[nemo]

While the quantification isn't inherently reliable, the reality of many dead at the hands at Elon Mush is a simple fact that's not up for dispute. The only question is how many he's killed so far. He cut off life saving meds to sick kids and food aid to the areas with food shortages, the deaths are known and reliably reported.

[utternerd]

Then it should be easy to prove, instead of saying "it isn't up for dispute" or citing a person's model.

[wright08]

It is easy to prove, it is shown in the linked model. The model is simple. If I spend X amount of dollars feeding people, I can save Y lives. Since this model is obviously bunk, I'm sure you can easily articulate why this model is inaccurate, untrustworthy, or otherwise unhelpful.

[nemo]

True, feel free to Google "deaths attributed to end of usaid", lots to read and learn about there. Have at it.

[trimethylpurine]

Technically his department produced and advised on the data. It's just a government BI team. This is like blaming the BI team for the CEO's decision to fire people. Part of the process, sure. But this a decision made by the majority of Congress. Let's not forget who the bad guy is.

[IAmBroom]

We're not. Blame and guilt are not limited resources; more than one bad guy exists.

[suburban_strike]

> a simple fact that's not up for dispute

We used to say the same about the male/female binary.

> He cut off life saving meds

Sophistry. Forcing charity is literal enslavement. Withholding charity is not homicide.

[nemo]

So the kids died as a result of the action taken (withdrawing meds from impoverished children), but the person who took the meds away from the sick kids who then died as a result is innocent? I feel like you might want to look at that word "sophistry" long and hard, and do a bit of soul searching.