jakee 1,489 #51 December 6, 2023 7 minutes ago, olofscience said: Seriously, I don't blame anyone who has benefited from fossil fuels or who lives their life using fossil fuels - we don't have that much control over that. It's like saying, "HA! The hospital you were born in used diesel generators, you HYPOCRITE!" Brent is just moving goalposts to somewhere outside people's control so he can accuse people of hypocrisy. Does that count as setting things up for personal attacks? It’s long been a favourite tactic of people like him to claim that no-one can advocate for reduced consumption if they consume anything at all. It’s as if the concept of ‘less’ doesn’t exist, there’s just what we have now or nothing. There was a famous phone in on a right wing talk show in the uk (which ended with the host claiming that concrete was an environmentally friendly material because it was grown) where the caller was a carpenter whose profession was building houses out of sustainable new growth wood… and the host still claimed he was being hypocritical to advocate for lower carbon emissions because building anything at all takes energy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #52 December 6, 2023 11 hours ago, winsor said: They didn't think it was funny. I wasn't kidding. That doesn't surprise me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #53 December 6, 2023 3 hours ago, jakee said: It’s long been a favourite tactic of people like him to claim that no-one can advocate for reduced consumption if they consume anything at all. It’s as if the concept of ‘less’ doesn’t exist, there’s just what we have now or nothing. The old false dichotomy fallacy. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
