3 ms·

While unpleasant truths require thoughtful presentation (like any argument), I am not so filled with contempt for the opposition that I believe 100% of them are

While unpleasant truths require thoughtful presentation (like any argument), I am not so filled with contempt for the opposition that I believe 100% of them are are 100% irrational and 100% unreachable. Especially not when billions are being lost through inundated real estate. I don't think you're being disingenuous, but your argument is essentially "concern trolling": you agree with the substance but express concern that others may not. It is folly to be paralyzed in the face of such an argument: that's abandoning a won position to your interlocutor.

graeme 8y ago
No, that's not what I said at all. My argument was more along the lines of "it's hard to get a man to understand what his salary requires him not to understand". I'm saying that even though climate change is disastrous collectively, it's currently generally in an individual's interest to burn carbon. And so a fair chunk of people will have great difficulty even understanding that this burning is terribly bad for the planet and for us collectively. Even absent propaganda we would have this problem. Now, if society were all united in sending a message I'm sure more people would be in favour of emissions reduction. But you're treating the issue as only caused by propaganda.