Blue Origin launch

[EvilNed]

He means what Shapiro says @4:40, namely: that he has done more good by building Amazon than all the money he has given to charity, which does imply that Amazon is more beneficial to society than charities. Not that I hate Amazon or anything like that (I find it very convenient to buy or sell some types of mechandise, just like I find eBay or Mercari very convenient for similar purposes, so I am not blasting such sites at all, I am all for free enterprise), but this sounds like an exaggerated claim. The number one beneficiary of Amazon still are the owners, not society at large. It also implies that there was nothing else Bezos would have been able to do with his money. It's his money, he should be able to do what he want with it. I'm only pointing out how narrow Ben Shapiro's mindset is. His rhetoric is based on a number of assumptions that he then builds his arguments upon - despite the assumptions being rather... Daft.

[Neil]

He means what Shapiro says @4:40, namely: that he has done more good by building Amazon than all the money he has given to charity, which does imply that Amazon is more beneficial to society than charities. Not that I hate Amazon or anything like that (I find it very convenient to buy or sell some types of mechandise, just like I find eBay or Mercari very convenient for similar purposes, so I am not blasting such sites at all, I am all for free enterprise), but this sounds like an exaggerated claim. The number one beneficiary of Amazon still are the owners, not society at large. Understood - and that's what I suggested he misunderstood too. Because saying (repeatedly), "Amazon has done more good to the world than any help organization", is very different to saying, Amazon has done more good than (just) the cheques Bezzos has given to charity. It's important to note also, the only reason those cheques are even being written by Bezzos, is because of Amazon And the entire point of course centres on the fixation (being highlighted in that and other articles) that some people have with these current private space flight enterprises, that they must somehow be a bad thing, so say, "but world hunger?" It's simplistic, naive and rather disingenuous. These private space ventures are important for a myriad of reasons, are being privately funded rather than via taxes, and to question their importance and funding, because of "down here first," while ignoring a bazillion other questionable antics going on, is again, simplistic, naive and rather disingenuous (& in truth even dangerous). IMHO.

[EvilNed]

My point is that Shapiro makes statements, assumptions and then bases his entire arguments on false truths. Already pointed out two examples.

[MinionZombie]

Shapiro's an insufferable arse whose approach to debate is "talk super fast and hope nobody picks apart what I'm saying". I still cringe at his drubbing at the hands of Andrew Neil on the BBC, especially after Shapiro made the moronic assumption that Neil was leftwing (he's actually rightwing). Shapiro can make some good points here or there, whether one agrees or not, but oftentimes it's in the face of people far younger than him whose arguments are based on 'feelings over facts' (as you might say, Neil) and aren't suited to debating. Not that I think Shapiro is as skilled as he believes either, because, again, his style generally seems to just be 'bulldoze opponents with really fast talking'. A more gifted orator would know that doing a 'fast forward Bogart' is poor craft, and it suggests his arguments aren't as watertight as he tries to make them appear.

[Neil]

Shapiro's an insufferable arse whose approach to debate is "talk super fast and hope nobody picks apart what I'm saying". I still cringe at his drubbing at the hands of Andrew Neil on the BBC, especially after Shapiro made the moronic assumption that Neil was leftwing (he's actually rightwing). Shapiro can make some good points here or there, whether one agrees or not, but oftentimes it's in the face of people far younger than him whose arguments are based on 'feelings over facts' (as you might say, Neil) and aren't suited to debating. Not that I think Shapiro is as skilled as he believes either, because, again, his style generally seems to just be 'bulldoze opponents with really fast talking'. A more gifted orator would know that doing a 'fast forward Bogart' is poor craft, and it suggests his arguments aren't as watertight as he tries to make them appear. All fine... But if we take the case in hand (the discussion above), I'd say ad hominem attacks still doesn't mean it's logical to complain about what someone said, based on what they didn't actually say.... (ie: Shapiro did not say, "Amazon has done more good to the world than any help organization". Which is what the criticism of him repeatedly was. And this then formed the gateway to other criticisms which were just as questionable.) - - - Updated - - - My point is that Shapiro makes statements, assumptions and then bases his entire arguments on false truths. Already pointed out two examples. Sorry, but this is comically pot, kettle, black. "false truths" - From the outset, you criticised him (repeatedly) for saying something he simply did not say. "assumptions" - You followed it with other criticisms of him for not explaining a point ("why private space travel is a good thing"), when you openly admit only listening to a third of the article in question. And when I carefully listed all the points I could remember him making, strangely the criticism disappeared? ie: Were the points not logical or sensible? If not, then why not?

