iNow

Sometimes is simplified as an assumption fallacy

Fallacy of unwarranted assumption https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119165811.ch100

You are clearly correct that in purely capitalistic terms where ALL that matters is the ability to maximize profits…be damned any consequences doing so might create… and in those narrowly focused terms we can all agree that folks gouging prices during times of shortage and emergency are behaving exactly as they should and completely inline with expectations. However, you’re ignoring a few important things by proceeding in this way. Consider for a moment how thinking along these lines in other contexts might play out. IMO this more easily illustrates why we might consider choosing a different better informed path. For example, let’s make a similar argument in context of evolution and local governance. Let’s assume your neighbor is bigger and stronger and owns more guns than you do. Let’s assume he steals from you, takes your food, your car, and rapes your wife whenever he feels like it. Following your logic, that should be perfectly allowed and celebrated all because you were too weak to stop them. Or let’s assume maybe that a local militia or gang kidnaps and enslaves your children and sends them to work in mines and forced sex clubs so they can use them to further increase their own wealth. We don’t have to try too hard to imagine these things bc in many areas of the world that is exactly what happens every day. According to your logic they should be allowed to do this because they are more powerful and it’s completely up to the weak to raise themselves up by their bootstraps and overcome this oppression. It’s just survival of the fittest after all, right? Well, okay. Maybe. Let’s assume you’re right and that we should allow those things to happen. But guess what? What you ignore is that the weak DID join together and rise up. The weak DID collaborate and find ways to end that type of oppression and corruption. The weak DID implement laws to protect the masses from being taken advantage of and DID implement measures for the good of those who couldn’t defend themselves alone… measures focusing on fostering a healthier broader more cohesive society. So… Laws were implemented to protect children from being enslaved. Laws were implemented to punish those who steal from their neighbors or inflict violence on the spouses and loved ones of those neighbors. These laws allow society as a whole to function better, to expand and grow more sustainably, and to ensure we don’t all exist in some Mad Max style every man for himself hellscape controlled solely by the strongest and most violent gangs among us. And we did this ALSO in our economy where we punish the biggest and the strongest market players for price gouging, and we did it for the same or similar reasons. Sure, the strongest gangs… erm, I mean companies…could do and take whatever they want whenever they want, but we’ve decided as a people NOT to allow this. This decision has led to our continued advancement as a species where a rising tide lifts all boats; where the pie gets bigger and we all get a larger piece of it together. We’ve implemented a governance structure to prioritize certain norms and mores over others, and one of those norms is that the biggest gang or company should NOT be allowed to ride rough shod unabated on the backs of the weak. Often the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one… and this is especially true in context of price gouging. This point seems so self-evident to me that one wonders if failing to see it may be due to some anti-social tendencies.

Like drinking water and plywood during a category 5 hurricane, or heating oil during a several weeks long winter blizzard, or food during a wartime occupation by an enemy? Simplistic indeed if you could’ve even conceive of these simple examples.

No true Scotsman fallacy

Members here would prefer if you ended with this instead of littering the site with thread after thread after thread exemplifying the way god fogs rot human brains.

Yes. All companies want a monopoly for a product which the public cannot survive without. They will seek to use levers of government to prioritize their own profits and alter the landscape so it’s hard to the point of impossible for competitors to even enter the market. But the real world is far more complex and simplistic labels never adequately describe how it works. These labels are usually introduced by simple people making simplistic ideological points regardless of their validity or utility.

The evidence gathered since paints an entirely different picture. From multiple sources since federal prosecutors have become involved: “Prosecutors presented evidence, including a handwritten note from the suspect that read in part: “This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump, but I failed you.” Investigators said the 58-year-old man spent a month surveilling the golf course, before choosing to position himself near the sixth hole with a semiautomatic rifle. Investigators found his fingerprint on the weapon, along with a handwritten list of Trump’s scheduled appearances, multiple cellphones, gloves, and a passport in his SUV, according to prosecutors.”

The main benefit is you can quickly tell which one is sending the alert by naming them clearly. Hugely helpful in multi-story homes with kids. You can also get a heads up when battery is low (instead of that incessant beep) which is nice, and can be alerted to trouble even when not at home. You can also choose to temporarily disable it if for example you know the smoke will pass in 3-5 minutes once your stir fry is finished 😉

Can purchase ones controllable via app

I strongly suspect their positions and your position overlap far more than you’re making it seem.

As if to further amplify the ignorance of the OP, I cannot help but laugh at how this was posted in site feedback.

I think many things, but wasn't commenting there about Hamas, their intentions, nor their understanding of response likelihoods before striking. I condemn the actions of the 10/7 terrorists and those who keep attacking Israel and seeking its total destruction on other dates, too. I equally want innocent civilians across Gaza and elsewhere to stop paying the price for actions taken by leaders they didn't elect and don't support. Especially children, but not just the kids. I'm aiming for clarity on this reply. Hopefully I've achieved it.

Nobody cares who you are. Whether an expert with advanced degrees or a random dropout who didn’t make it passed grade school, all that matters is the merit of your idea and your ability to defend it against criticism using facts and intellectual honesty.

Beyond being untrue, much of this is bc it’s taken as given that both are bad actors, whereas Israel is seen as having a moral high ground they’re failing to live up to. The response is also in obvious ways asymmetric and disproportionate.

Consent matters most. Where consent can be provided without coercion and without taking advantage of the young or oppressed then we should all mind our own damned business

Boy howdy, SO glad you actively searched specifically for this topic just so you could bump it after a dozen years (more than a decade) to opine and grace us with your thoughts that child porn ought to remain illegal. Phew. My whole month just got better

TBH, I’d temper my expectations. There’s almost certainly a fundamental flaw you’re currently missing

Or to reduce losses from defensive countermeasures. Nobody is doing that. Both can be valid in parallel (Hamas responsible and Bibi complicit in various ways)

He’s actively amplified it based on what we can see in his behavior and decision to ignore calls for different paths from his biggest allies. Or maybe people go to extreme lengths to protect their self-interests and avoid letting go of power.

For pointing to the flaws in your idea? lol. Without that you can’t fix it or make it better. This isn’t kindergarten when you get a gold star for effort. Members aren’t here to coddle you and protect your ego. Your idea either has merit or it doesn’t. Full stop.

My pleasure. Please don’t take it personally when everyone pokes holes in your idea. That’s a big part of science: showing why and where people’s ideas don’t make sense or how they’re flawed. This is how we progress using only the best ideas

Your idea will be public domain and totally unprotected, but yes you can post it and no it doesn’t matter if you’re not a scientist so long as you acknowledge mainstream science criticisms and use scientific principles

We’re all biased, most often in unconscious ways. Suggesting otherwise is itself a bias.

Got it. I was wrong. Maybe you can next follow-up on the "please correct me" part of my comment?