This, exactly this.
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
The Nuclear Disarmament Game
- Thread starter amorrow2
- Start date
This, exactly this.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Houston police department budget of 2020: $39.7 million
Houston police department loaned military equipment 2010-2020: $141 million.
Houston police department total budget from 2010 to 2020 roughly 400 million.
If they bought as much military equipment from their budget, as they did get on loan, that would be 35% of their budget.
My conclusion, they could not afford to buy as much as they got on loan.
And really ... I am the stubborn one here? I immidiatly, albeit flippantly, did offer to amend the "all" with a humorous "fucking shit ton". I tried again a post later, a bit clearler, at least as far as I am concerned. You ignored it. I get the first time, but the 2rd time should have been completly clear.
Houston police department loaned military equipment 2010-2020: $141 million.
Houston police department total budget from 2010 to 2020 roughly 400 million.
If they bought as much military equipment from their budget, as they did get on loan, that would be 35% of their budget.
My conclusion, they could not afford to buy as much as they got on loan.
And really ... I am the stubborn one here? I immidiatly, albeit flippantly, did offer to amend the "all" with a humorous "fucking shit ton". I tried again a post later, a bit clearler, at least as far as I am concerned. You ignored it. I get the first time, but the 2rd time should have been completly clear.
This is once again either dire reasoning on your part, or it's intentionally manipulative.
I assume the former. I am not sure which is most charitable.
First of all, you've taken one single city. Is Houston then representative of all police forces?
You've then just taken one single year. Is that year meant to be representative of all Houston police department purchases?
Is that single year of a single city police department's budget meant to do all the work to support your claim?
Is that what you are trying to tell me?
And then your 'reasoning' afterwards is just empty as there's no way for any of us to evaluate what they've bought even in the single year of the single city you've chosen.
Your conclusion is not a conclusion: it's your argument restated and once again amended. Now it's just 'not as much' - I have no idea why you keep changing your argument on the specific point that's being challenged, yet framing it as if you're being reasonable. No, it's not reasonable to keep changing the point being challenged while simultaneously pretending that your point still stands.
And of course, there's no citation - so I am doing you the favour of taking all of the data above on faith assuming you're getting it from somewhere, but as with your prior link, I also have no doubt that if I were to look at your source I'd find information that would cause you to once again transparently extemporize.
So yes, I do think you're being stubborn, but you'll note that's not actually the criticism I leveled at you.
Your flippant response didn't help anything. I am not saying you can't be flippant - you can do whatever you want - but it's not like it helped you make a stronger point, add clarity, or do anything credible.
You "tried again a post later" and in that post you wrote:
Suggesting you don't want to go into detail, but now you're suggesting that the post was you 'trying again' and that I ignored it despite addressing it.
What is extremely clear is that your original claim was wrong.
Your subsequent claims have been muddled, but they seem intended to say that actually you were kind of right all along, whereas you actually were not.
But of course, if you think I am being partial - feel free to ask others here. If they all agree that you've supported your original contention, or that your original contention is substantially correct, then perhaps one of them will be able to explain it to me in such a way as I can understand it, because right now, I simply cannot see any way in which that's remotely tenable.
Being the highly religious chap that I most certainly am, I wish to draw your attention to this verse from the good book -
Ahem (clears throat)
Matthew 7:3-5
English Standard Version
3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Yes I have taken the Houston Police Department as an example.
No, I have taken the whole budget of the police department for that year. Roughly 40 million. Police budgets in the US rarely decrease, so I took that year x10 for the whole budget of the Houston Police Deparment over 10 years.
Thats 400 million roughly. In that time the Houston Police deparment got 141 million in military equipment on loan.
Draw whatever conclusion you want from that, mine is "There is no way in hell they could have afforded to spend anything near that on military equipment themselfs".
Citations: Post that started this and a quick google for the budget of the Houston Police Department.
Oh and I am making no points, I am not arguing, I am not debating, at the moment, all I am doing, is satisfying you and you are quite demanding.
Also, what do I care about what I said yesterday?
Last edited by a moderator:
Like I said: I have to take the charitable option then and suggest to you that your attempt to support your contention is barely even coherent, let alone persuasive. The attempt is actually motivated reasoning, presumably for some of the things already discussed.
Obviously, when trying to make a claim about US police force in general, you can't cite a single city's police force as if that's representative of all US police forces. To represent all US police forces, you'd have collated data on all US police forces from which to draw substantiated conclusions. If you don't have that data, then your original contention wasn't based on evidence at all; fine, we all make mistakes, we all overstate our cases at times etc., but you've gone on to repeatedly insist you're right, and this is just the latest example of that.
There are numerous other problems, like picking a single year. Obviously, to support your contention, you'd need to show that this is a routine factor too - not a one-off.
Given how you provided a source earlier that directly contradicted your claims and you still haven't even acknowledged that, then I think it's fair to also consider whether you are just cherrypicking here too. You've picked the city with the highest number in favour of your argument, and you've picked the year most in favour of your argument, and you've presented these as if they are to be extrapolated to the US as a whole, and to being a typical situation, i.e. as if this support your original claim - the original claim which you've amended, then unamended, then said you were being flippant, but it's actually true, and even if you're wrong... you're more right than wrong... etc. This is not how one acts when one is interested in what's true, but it is how someone acts when they don't want to admit they were wrong for some reason.
