5 ms·

To deniers both arguments are valid - just use whichever one is more convincing to the person you're talking to. The objective is continue using fossil fuels no

To deniers both arguments are valid - just use whichever one is more convincing to the person you're talking to. The objective is continue using fossil fuels no matter what.

t0bia_s 8mo ago
To alarmists both arguments are valid - just use whichever one is more convincing to the person you're talking to. The objective is stop using fossil fuels no matter what. Im not sure what is this type of debate good for.
- triceratops 8mo ago
  What "both" arguments are so-called alarmists using? What's an alarmist, exactly? And yes, the objective is to stop using fossil fuels. That's not exactly a secret agenda, it's the whole fucking point.
  - t0bia_s 8mo ago
    What is denier, exactly? Seriously, there is no debate with this rethoric.
    - triceratops 8mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial You didn't answer either of my questions. Even though I asked first.
      - t0bia_s 8mo ago
        You missing the point, again.
        triceratops 8mo ago
        Do you have a point? Please communicate better. I may well be speaking to a bot.
        t0bia_s 8mo ago
        Stop using labeling and listen other opinions better. Your rethoric could be used by other side with switched words - this type of debate does not bring anything new that others could learn from. You belive in something, others don't or vice versa.
        triceratops 8mo ago
        > Your rethoric could be used by other side with switched words Yawn. "Both sides are equally valid" is a tired argument. Truth and lies are not the same.
        t0bia_s 8mo ago
        The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. - Bertrand Russell
        triceratops 8mo ago
        Better stupid and right than intelligent and wrong.
gzread 8mo ago
To "alarmists" both "climate change does matter" and "China isn't the only problem" are valid arguments because that's a logical AND: "it's a problem and we're causing it, so we should do something". When you inverse it you use DeMorgan's law and you have to disprove one, either "it's not a problem" or "we can't do anything to stop it" but they typically do it in a way where one purported disproof invalidates the other, for some reason. They argue both "it's not a problem" and "it's a problem but we can't do anything to stop it".
- triceratops 8mo ago
  Did you mean to respond to the other person who responded to me?
  - gzread 8mo ago
    Yes

To deniers both arguments are valid - just use whichever one is more convincing to the person you're talking to. The objective is continue using fossil fuels no matter what.

t0bia_s 8mo ago

To alarmists both arguments are valid - just use whichever one is more convincing to the person you're talking to. The objective is stop using fossil fuels no matter what. Im not sure what is this type of debate good for.

triceratops 8mo ago
What "both" arguments are so-called alarmists using? What's an alarmist, exactly? And yes, the objective is to stop using fossil fuels. That's not exactly a secret agenda, it's the whole fucking point.
- t0bia_s 8mo ago
  What is denier, exactly? Seriously, there is no debate with this rethoric.
  - triceratops 8mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial You didn't answer either of my questions. Even though I asked first.
    - t0bia_s 8mo ago
      You missing the point, again.
      - triceratops 8mo ago
        Do you have a point? Please communicate better. I may well be speaking to a bot.
        t0bia_s 8mo ago
        Stop using labeling and listen other opinions better. Your rethoric could be used by other side with switched words - this type of debate does not bring anything new that others could learn from. You belive in something, others don't or vice versa.
        triceratops 8mo ago
        > Your rethoric could be used by other side with switched words Yawn. "Both sides are equally valid" is a tired argument. Truth and lies are not the same.
        t0bia_s 8mo ago
        The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. - Bertrand Russell
        triceratops 8mo ago
        Better stupid and right than intelligent and wrong.

gzread 8mo ago

To "alarmists" both "climate change does matter" and "China isn't the only problem" are valid arguments because that's a logical AND: "it's a problem and we're causing it, so we should do something". When you inverse it you use DeMorgan's law and you have to disprove one, either "it's not a problem" or "we can't do anything to stop it" but they typically do it in a way where one purported disproof invalidates the other, for some reason. They argue both "it's not a problem" and "it's a problem but we can't do anything to stop it".

triceratops 8mo ago
Did you mean to respond to the other person who responded to me?
- gzread 8mo ago
  Yes