[EvilNed]

Sorry, but this is comically pot, kettle, black. "false truths" - From the outset, you criticised him (repeatedly) for saying something he simply did not say. "assumptions" - You followed it with other criticisms of him for not explaining a point, when you openly admit only listening to a third of the article in question. And when I carefully listed all the points I could remember him making, strangely the criticism disappeared? ie: Were the points (for "why private space travel is a good thing") not logical or sensible? If not, then why not? Yeah, I only listened to a third of it because within the first third he managed to do exactly what I don't like about him. I've already listed the grievances I have. I'm not really invested enough in this to go and look up the exact wording of the amazon claim, even though when I look at it (based on what JDP wrote) my point still stands. He simply doesn't think his arguments through but goes the simple route of asserting something very forcefully and doesn't explain anything behind it. Sure, he offers explanations. But the actual foundation of his assumption is just bullshit. As it often is. Like this whole Private or Public Space exploration thing... Dude, that's not my problem. My problem is that it's a vanity project and I've yet to see anything trying to rationalize that part of it (succesfully). Sorry I only watched a third of it, but Shapiro just isn't worth more of my time. You seem more irritated by the fact that I don't like him than my actual point.

[Neil]

Yeah, I only listened to a third of it because within the first third he managed to do exactly what I don't like about him. I've already listed the grievances I have. I'm not really invested enough in this to go and look up the exact wording of the amazon claim, even though when I look at it (based on what JDP wrote) my point still stands. He simply doesn't think his arguments through but goes the simple route of asserting something very forcefully and doesn't explain anything behind it. Sure, he offers explanations. But the actual foundation of his assumption is just bullshit. As it often is. Like this whole Private or Public Space exploration thing... Dude, that's not my problem. My problem is that it's a vanity project and I've yet to see anything trying to rationalize that part of it (succesfully). Sorry I only watched a third of it, but Shapiro just isn't worth more of my time. You seem more irritated by the fact that I don't like him than my actual point. You did indeed list your grievences:- Complaining about a comment he didn't actually make - "He assumes that Amazon has done more good to the world than any help organization." (You significantly altered/embellished his comment for some reason) Complaining he didn't make points, when you didn't even listen for them. And when I listed them, you didn't even address them. "You seem more irritated by the fact that I don't like him than my actual point." - What point? All you're doing is making it clear you don't like him, and you won't even address his (actual) points Heck, I'll list some of the points again I remembered him making why private space travel is a good thing, for which you berated him for not making (even though he did). Feel free to discuss those for a change from character assassination?:- Private industry tends to move economies forwards more than Government - ie: The private sector tends to be more efficient than the public sector. Lowering the price of space travel - These companies are reducing the cost of getting hardware (as well as people) into space, significantly. ie: Far more than for example NASA has managed, or probably will manage. Private industry is NOT costing taxes, unlike for example NASA - ie: Their developments are not taking money from your pocket to fund themselves. May even improve cost and travel times around the planet. We may well need space travel as a salvation to the species, from a resource, technology, or literally survival POV. ^ Help get this thread back on topic and discuss those? ps: "My problem is that it's a vanity project" - Elon Musk literally started SpaceX for species survival reasons. Bezzos hopes it is for the potential betterment of the ecology. If that's vanity projects, we need more of them.

[EvilNed]

I think you misunderstood me. My grievance is with him making assumptions and then basing his arguments around them. He's not really someone I would look to do defend anything, because there's no substance and very little thought put into his arguments. His main driving points is to prove others wrong rather than to actually consider all the options. I feel like this is kinda going nowhere and I'm not really interested in arguing against Shapiro, who's faults I've already made clear. Good thing you like him. Great job, Jeff! Wish you'd spent your money on something worthwhile instead, but hey... Billionaires and their vanity projects. Do your thing. And just because Elon Musk says something doesn't mean I have to agree with it or think he's got a point...

[Neil]

I think you misunderstood me. My grievance is with him making assumptions and then basing his arguments around them. He's not really someone I would look to do defend anything, because there's no substance and very little thought put into his arguments. His main driving points is to prove others wrong rather than to actually consider all the options. I feel like this is kinda going nowhere and I'm not really interested in arguing against Shapiro, who's faults I've already made clear. Good thing you like him. Great job, Jeff! Wish you'd spent your money on something worthwhile instead, but hey... Billionaires and their vanity projects. Do your thing. And just because Elon Musk says something doesn't mean I have to agree with it or think he's got a point... We are going around in circles, which is kind of hard not to do when you keep saying the likes of, "who's faults I've already made clear", when in reality all that is clear is you've (repeatedly) significantly misquoted him, and (repeatedly) ignored the points he has made, while underlined it all with a sweeping generalisation of, "billionaires and their vanity projects." I'm still bemused how trying to progress/help the human race at ones own expense/effort is worthy of belittling as a "vanity project." But hey ho... ps: "And just because Elon Musk says something doesn't mean I have to agree with it or think he's got a point" - Absolutely true. But if someone were to then ask you to explain why, it would be useful if you could do so based on something he did say, rather than didn't. Or suggest it was due him not justifying/explaining something, when he did

[EvilNed]

Well, I think Space exploration is a vanity project. I think those resources are put to better use elsewhere. By far. But hey, go ahead. Blast yourself into space while the divide between rich and poor grows greater... Just don't tell me it's for the greater good, cause I'm not buying it.

