about so we often don't want to, but what exactly do you think is the eventual outcome of those effects on the health of millions of people? Think of the many factors that combine to determine when someone dies of "old age" or "natural causes". Think of the extra effort millions of bodies have spent dealing with the pollutants directly and the effects those pollutants have on those bodies. Someone in VW's position could say, "well our pollutants were one cause among many" for any specific death. But they were part of the math. They contributed a share and lied about the size of it. They did indeed contribute to shortening the lifespan of millions of Europeans.

alt227 2y ago
Before the phrase was 'VW shortened the lifespan of millions'. Now after my posts you have changed that to 'They did indeed contribute to shortening the lifespan of millions' They are in no way the same sentences. Your second one agrees with my point, your first one doesnt. Yes, they contributed, definitely. Did they directly cause a shortening of peoples lives, no they didnt.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  LMAO what? Those sentences are pretty equivalent. Take a piece of string and send it around a group of people. Tell each of them to cut a bit of the string off. Each person in the group has now participated in the shortening of the string. You can, completely accurately and honestly, say both of these sentences: "Person 1 shortened the length of the string." "Person 1 contributed to shortening the length of the string." These statements are not in any way in conflict. You're creating a meaningless difference then insisting that I index on that difference. I refuse to play that game.
  - alt227 2y ago
    OK, lets take it apart then. > I refuse to play that game You seem to be playing it pretty well from where Im standing! > insisting that I index on that difference Looking back on my post, I havent insisted anything. I didnt even ask you anything. I just clarified my point. It was your choice to retort. > Take a piece of string and send it around a group of people. Why do you insist on trying to reduce my opinion, which you do not understand, into metaphors which have no relevance? > "Person 1 shortened the length of the string." This statement implies a direct influence, ie Person 1 cut or broke the string, therefore directly shortened it. > "Person 1 contributed to shortening the length of the string." This statement is much more vague. What part did person 1 contribute? Did they make the scissors which cut the string? Did they mine the metal for thoise scissors? Did they hypnotise or manipulate the will of the person who did actually cut the string? There is nuance here, and you dont seem to be understanding it at all.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Which part are you saying wasn't direct? The VW->emissions step, or the emissions->life shortening step? I could understand arguing the first one, but I think the subterfuge makes it pretty much a direct action of VW. I don't think there's a reasonable argument that the emissions didn't directly shorten lives, even if you think the precise number is impossible to calculate. From your post above it sounds like you're arguing the emissions->life shortening step, and you haven't really given a good explanation why.
      - alt227 2y ago
        Its neither, I am questioning 'WV->Life Shortening' which some people seem to be insisting has happened. When you miss out the middle step, it becomes a different beast.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        So you agree that VW directly caused the emissions, and the emissions directly caused the life shortening, you just think the combination shouldn't use the word "direct"? Then I think you're in a pointless semantic argument rather than making a distinction about the real world.
        alt227 2y ago
        > So you agree that VW directly caused the emissions, and the emissions directly caused the life shortening, you just think the combination shouldn't use the word "direct"? No, I dont think any of that. Why are you trying to pin me down on my opinion about emissions killing people? > I think you're in a pointless semantic argument Yes, that is correct. This is an argument about language, and the nuance of the term 'contribute'. The difference between saying 'VW directly shortened millions of lives' and 'VW contributed to the shortening of millions of lives'. I am not arguing anything about opinions of emissions or how harmful they are. Just peoples use of correct language. You call the argument pointless, yet you are still replying!

alt227 2y ago

Before the phrase was 'VW shortened the lifespan of millions'. Now after my posts you have changed that to 'They did indeed contribute to shortening the lifespan of millions' They are in no way the same sentences. Your second one agrees with my point, your first one doesnt. Yes, they contributed, definitely. Did they directly cause a shortening of peoples lives, no they didnt.

sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
LMAO what? Those sentences are pretty equivalent. Take a piece of string and send it around a group of people. Tell each of them to cut a bit of the string off. Each person in the group has now participated in the shortening of the string. You can, completely accurately and honestly, say both of these sentences: "Person 1 shortened the length of the string." "Person 1 contributed to shortening the length of the string." These statements are not in any way in conflict. You're creating a meaningless difference then insisting that I index on that difference. I refuse to play that game.
- alt227 2y ago
  OK, lets take it apart then. > I refuse to play that game You seem to be playing it pretty well from where Im standing! > insisting that I index on that difference Looking back on my post, I havent insisted anything. I didnt even ask you anything. I just clarified my point. It was your choice to retort. > Take a piece of string and send it around a group of people. Why do you insist on trying to reduce my opinion, which you do not understand, into metaphors which have no relevance? > "Person 1 shortened the length of the string." This statement implies a direct influence, ie Person 1 cut or broke the string, therefore directly shortened it. > "Person 1 contributed to shortening the length of the string." This statement is much more vague. What part did person 1 contribute? Did they make the scissors which cut the string? Did they mine the metal for thoise scissors? Did they hypnotise or manipulate the will of the person who did actually cut the string? There is nuance here, and you dont seem to be understanding it at all.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Which part are you saying wasn't direct? The VW->emissions step, or the emissions->life shortening step? I could understand arguing the first one, but I think the subterfuge makes it pretty much a direct action of VW. I don't think there's a reasonable argument that the emissions didn't directly shorten lives, even if you think the precise number is impossible to calculate. From your post above it sounds like you're arguing the emissions->life shortening step, and you haven't really given a good explanation why.
    - alt227 2y ago
      Its neither, I am questioning 'WV->Life Shortening' which some people seem to be insisting has happened. When you miss out the middle step, it becomes a different beast.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        So you agree that VW directly caused the emissions, and the emissions directly caused the life shortening, you just think the combination shouldn't use the word "direct"? Then I think you're in a pointless semantic argument rather than making a distinction about the real world.
        alt227 2y ago
        > So you agree that VW directly caused the emissions, and the emissions directly caused the life shortening, you just think the combination shouldn't use the word "direct"? No, I dont think any of that. Why are you trying to pin me down on my opinion about emissions killing people? > I think you're in a pointless semantic argument Yes, that is correct. This is an argument about language, and the nuance of the term 'contribute'. The difference between saying 'VW directly shortened millions of lives' and 'VW contributed to the shortening of millions of lives'. I am not arguing anything about opinions of emissions or how harmful they are. Just peoples use of correct language. You call the argument pointless, yet you are still replying!