• fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Your original complaint (spending more on Israel than climate change) was at least an order of magnitude or two off from what is actually going on, and the “millions” part was easily disproven. Confronted with that, your new complaint (to the same ends) is now the time span under which these sums are dedicated, no longer the actual amount, despite that being satisfied now. I know what that sounds like.

    Did you find a source that proves we could meet our climate goals if we didn’t fund Israel?

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      That’s still an order of magnitude more support for Israel than climate, which still supports my point about the administration’s priorities.

      I doubt we could meet our goals if we simply transferred Israel’s funding to climate, but I never claimed that.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          17.9 billion is an order of magnitude higher than 1 billion. Do you know how orders of magnitude work?

          Also… you didn’t quote anything? Here’s what I said:

          I’m under the impression that it would be a lot easier to improve things if the billions spent supporting Israel were instead spent on climate change mitigation.

          Easier. We do have to stop supporting Israel to meet our climate goals, but that alone will not be enough. We need to do way more than that. If I miscommunicated that I apologize.

          • fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Mmk

            Edit: I’m not sticking around to discover how these arguments evolve again and again.