• 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.