3 ms·
> Global rates of poverty are 83% lower than they were in 1969 when we landed on the moon. Obvious post hoc fallacy
by lapcat 7mo ago
> Global rates of poverty are 83% lower than they were in 1969 when we landed on the moon.
Obvious post hoc fallacy
- nandomrumber 7mo agoIt’s only a fallacy if the purported facts are fallacious. And in the case of lifting most of humanity out of poverty, two things are responsible: capitalism and technology. You can argue that China is a communist state, but it’s the allocation of capital to things that matter that has enable China to thrive.
- lapcat 7mo ago> It’s only a fallacy if the purported facts are fallacious. These don't appear to be the words of someone who understands what the post hoc fallacy is. In any case, the subject is not "capitalism and technology" generally but rather manned Moon missions specifically.
- nandomrumber 7mo agoJust because one thing happened after another thing, doesn’t mean the first thing caused the second thing. Happy now? However, sometimes it is true that the first thing caused the second thing. Therefore, it’s only a fallacy when it’s fallacious. My argument is that going to space was an allocation of capital that mattered in driving technology forward and improved the lives of everyone.
- turtlesdown11 7mo ago> And in the case of lifting most of humanity out of poverty, two things are responsible: capitalism and technology. You alleged above it was due to the moon landings that people were lifted out of poverty. Do you understand the difference here?
- nandomrumber 7mo agoWas not the space race, and the cold war context it happened it, a driving force in pushing technological advances forward?
- turtlesdown11 6mo agoI'm sorry, so now it's not capitalism, technology, or the moon landings, but the cold war context? Could you pick a specific "event" you believe lifted so many people out of poverty, and provide research or supporting documentation?