3 ms·
Follow up to the above comment. After making this comment two users (dogma1138 and ommunist) showed up that reinforce my point. On one side, according to dogma
by oneloop 10y ago
Follow up to the above comment. After making this comment two users (dogma1138 and ommunist) showed up that reinforce my point.
On one side, according to dogma1138 (it appears from his comments) that any change to the environment is inherently bad. Talk about change and he will quickly point out the loss of lives. I asked several times whether there were any exceptions from this and got no compromise. On the other side, according to ommunist, any concerns that anyone can have about the environment are necessarily misconceptions stemming from corporate propagandist shills, and no compromise here either.
This topic is so polarised that it's impossible to have a productive discussion.
- fatbird 10y agoYou have failed to understand dogma1138's point. He wasn't denying that change can be good, he was refusing to engage an oversimplification you were presenting. They're not the same thing, and your attempts to present binary questions are what derailed the productive discussion.