[Neil]

Well, I think Space exploration is a vanity project. I think those resources are put to better use elsewhere. By far. But hey, go ahead. Blast yourself into space while the divide between rich and poor grows greater... Just don't tell me it's for the greater good, cause I'm not buying it. We have NO choice but to move into space. None. Unless of course your proposal is in the long term as a species we are happy to languish in nigh on medieval societies. Because without moving into space, that's the sort of outcome. So we must get a serious footing in space, ASAP, for multiple reasons:- Resources - We will need more resources, and will need them from beyond the Earth. Ecology - The more industry we can move off the Earth, the better. Technology - The space industry helps improve technology (& economy). The survival of the species (or at least millions of lives) - Yes, it could literally be that black and white. On a number of different fronts. "the divide between rich and poor grows greater..." - Consider that statement... Made at a time when more people, have a better standard of living, than ever before. So, how meaningful is a statement like that, and how much is it just hyperbole?

[EvilNed]

We have NO choice but to move into space. None. Disagree.

[Neil]

Disagree. So by inference, you're OK with:- 1) With resources depleting, we risk losing technological advancement, and indeed even risk slipping backwards? ie: Rare metals etc will run out. Note: Reduced technology risks reduced quality of life/standard of living. 2) The prospect that a mass extinction event could wipe out all of humanity on Earth - Albeit natural or man-made. All gone. End of. 3) Large asteroid impacts could kill millions of people - It's not if. It's when! These could be detected and more important prevented with a sufficiently advanced space program. (Or do you have different views or disagree with those?) So ignoring all the technological and quality of life improvements that privately funded space development could bring, you don't see the above as important, if not a necessity?

[EvilNed]

So by inference, you're OK with:- 1) With resources depleting, we risk losing technological advancement, and indeed even risk slipping backwards? ie: Rare metals etc will run out. Note: Reduced technology risks reduced quality of life/standard of living. 2) The prospect that a mass extinction event could wipe out all of humanity on Earth - Albeit natural or man-made. All gone. End of. 3) Large asteroid impacts could kill millions of people - It's not if. It's when! These could be detected and more important prevented with a sufficiently advanced space program. (Or do you have different views or disagree with those?) So ignoring all the technological and quality of life improvements that privately funded space development could bring, you don't see the above as important, if not a necessity? A Very Shapiro-esque assumption to make, to not even consider alternatives... No, but I don't believe billionaire vanity projects are the best way to solve those issues - nor do I believe that they're necessarily the most pressing issues either. To suggest that I do agree with that would be to support the exploitation of the masses (more so than ever before, in the history of mankind) for the enrichment of the very, very few. I have no idea what technological or quality of life improvements that space travel can yield, but I do believe that there are better ways to reach those ends without a dick measuring competetion by the top 1%.

[Neil]

A Very Shapiro-esque assumption to make, to not even consider alternatives... No, but I don't believe billionaire vanity projects are the best way to solve those issues - nor do I believe that they're necessarily the most pressing issues either. To suggest that I do agree with that would be to support the exploitation of the masses (more so than ever before, in the history of mankind) for the enrichment of the very, very few. I have no idea what technological or quality of life improvements that space travel can yield, but I do believe that there are better ways to reach those ends without a dick measuring competetion by the top 1%. As well as not listening to what you're commenting on, do you not read what you're commenting on? Because you suggest, "to not even consider alternatives" - But how much more considerate to alternative can I be than asking, "do you have different views..."? I'm literally asking you... "I don't believe billionaire vanity projects are the best way to solve those issues" How would you suggest we improve space travel then to solve those issues? More taxes to fund NASA, who is stagnated and not as effective or cost effective as some of these private space ventures? You realise NASA is relying more and more on private space ventures themselves to become more cost effective? Their SLS development is a tour de force of expensive, sluggish, rather unimaginative development. "nor do I believe that they're necessarily the most pressing issues either" No one said they were. Are you suggesting everyone and everything should be dedicated to "pressing thing number one", before then moving on to "pressing thing number two"? Mind you, personally, I'd suggest preventing a mass extinction event, or the death of millions, should require a modicum of attention when we have the capability to do so, at in reality such a small effort and cost. Continuing to simply cross fingers seems rather naive. "I have no idea what technological or quality of life improvements that space travel can yield" And there may be a glimpse at the core of the issue...