• WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      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

      • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        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.