5 ms·
Are you not willing to live your life without your ICE car? Or why did you just make the jump from "let's ban technologies which produce too much CO2" to "let's
by Timon3 4y ago
Are you not willing to live your life without your ICE car? Or why did you just make the jump from "let's ban technologies which produce too much CO2" to "let's kill unproductives"?
- TheLoafOfBread 4y agoSlippery slope. Today it is cars, tomorrow it is meat, next month it is unproductives.
- Timon3 4y agoYou act as if ICE vehicles bring no problems. If we keep relying on ICE vehicles, we literally kill people. We do not do that by switching to EVs. How does your slippery slope make sense when looking at the actual harm done? The worst part is: you're literally admitting that you're not arguing against the idea itself, you're arguing against what you think they want to do next. It's impossible to make progress if the ideas themselves cannot be discussed.
- TheLoafOfBread 4y agoNo we don't. With this logic even breathing is killing people.
- Timon3 4y agoAnd we're back to: would a ban on new ICE cars make you unable to breathe? Do you just need those fumes, without them your body is not able to process the oxygen?
- TheLoafOfBread 4y agoAnd we're back to: would a ban on parfumes make you unable to breathe? Do you just need those fumes, without them your body is not able to process the oxygen? Come again without a strawman.
- Timon3 4y agoLet me attempt to summarize your position, just so I don't misrepresent you in my replies: - there is a direct connection between the ideas of "let's ban new ICE cars and replace them with EVs to reduce CO2 emissions" and "let's kill unproductives to reduce CO2 emissions" - this is not because you believe ICEs to be necessary to let "unproductives" live, it's literally because there is no way to engage in dicussions or conversations on an ICE ban without this leading to "let's kill unproductives" - even though you are admitting that you're employing the slippery slope fallacy, and although we can look at the real statistical effects of ICE vehicles on harm done to people, the inevitable slippery slope of "let's kill unproductives" means that a switch from ICE to EV will result in many more deaths than continuing with ICEs Is this an accurate representation of your thinking? Your replies so far have not expressed actual ideas beyond logical fallacies (or even "no u"), and I'd be interested in whether this is really the extent of your thought or whether there is more that you know would put you into an even worse light.
- TheLoafOfBread 4y agoBanning ICE and replacing them with EV won't reduce emissions at a first place. It will just move them around. Case and point: Germany. Banning meat won't reduce emissions, it will just move them around into making fake meat. Killing unproductives won't reduce emissions, because their bodies decompose and captured carbon will return back to atmosphere. All this thread, including GP is pointless, because there is currently no solution for excess CO2 in atmosphere and every attempt to reduce it will only increase it (see carbon capture devices). Therefore there is no reason to restrict quality of life of average citizen.
- Timon3 4y agoWhy are you suddenly switching to a different topic? You made pretty strong claims about bans on new ICEs will lead to "killing of unproductives". Are you admitting that you were deliberately hyperbolic and attempting to derail the conversation? Or do you seriously believe in your previous points?
- pwinnski 4y agoThis is a ridiculous and unproductive line of reasoning and argumentation. Be serious.