= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MrHen comments on Logical Rudeness - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (203)
Apologies if this is injecting too much mind-killing, but I really started taking notice of this type argument-gymnastics last year about the "Cash for Clunkers" program.
"This program is great! It will get money to the struggling auto-makers."
"Wouldn't it be more efficient to just give them money like we did before? And what if it just goes to the strong auto-makers?"
"Well, maybe. But think about the environmental benefit of all those old cars off the road!"
"Wouldn't it be more efficient to just spend the money on the environment directly? And isn't manufacturing a bunch of new cars bad for the environment?"
"Well yeah, but it will get money to the struggling auto-makers!"
I don't know anything about the Clunkers program, but this doesn't sound completely irrational to me. If X does both A and B at 60% efficiency and Y will do either A or B at 100% efficiency, which is better? (These numbers are just examples.)
This behavior seems different than the example from the OP which seems to be more like:
X is true because of A!
A is impossible
X is true because of B!
B is impossible
X is true because of A!
*facepalm*
Fair point. This is more like "Program X does A, but really inefficiently." "True, but it also does B!" "OK, but it also does B really inefficiently." "True, but it also does A!"