3 ms·

No, lying is bad and for whatever critiques you can have of my point, it's not whataboutism. You can say it's cynical, but I believe people lie all the time and

No, lying is bad and for whatever critiques you can have of my point, it's not whataboutism. You can say it's cynical, but I believe people lie all the time and I should be economical with my precious time when arguing on the internet. But if you think the categorization of the Amazon as the Earth's lungs is above that criteria for you, then I will not stop you even though I will think it's ridiculous.

meiraleal 7y ago
> But if you think the categorization of the Amazon as the Earth's lung is above that criteria for you, It is, if your stand is from a country that destroyed its own natural forest and now demand that a country of 200million people should not use 60% of its own territory to save the world while half of its people is poor.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
leetcrew 7y ago
arguments of the form "this is bad, but there are much worse incidences of {bad thing} we should be talking about instead" are whataboutism. you are arguing for an exception because you've run into an issue where you find yourself on the opposite side. it's one thing to decide not to spend your mental energy on a small deceit/inaccuracy. you are actively trying to shut down the discussion.
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  No, I actually don't give a crap. This meta discussion aside, I actually know that my time on this planet is finite and as a result my attention is finite. Whether of not the Amazon is the Earth's lungs is a pedantic point. If it is or not, it doesn't change my stance on preserving it. So, while the article is true, I can safely ignore it because it is not meaningful. Not sure how much you know about agriculture and the Fischer-Tropsch process, but the Amazon soil is not particularly fertile and requires a bunch of nitrogen fertilizer which in turn is generally produced by fracking. Further, a bunch of that soy goes towards feeding cows. So burning the Amazon down is mostly pointless and contributes to furthering the global warming crisis in several important ways. It's important I don't lose sight getting engaged in a pedantic argument over trivial details. You see the same dynamic in gun control debates when someone re-polarizes a discussion by turning it towards a misidentification of a particular gun or whether "assault rifle" is a valid categorization of guns. Polarizing the discussion is the point, so I choose to ignore true points that are used to distract people from more meaningful conclusions. It's a very basic and easy technique to resist disinformation.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    > Polarizing the discussion is the point, so I choose to ignore true points that are used to distract people from more meaningful conclusions. It's a very basic and easy technique to resist disinformation. I'm honestly kind of shocked to see someone admit that this is their intention in so few words.
    - sharkmerry 7y ago
      What is he/she admitting? Other than they feel there are numerous reasons to keep the Amazon, whether or not the lungs, is not enough of a negative to not

meiraleal 7y ago

> But if you think the categorization of the Amazon as the Earth's lung is above that criteria for you, It is, if your stand is from a country that destroyed its own natural forest and now demand that a country of 200million people should not use 60% of its own territory to save the world while half of its people is poor.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

leetcrew 7y ago

arguments of the form "this is bad, but there are much worse incidences of {bad thing} we should be talking about instead" are whataboutism. you are arguing for an exception because you've run into an issue where you find yourself on the opposite side. it's one thing to decide not to spend your mental energy on a small deceit/inaccuracy. you are actively trying to shut down the discussion.

throwaway5752 7y ago
No, I actually don't give a crap. This meta discussion aside, I actually know that my time on this planet is finite and as a result my attention is finite. Whether of not the Amazon is the Earth's lungs is a pedantic point. If it is or not, it doesn't change my stance on preserving it. So, while the article is true, I can safely ignore it because it is not meaningful. Not sure how much you know about agriculture and the Fischer-Tropsch process, but the Amazon soil is not particularly fertile and requires a bunch of nitrogen fertilizer which in turn is generally produced by fracking. Further, a bunch of that soy goes towards feeding cows. So burning the Amazon down is mostly pointless and contributes to furthering the global warming crisis in several important ways. It's important I don't lose sight getting engaged in a pedantic argument over trivial details. You see the same dynamic in gun control debates when someone re-polarizes a discussion by turning it towards a misidentification of a particular gun or whether "assault rifle" is a valid categorization of guns. Polarizing the discussion is the point, so I choose to ignore true points that are used to distract people from more meaningful conclusions. It's a very basic and easy technique to resist disinformation.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  > Polarizing the discussion is the point, so I choose to ignore true points that are used to distract people from more meaningful conclusions. It's a very basic and easy technique to resist disinformation. I'm honestly kind of shocked to see someone admit that this is their intention in so few words.
  - sharkmerry 7y ago
    What is he/she admitting? Other than they feel there are numerous reasons to keep the Amazon, whether or not the lungs, is not enough of a negative to not