I’m not against the sentiment, I’m against how you’re making it and the tone you’re taking whilst doing so.
Comments like '*100 companies are responsible for over 70% of global warming.
But sure, blame the mother who buys ground chuck for her kids.*’ come across as needlessly confrontational and are an example of a fallacy of relevance. No one was blaming mothers buying meat for climate change. No one was advocating for businesses to be allowed To ignore their environmental responsibilities. You raised arguments that were irrelevant to the article, then doubled down by moving the goal-posts further to encompass additional societal problems like the lack of nutritional food in some parts of the US, all of which are irrelevant to the point of the article.
Also, my point stands: the world arguably should go vegan. Doesn’t mean they can. Your point doesn’t invalidate theirs.
I’m not against the sentiment, I’m against how you’re making it and the tone you’re taking whilst doing so.
Comments like '*100 companies are responsible for over 70% of global warming.
But sure, blame the mother who buys ground chuck for her kids.*’ come across as needlessly confrontational and are an example of a fallacy of relevance. No one was blaming mothers buying meat for climate change. No one was advocating for businesses to be allowed To ignore their environmental responsibilities. You raised arguments that were irrelevant to the article, then doubled down by moving the goal-posts further to encompass additional societal problems like the lack of nutritional food in some parts of the US, all of which are irrelevant to the point of the article.
Also, my point stands: the world arguably should go vegan. Doesn’t mean they can. Your point doesn’t invalidate theirs.