3 ms·

> A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are avail

> A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when in fact, there could be many.

Retric 4y ago
> A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges." ICE cars cause damage and lithium causes damage so the damage from lithium must also be significant. Mining the non lithium components of EV’s cause more environmental damage than mining the lithium does. Large infrastructure changes take time. You can of course also improve infrastructure, in road charging largely eliminates the need for giant EV batteries, but waiting is losing. If people want huge big batteries in EV’s then build them, you can always recycle lithium in a few decades it doesn’t get consumed.
- lm28469 4y ago
  All I'm saying is that no one puts a gun to our head and forces us to have a future with personal cars in the way we have it now But if we start with this (OPs) false dilemma then yes of course, let's all buy a tesla, just don't pretend it'll save the world
  - Retric 4y ago
    Buying EV’s is a huge improvement over not buying EV’s because they last for ~25 years. The size of their batteries is basically irrelevant in comparison. Sure, after we have electrified highways and improved cities they become more viable and could hopefully be the norm. But, in the short term the biggest impact of small batteries is convincing people EV’s suck. Especially when they don’t last for the full lifetime of a car.
    - lm28469 4y ago
      > Buying EV’s is a huge improvement over not buying EV’s because they last for ~25 years. Not buying a personal vehicle is infinitely better than forcing people to live in car centric societies, buying an EV will just perpetuate the issues we're already facing btw it takes 130k km in Germany to make en EV pollute less than an ICE, with the average of 19km driven per day/per car, I'll let you do the maths. Electric cars aren't here to save the planet, they're here to save car manufacturers
      - Retric 4y ago
        First that 130k km number is wrong, but even ignoring that the average German vehicle is driven twice that. If you want to cut the average in half, it’s going to take longer than the breakeven point. Meanwhile in 2006 62% of electricity in Germany was produced by fossil fuels, that dropped to 40.9% in 2021. So even ignoring inaccuracies in the study your thinking of, the breakeven point just keeps falling as both producing and using EV’s keeps releasing less CO2.

Retric 4y ago

> A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges." ICE cars cause damage and lithium causes damage so the damage from lithium must also be significant. Mining the non lithium components of EV’s cause more environmental damage than mining the lithium does. Large infrastructure changes take time. You can of course also improve infrastructure, in road charging largely eliminates the need for giant EV batteries, but waiting is losing. If people want huge big batteries in EV’s then build them, you can always recycle lithium in a few decades it doesn’t get consumed.

lm28469 4y ago
All I'm saying is that no one puts a gun to our head and forces us to have a future with personal cars in the way we have it now But if we start with this (OPs) false dilemma then yes of course, let's all buy a tesla, just don't pretend it'll save the world
- Retric 4y ago
  Buying EV’s is a huge improvement over not buying EV’s because they last for ~25 years. The size of their batteries is basically irrelevant in comparison. Sure, after we have electrified highways and improved cities they become more viable and could hopefully be the norm. But, in the short term the biggest impact of small batteries is convincing people EV’s suck. Especially when they don’t last for the full lifetime of a car.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > Buying EV’s is a huge improvement over not buying EV’s because they last for ~25 years. Not buying a personal vehicle is infinitely better than forcing people to live in car centric societies, buying an EV will just perpetuate the issues we're already facing btw it takes 130k km in Germany to make en EV pollute less than an ICE, with the average of 19km driven per day/per car, I'll let you do the maths. Electric cars aren't here to save the planet, they're here to save car manufacturers
    - Retric 4y ago
      First that 130k km number is wrong, but even ignoring that the average German vehicle is driven twice that. If you want to cut the average in half, it’s going to take longer than the breakeven point. Meanwhile in 2006 62% of electricity in Germany was produced by fossil fuels, that dropped to 40.9% in 2021. So even ignoring inaccuracies in the study your thinking of, the breakeven point just keeps falling as both producing and using EV’s keeps releasing less CO2.