You win the internet today! Best example of relational or “Right Brain” thinking I’ve seen today. And if you are wondering about what the heck that is, check out this link. Good discussion! The “relational thinking” is my own characterization but if you listen you’ll see why I might use it. Cheers!At the risk of repeating myself, you could say that's the common ethos of the political class.
But let me for a moment play devil's advocate. As I sit here multitasking, I just put a discussion between Jordan Peterson and Dr. Richard Linzen about climate science on pause. I'm at the part where they'd mentioned the introduction of Malthusian Theory into climate science. The current GACC "consensus" leads me to believe most of these people are quasi-eugenicists at heart. They believe that humans can control the earth's climate, therefore they believe they can control anything within its operational sphere, to include human nature and the size of our set.
The people this particular Republican is debating, are attempting to put a dollar value on the death of an abused human child (which they set at $1.5M dollars). He then puts up an absurd counterpoint that couldn't it in fact be argued to be a cost savings, due to a reduction in needed government services? To which the other side responds "The loss of a child is unmeasurable."
Well, which is it? Is it unmeasurable? Or is it $1.5M dollars? Because that's the problem with pursuing economic fallacies, they never quantify the true value of any human life. They don't even accurately measure the estimated economic value of human life, because there's no reasonable way to do such a thing unless you're an insurance actuary examining a claim. And if you're not an insurance actuary, even mentioning economic value of a human life in any other context is like asking whether you should tell your sister-in-law she's fat!!!
So what I notice about the "NEWSWEEK" article is that they headlined it "Alaska Republican Touts Benefits of Children Being Abused to Death" (they also juxtaposed a heartstring snapping photo of a supposedly abused child against a picture of the evil Republican). That is a bald-faced lie. He never once "touted the benefits", he merely asked an economic question in response to an economic supposition. In fact it's just as likely a murdered child who was severely abused would cost society $1.5M to manage over their lifetime, as it is they'd produce $1.5M in economic benefits for society.
But that's not the point and it never was. Bringing up economics in the discussion was a stupid idea to begin with, and he didn't introduce it. They did. They who are the same type of bleeding hearts as those who believe they can control the earth's climate and manage humans like cattle or plants.
I love ya Gurl, but they pulled at your heartstrings and misled you. They assumed we'd all agree with them, not because they're good and the Republican is evil, but because they were manipulating our opinions and know they get away with it more often than not.
