It needs more panels. It needs talking heads deliberately pronouncing the words frighteningly while giving only the worst interpretation of their effects, or uses in other situations.
“The same chemical used to remove plastic buildup from steel molds!” Or whatever. Meanwhile the chemical is dihydrogen monoxide.
Like, it needs 8 or 10 panels in between those two.
How’s this for simple: your kid has a higher chance of dying from measles than from the vaccine, even when you assume all conspiracy theories are correct.
At least with the lottery, my $2 buys a day or two of some fantastic daydreams. Can an anti vaxxer excitedly say “I WOULD GIVE EACH OF YOU A MILLION DOLLARS AND MAKE MY TOWN LIBRARY THE GREATEST IN THE STATE!!”
There are also lotteries that spend most of the money on charity. Worst case you do something good with most of the money you put in. Nothing wrong with that
I’m not arguing whether anything is wrong with it or not. You could literally be shredding bank notes as a hobby. If it makes you happy, I’m not arguing against.
I’m rather saying someone who’s confident in statistics doesn’t need arguing here. They’ll intrinsically know the chance of winning is effectively 0. As such, they assume that their money will go to charity. But since the lottery company keeps a cut as profit, giving it this way is just worse than giving to charity directly.
Add comment