5 ms·
> The implication you're making is that he is either knowingly damaging the environment, scamming vulnerable people or wasting energy without having to do anyth
by jsiepkes 5y ago
> The implication you're making is that he is either knowingly damaging the environment, scamming vulnerable people or wasting energy without having to do anything to support that assertion.
I don't have to support the assertion because I never made it, you did.
You extrapolate my words to extremes by saying "The implication you're making" followed by a false dilemma of three choices based on that extrapolation. So no, I don't have to support the assertion you made.
- s_dev 5y ago> so pure soul might be a bit of a stretch. This is exactly where you imply it.
- jsiepkes 5y agoSo from just that you can extract my words must mean he "either knowingly damaging the environment, scamming vulnerable people or wasting energy"? But I do think you need to be spotless for the term "pure of soul". And no, I don't think he is "either knowingly damaging the environment, scamming vulnerable people or wasting energy". But I also don't think he has a spotless record either. I don't like this "everything is either black or white" trend.