3 ms·
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 m
by 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 agoWhat "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 agoWhat is denier, exactly? Seriously, there is no debate with this rethoric.
- triceratops 8mo agohttps://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 agoYou missing the point, again.
- triceratops 8mo agoDo you have a point? Please communicate better. I may well be speaking to a bot.
- t0bia_s 8mo agoStop 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 agoThe 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 agoBetter stupid and right than intelligent and wrong.