This presumes that everyone who builds in coastal areas is "gormless" and deserves hardship. Millions of people live on islands and they don't get a choice where they build. Several Polynesian countries will disappear by the end of the decade. Are they "gormless"?
When you’ve rebuilt in the Dane location for a third or fourth time, on the same lot, why should we keep subsidizing the process? At what point do we say “you cannot build here any more”?
At the very least houses should be required to be MUCH stronger, able to withstand 185 mph winds, which seems to be the highest ever for a Florida hurricane.
This seems based on outdated science to me. The world isn't just "getting hotter", the overall climate is changing due solely to human influence. The article makes it sound like insurers believe houses will start spontaneously combusting. What they should really worry about is desertification in populated areas and flooding along the coasts, and the inevitable humanitarian crisis and necessary social restructuring that those will require. We can't leave this to insurers - we need strong cooperation between governments and academia to plot a better course into our brave new world.
"The article makes it sound like", which I used to emphasize the seeming misunderstanding that the author seems to have. Insurers aren't stupid. I don't think the author is stupid either; I think they're just not a SME. And unless you have credentials, neither are you or anyone else here. We have to be better at listening to the experts who dedicate their lives to this stuff, and we need to fund them whatever they need to do their work.
From the article;
“financial burden of these disasters often falls on individuals, businesses and governments, rather than insurance firms.”
Considering the article, your post was simply off-topic and inaccurate. There are flooding issues far from the coasts, and desertification in farmland far from where most people live.
“Houses spontaneously combusting” was just the most obvious fiction that would draw downvotes.
This was not an article denying atmospheric carbon dioxide. Open your mind to awaken others. Respect the fact that some eyes are already open.
Please elaborate. What is the mechanism whereby a state actor hacked the machines to get them to start changing the rate at which incoming votes go for one candidate vs the other... without changing the rate at which incoming votes go for one candidate or the other?
Seriously. Look at the "Smoking Gun (The Complete Absence Of)" section, and explain to me how the machines were hacked in the way that ETA describes without causing any change in the trend line of any individual machine.
This is like saying "the chemtrail makers are smart enough to know how condensation works" or "the moon landing filmmakers are smart enough to know how retroreflectors work".
That's not an argument. The fact that moon landing fakers would have known how retroreflectors work doesn't change the fact that the retroreflectors exist, and their existence disproves the conspiracy theory in its entirety.
I'm not sure what you call this fallacy. It's not really whataboutism because you're not equivocating against another argument, but instead you just discard it and push forward on the path that you've chosen for this interaction. I guess it's begging the question. I can see that this would be a powerful technique in a more open forum, or against an uninformed audience, because by pushing like this you imply that you are so correct that no other argument need even be heard. What is the "win condition" here for you? Do you have any other examples of your work, or do you cycle out soon?
They made their point poorly but their argument is not fallacious. They are saying that the Americans who make the relevant decisions at Visa/Mastercard have their own reasons for making this decision and are probably not simply capitulating to a foreign special-interest group. (Of course, they could have more effectively gotten their point across by actually describing it.)
The point is that leaders at Visa/Mastercard probably think it's very convenient that Collective Shout exists because it lets them blame that group for their decisions. And it seems to have worked given how so many members of this not-uninformed audience refuse to look past Collective Shout to see that Visa/Mastercard made a decision to change their policy.
Visa and Mastercard have been sued in various jurisdictions for facilitating the monetization of illegal content by some merchant in that jurisdiction before. They've been made party to the defendants and the court refused their "we have no part in this, we only move money around" and have failed at their motions to be removed from those cases.
Collective Shout has tried to get Steam and Itch to remove the content they don't like / is illegal in Australia.
From the article:
> “We raised our objection to rape and incest games on Steam for months, and they ignored us for months,” reads a blog post from Collective Shout. “We approached payment processors because Steam did not respond to us.”
So after they didn't succeed with Steam and Itch, they likely said to Visa and Mastercard "we tried to get your merchants to follow the law, they haven't. If we sue them, we're suing you too."
As Visa and Mastercard have lost that court case before, the payment processors then went to their merchants and likely said something along the lines of "If you get sued, we're getting sued too - so we're going to not process payments for you until you are not in danger of getting sued."
Could Visa and Mastercard rebuffed Collective Shout? Possibly... but then we'd be reading about how Itch, Steam, Visa, and Mastercard got sued in an Australian court and lost the case on illegal Australian porn.
It's Australia's fault that while they can handle a phallus on TV (as insinuated in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44717254 ), they can't handle a fur lined handcuff, schoolgirl uniform, or shaven anatomy.
Trying to blame the United States for this misplaced.
Visa and Mastercard (and all payment processors) are risk adverse and the risk of being included in another PR damaging and expensive lawsuit that they can't get out of despite having the limited role of moving money from customer to merchant.
If you want to blame someone for this fiasco, one should be looking instead at the laws in the country where this originated from and the courts that mandate the involvement of the payment processor as a defendant.
