lemm.ee

1 point

1 year ago

So you are concerned with climate change but would change nothing about your behavior to respond to it, unless you’re forced to? But also, you probably hope someone does force you? Where’s your agency? I don’t know how to tell you this, but this isn’t me telling you how to live your life, this is me explaining that you don’t even live in accordance with your own values. You are not even being your authentic self. Are you sure you actually care? I’m unconvinced.

report

SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de

[ - ]

6 points

1 year ago

Deleted by creator

report

[ - ]

-2 points

1 year ago

So basically, live and let destroy? You hold no one to any moral standard? I don’t have any desire to hate anyone. What I do think however is that we’ve set the moral bar way, way too low in modern society. More importantly, even if I am a hateful person, that does not justify inaction. Your framing this issue around a superiority complex helps this cause zero percent if not negative. It’s definitely less than individual choices.

Shame has value in discourse, especially at it relates to collective concerns for others. You know this. You demonstrated it slightly higher up in the comments by calling me out. You made a judgement yourself. I just think your ‘live and let destroy’ ideas are clearly worse than my ‘you suck if you don’t address climate change’ ideas.

Edit: damn y’all, I guess I don’t tolerate people who behave in a manner that is intolerant of all known conscious life. Me bad. 🤷‍♂️ I should seek help 🤷‍♂️

report

[ - ]

WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world

4 points

1 year ago

We can all agree here that climate change need some immediate solutions, but you debating in bad faith and using so many manipulation tactics in just a few comments not only harms your credibility, but demonstrates that you don’t actually care about climate change, but to just win an argument. Stop. Get some help

report

[ - ]

-1 points

1 year ago

Why is it bad faith? What was manipulative? If you’re making the claim, you should explain.

report

[ - ]

WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world

2 points

1 year ago

You have only an uninformed shot at me explaining what essentially you can also find on Google: appeal to morality, hasty generalization (especially on your little funny edit in your second to last comment), false dichotomy, begging the question (the “shame has value in discourse” is your worst example, trying to justify it by a “tu quoque” fallacy). And these are just from a surface level analysis, you don’t want me to do a full one

report

[ - ]

-2 points

1 year ago

I’m going to preface that just throwing around fallacies without any context actually doesn’t explain anything, because now I’m left to assume where you’re making the claim.

appeal to morality

So you don’t think changing behavior in relation to climate change is morally necessary? You don’t arrive at that conclusion based on available scientific data and projections? You don’t think it’s self-evident?

Tu quoque

Are you saying he didn’t judge me as hateful? I don’t think it’s an error btw. I’m not accusing them of doing something wrong on the grounds that they did the same thing as me, they just applied judgement in a way that does less to cause one to take action on climate change. Assuming we hold the same concerns about the climate, and we want action, that’s what makes the judgement objectionable.

Hasty generalization

Where

False dichotomy

Perhaps I’ll have to look back at my comments because I don’t see this either. I clearly qualified that I’m aware a single individuals choices don’t have enough effect to deter climate change.

Begging the question

Where’s the circular reasoning?

If you’re going to tell people to seek help, nah, you should actually explain.

report