Author Topic: Elevator pitch answers for contentious views  (Read 943 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 15842
Re: Elevator pitch answers for contentious views
« Reply #15 on: July 03, 2019, 05:04:12 PM »
What would you think of this comment from former chairman of Swedish Skeptics Association? From a different context, though.

Quote
I don’t worry. Sweden’s going to keep moving away from religion, deprogramming pious immigrant groups as they become socially integrated and generations pass. Because in a good society, the people doesn’t need that opiate.
I think thats fine. Most people become more secular as they get more exposure to freedom and treated with respect and dignity.

Offline fuzzyMarmot

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 661
Re: Elevator pitch answers for contentious views
« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2019, 07:19:57 PM »
UBI:
  • We already spend tax revenue on the public.  Sidewalks, police, etc.  This is just more of the same.
  • Supports consumer spending which is good for business and good for people.
  • Bush's $300 check to every American worked great.  Even a tiny UBI'd be great.
  • If you float payments to revenue, the program pays for itself.  Debt-free.

My very short elevator pitch against UBI:

Alaska

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/03/alaska-is-poised-gut-its-public-universities-it-would-be-statewide-disaster
(Further cuts will impact Medicaid, village public safety officers, and benefits for low-income seniors).

Offline wastrel

  • Great poster... or greatest poster?
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 13470
  • Science: A cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on
Re: Elevator pitch answers for contentious views
« Reply #17 on: July 03, 2019, 07:32:24 PM »
I'm confused....how is that an argument against federal Universal Basic Income?

Offline Soldier of FORTRAN

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9344
  • Cache rules everything around me.
Re: Elevator pitch answers for contentious views
« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2019, 07:43:54 PM »
My very short elevator pitch against UBI:

Alaska

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/03/alaska-is-poised-gut-its-public-universities-it-would-be-statewide-disaster
(Further cuts will impact Medicaid, village public safety officers, and benefits for low-income seniors).

That's not an argument.  That's an article about budgetary trade-offs. Can only get rid of those by getting rid of anything with a budget

Why not blame this:
Quote
Alaska does not have a state sales tax, personal income tax or property tax

Instead of this:
Quote
Alaska, after all, has a “permanent fund,” established in 1976, now valued at more than $65 billion, built up through a combination of oil revenue and prudent investment. Last year the fund had a return of 10.74 percent, with earnings that well exceed the 2019 projected budget deficit of $1.6 billion. The state pays out a dividend to each of its residents annually. Last year, each eligible resident got $1,600.

Or why not blame this:
Quote
Dunleavy is insistent on increasing the dividend to $3,000 in 2019, at a projected cost of $2 billion.
If global warming is real then how come I just felt this chill down my spine?

Offline fuzzyMarmot

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 661
Re: Elevator pitch answers for contentious views
« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2019, 07:54:58 PM »
My very short elevator pitch against UBI:

Alaska

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/03/alaska-is-poised-gut-its-public-universities-it-would-be-statewide-disaster
(Further cuts will impact Medicaid, village public safety officers, and benefits for low-income seniors).

That's not an argument.  That's an article about budgetary trade-offs. Can only get rid of those by getting rid of anything with a budget

Why not blame this:
Quote
Alaska does not have a state sales tax, personal income tax or property tax

Instead of this:
Quote
Alaska, after all, has a “permanent fund,” established in 1976, now valued at more than $65 billion, built up through a combination of oil revenue and prudent investment. Last year the fund had a return of 10.74 percent, with earnings that well exceed the 2019 projected budget deficit of $1.6 billion. The state pays out a dividend to each of its residents annually. Last year, each eligible resident got $1,600.

Or why not blame this:
Quote
Dunleavy is insistent on increasing the dividend to $3,000 in 2019, at a projected cost of $2 billion.

I was being a little tongue-in-cheek with my response. I think we actually agree on many of the merits of a UBI. I lived most of my life in Alaska, and have been recently perplexed by how politicians in the last couple of years have touted it as a UBI success story. In reality, Alaska's approach has been disastrous. They were blessed with immense wealth from natural resources, but decided to commit that to equal distribution among all citizens instead of public services or need-based programs. This might work well if coupled with a progressive state income tax, but taxes are anathema to Alaskans. The result is a long-term commitment to providing annual cash dividends to everyone-- including the wealthy and upper middle class-- in lieu of programs aimed at helping the poor or promoting the public good.

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7633
Re: Elevator pitch answers for contentious views
« Reply #20 on: July 04, 2019, 11:02:33 AM »
How about an elevator pitch for nuclear power?
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Online stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10464
Re: Elevator pitch answers for contentious views
« Reply #21 on: July 04, 2019, 11:15:50 AM »
How about an elevator pitch for nuclear power?

One kilogram of U-235 produces  83.14 Terajoules (or 23 Megawatt-hours) of energy, 2.5 million more than coal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235).

