5 ms·
Do you not see how your reply to the OP's sincere question amounts to the same lackluster, overgeneralized, and lazy intellectual stance that the people you're
by AndrewUnmuted 8y ago
Do you not see how your reply to the OP's sincere question amounts to the same lackluster, overgeneralized, and lazy intellectual stance that the people you're criticizing take on climate science?
You couldn't have more aptly proved the OP's point.
- froogie 8y agoHonestly, I do not see it that way. To me it seems as if sizable chunk of people believe in nonsense, and the nonsensical beliefs and actions based on such beliefs are detrimental not only to the people holding such beliefs, but every single living entity on this planet, future generations included. How is that acceptable? With what right do the people holding these beliefs keep acting the way they do? It is the reaponsibility of the rest of us to stop this madness as soon as possible. It is the responsibility we as species hold to our ancestors and future generations. If it is all in vain for you. Fine. But please do consider other living organisms as as important as you, for you are one of us. We are in this together.
- antisthenes 8y ago> Do you not see how your reply to the OP's sincere question amounts to the same lackluster, overgeneralized, and lazy intellectual stance that the people you're criticizing take on climate science? Do not give equal weight to nonsense beliefs and beliefs supported by decades of science. That's the real toxicity - when you try to attempt to give them equivalency despite different efforts having gone into forming them. I'm sorry that isn't clear to some people, but that doesn't make nonsense any less excusable or valid or show a need to 'win their hearts'.
- luckydata 8y agoThere was nothing sincere about OP's question just as there's nothing lackluster about my answer. You can play your two-sideism game with people that buy that bullshit, I don't.