3 ms·
What I am saying is precisely that there needs to be nuance to the discussion rather than a dogmatic appeal to some archaic and Edenic past. The OP in my estima
by ch4s3 4y ago
What I am saying is precisely that there needs to be nuance to the discussion rather than a dogmatic appeal to some archaic and Edenic past. The OP in my estimation has a very anti-human set of values. I’m specifically say that we need to have thoughtful conversations about what we preserve and what we change.
- uoaei 4y ago> I assume in good faith that your value is pristine nature but it’s a fallacy. This sentence alone proves your entire reply unsound. You have assumed something which is obviously irrelevant given not only the context of this conversation but even the tone and content of that comment which you supposedly critique. Then you go on to be condescending. You can convince people of your honesty and good faith by acting honestly and in good faith, not by trying to reframe your hurried comments ex post facto to retrofit some desired message from what is obviously a bad take.
- ch4s3 4y agoI don;t know what you want here. I think the op was in good faith appealing to the notion of pristine nature, but I believe that idea is a fallacy. What else can I say? An the rest of the comment is completely logically sound, there is no way for people to exist without marking nature and bending ecosystems we see evidence on the land and in the fossil records of the earliest people.
- uoaei 4y ago> I think the op was in good faith appealing to the notion of pristine nature I don't. It's by now clear they don't think they were doing that either. But your assumption colored your entire reply as a response to an argument that no one was making.