Of course, I also note that you've not responded to posts directly asking you questions the answers to which would expose your woolly thinking, and despite there being otherwise uninvolved parties suggesting you are digging in for no good reason, you are still trying to prove your original claim was right. For me, you've basically jumped the shark - you're not amenable to evidence-based reasoning.
What we do factually know is that despite your new concocted scenario where it's either army loans or police funded acquisition, there are numerous other avenues for police forces to acquire military equipment:
Obviously, when trying to make a claim about US police force in general, you can't cite a single city's police force as if that's representative of all US police forces. To represent all US police forces, you'd have collated data on all US police forces from which to draw substantiated conclusions. If you don't have that data, then your original contention wasn't based on evidence at all; fine, we all make mistakes, we all overstate our cases at times etc., but you've gone on to repeatedly insist you're right, and this is just the latest example of that.
There are numerous other problems, like picking a single year. Obviously, to support your contention, you'd need to show that this is a routine factor too - not a one-off.
Given how you provided a source earlier that directly contradicted your claims and you still haven't even acknowledged that, then I think it's fair to also consider whether you are just cherrypicking here too. You've picked the city with the highest number in favour of your argument, and you've picked the year most in favour of your argument, and you've presented these as if they are to be extrapolated to the US as a whole, and to being a typical situation, i.e. as if this support your original claim - the original claim which you've amended, then unamended, then said you were being flippant, but it's actually true, and even if you're wrong... you're more right than wrong... etc. This is not how one acts when one is interested in what's true, but it is how someone acts when they don't want to admit they were wrong for some reason.
Of course, I also note that you've not responded to posts directly asking you questions the answers to which would expose your woolly thinking, and despite there being otherwise uninvolved parties suggesting you are digging in for no good reason, you are still trying to prove your original claim was right. For me, you've basically jumped the shark - you're not amenable to evidence-based reasoning.
What we do factually know is that despite your new concocted scenario where it's either army loans or police funded acquisition, there are numerous other avenues for police forces to acquire military equipment:
This is not in dispute any longer, this is granted.
K
K
Well, sorry not sorry if you expect your claims to go unchallenged here, it's kinda the whole point of the place
Possibly because it could have implications on what you say today?
You obviously are making points.
You obviously are arguing.
I agree you're not debating because your responses don't really attain the status of a response one would expect in a debate.
As for this supposed notion you're satisfying me - you can shove that back up the sticky orifice you extracted it from.
Post 142
It's the truth which is demanding. It demands truth. Not some sort of maybe true if you squint at it sideways in the dark kind of truth. Just the truth, i.e. when something's wrong, it remains wrong regardless of how many words you write about it.
And yes, I am a right pain in the arse, aren't I? But your claim was still wrong despite any adjectives you care to point at me.
See how quickly Hack saw it?
The tiniest scrutiny.
All I did was ask you where you got that idea.
I didn't even ask you to defend it. I didn't say 'you're wrong' - I asked you basically how you knew this.
I asked you because I suspected it wasn't true based on things I've read in the past, but I was/am not pretending to have a comprehensive knowledge of it, so perhaps my idea was wrong and you could present me information that would show your claim was right. Or it could have shown your claim was wrong.
When a claim crumbles under such gentle scrutiny, I can't see why you'd want to hold onto it so tightly as if it's precious to you. I don't see how you've become emotionally involved in defending a position that I don't think you knew anything particularly substantive about prior to making the claim, and I don't think you've gone off and done some further research to see if you're right or wrong.
Reason - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I am still thinking about that Democracy Now! video. Several tens of billions of dollars for new nukes sounds typical. My point is: if the USA and Russia are going to buts 100 new nukes each, then they should destroy 200 old nukes. As I explained before: my primary goal is to keep seeing the total numbers of nukes worldwide to keep going down. It is really up to the USA and Russia to take this action.
They talked briefly about nukes in Geneva today.
www.independent.co.uk
The Kremlin chief nonetheless claimed to be happy with a “fruitful” conversation. The presidents had agreed to return ambassadors, he said, and begin discussions on the successor to an agreement on nuclear arms.
“You need to look around and see how wonderful the world is,” Mr Putin said. “How the grown-up leaders of the two world superpowers can meet and make the world a safe home.”
Trump news - live: Ex-president’s order to seize voting machines revealed
Trump news today
www.independent.co.uk
The Kremlin chief nonetheless claimed to be happy with a “fruitful” conversation. The presidents had agreed to return ambassadors, he said, and begin discussions on the successor to an agreement on nuclear arms.
“You need to look around and see how wonderful the world is,” Mr Putin said. “How the grown-up leaders of the two world superpowers can meet and make the world a safe home.”
Here is an interesting annual assessment
sipri.org
Global nuclear arsenals grow as states continue to modernize–New SIPRI Yearbook out now | SIPRI
(Stockholm, 14 June 2021) SIPRI today launches the findings of SIPRI Yearbook 2021, which assesses the current state of armaments, disarmament and international security. A key finding is that despite an overall decrease in the number of nuclear warheads in 2020, more have been deployed with...
Global nuclear arsenals grow as states continue to modernize–New SIPRI Yearbook out now
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Have you considered starting a blog? I have one. They're really fun.
I get enough feedback from you guys.