Quote
It is estimated that 5.5 million tonnes of uranium exists in ore reserves that are economically viable at US$59 per lb of uranium,[71] while 35 million tonnes are classed as mineral resources (reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction).

We maybe have 40 million metric tonnes of usable Uranium. All of the world's electricity at current consumption levels, 25,000 Terawatt-hours per year, amounts to only about 500 metric tonnes of Uranium per year.

So, we have enough Uranium to produce all of our electricity at current rates for 80,000 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption) Now, it looks like 75-80% of energy consumption is not electricity, i.e. all other use of fossil fuels, hence, how I phrased it.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 11:20:21 AM by stands2reason »

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4925
Re: Elevator pitch answers for contentious views
« Reply #22 on: July 04, 2019, 11:23:13 AM »
Elevator pitch to use when talking to people who don't deny climate change, but are complacent about it?
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Online stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10464
Re: Elevator pitch answers for contentious views
« Reply #23 on: July 04, 2019, 11:28:58 AM »
Elevator pitch to use when talking to people who don't deny climate change, but are complacent about it?

Do you have any idea how much coastal real estate is going to be destroyed if the sea level rises another meter, let alone 3-4 meters (a dozen feet), let alone several times that?

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/global-warming-impacts/sea-level-rise-chronic-floods-and-us-coastal-real-estate-implications

Quote
    More than 300,000 of today's coastal homes, with a collective market value of about $117.5 billion today, are at risk of chronic inundation in 2045—a timeframe that falls within the lifespan of a 30-year mortgage issued today. Approximately 14,000 coastal commercial properties, currently assessed at a value of roughly $18.5 billion, are also at risk during that timeframe.
    By the end of the century, homes and commercial properties currently worth more than $1 trillion could be at risk. This includes as many as 2.4 million homes—the rough equivalent of all the homes in Los Angeles and Houston combined—that are collectively valued today at approximately $912 billion.   
    The properties at risk by 2045 currently house 550,000 people and contribute nearly $1.5 billion toward today's property tax base. Those numbers jump to about 4.7 million people and $12 billion by 2100. 
    States with the most homes at risk by the end of the century are Florida, with about 1 million homes (more than 10% of the state's current residential properties); New Jersey, with 250,000 homes; and New York with 143,000 homes.

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 15842
Re: Elevator pitch answers for contentious views
« Reply #24 on: July 04, 2019, 11:38:20 AM »
"You would do anything to protect your kids right? When you have grandkids, you would do anything to protect them and would want to help them as much as possible yes?
So do something now that WILL protect and help your grandkids."

Offline amysrevenge

  • Baseball-Cap-Beard-Baby Guy
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5965
  • The Warhammeriest
Re: Elevator pitch answers for contentious views
« Reply #25 on: July 04, 2019, 11:46:15 AM »
"You would do anything to protect your kids right? When you have grandkids, you would do anything to protect them and would want to help them as much as possible yes?
So do something now that WILL protect and help your grandkids."

"And that something is:  _____.  Just do _____ and everything will be fine."

That's where that particular elevator pitch falls apart. Or at least transforms from an elevator pitch into a long-form presentation.
Big Mike
Grande Prairie AB Canada

Online stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10464
Re: Elevator pitch answers for contentious views
« Reply #26 on: July 04, 2019, 11:48:43 AM »
So do something now that WILL protect and help your grandkids."

I don't think that's going to be an effective argument for younger people, who have less regard for family values. Reproducing is more of a dumb-animal thing like gambling.

I think of the way that Douglas Adams described being the president. Whoever wants the job is basically guaranteed to be someone that shouldn't have it, or "people are a problem."

Much the same way, the people that want to reproduce are basically, by definition, the kind of people that shouldn't.

I am confident that, at some point in my life, the phrase "human overpopulation" is going to become laugh-out-loud funny.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2019, 11:18:28 PM by stands2reason »

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2701
Re: Elevator pitch answers for contentious views
« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2019, 02:24:55 PM »
It's not about the hypothetical children anymore. Climate change is showing force today, and will be happening at a faster rate year by year. If you're working age and want to be able to retire, you should be thinking how climate change will affect the economy in your lifetime.

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 15842
Re: Elevator pitch answers for contentious views
« Reply #28 on: July 04, 2019, 03:34:58 PM »
It's not about the hypothetical children anymore. Climate change is showing force today, and will be happening at a faster rate year by year. If you're working age and want to be able to retire, you should be thinking how climate change will affect the economy in your lifetime.
You also shouldnt smoke but I think people are bad at conceptualising long term risk to themselves but great at overestimating long term risk to their kids.

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8414
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Elevator pitch answers for contentious views
« Reply #29 on: July 04, 2019, 04:08:54 PM »
... people that want to reproduce are basically, by definition, the kind of people that shouldn't.

^ This!!!
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

 

personate-rain