• @Maalus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    28 months ago

    Okay, sure. But at what level does it stop being a threat? Do we need to revert to a pre-industrial society? Do we need to ban trade shipping? Do we need to get rid of every plane? What alternative sources of energy do we go for? Do they have drawbacks that are acceptable?

    There is nuance to everything. You can’t just shout slogans and say “this is the objective truth!”

    • @RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      138 months ago

      You seem to have missed my point. What other truth is there than climate change being an existential threat to humanity? I’m not arguing solutions, I’m talking about just acknowledging the existence of a problem. There is no centrist stance here because it either is, or isn’t. Which opinion do you hold? Congrats on finding out your fence sitting has a level of impotence not seen since Henry VIII

    • @NoneSoVile@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      7
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      You’re avoiding directly addressing their point because you can’t figure out how to answer it without taking a real stance.

      The stated “Climate change is an existential threat”. The right says no it isn’t. The left says yes it is. By nature of the statement it either is or it isn’t, so of course you choose address it in an indirect way that allows you to avoid having an opinion.

      This is a real issue so stop being a fence sitter and take a real stance for once in your life. Or if you choose to never have a real opinion on anything recognize that people aren’t going to take what you have to say seriously.

    • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)
      link
      fedilink
      English
      38 months ago

      Okay, sure. But at what level does it stop being a threat?

      First, the Right Wing would have to admit that Climate Change even exists. Hell, here in Canada our Conservative party voted to not admit it exists.