>1. Maturity doesn't equal consent. whoosh. He agrees with you that maturity doesn't equal consent; in fact, he relies on that it doesn't, he is saying someth

>1. Maturity doesn't equal consent. whoosh. He agrees with you that maturity doesn't equal consent; in fact, he relies on that it doesn't, he is saying something about immaturity. He is saying "Greta Thunberg is immature, why would you listen to her talk about long term issues of international economics (externalities)? If you would listen to her seriously, you would also hold to [other obviously absurd proposition]s." Your reply to him reads to me like you're shaking him by the lapels to say "your obviously absurd proposition is obviously absurd!!!" Why is it so hard for "woke", "critical thinking" "virtue signallers" to follow simple analogies and reductio ad absurdem? One key to following somebody's argument is to not change their wording, just engage with the words they used and make sure you stick with a meaning that is consistent with what was said. edit: just wanted to add for clarity, you might think for whatever reason that he's wrong and we should listen to Greta Thunberg's message. That's fine, but you know what that is called? it's called "staying on topic". It's all he was talking about. and you may also think he went about making his point in a foolish way. That's also ok, but you say that more authoritatively if you show you get the point he was making, see above.