Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan B
I lied, in the interest of a spirited debate, I will make one last effort.
I did not say I would debate someone from Stop Oil. I said I would love to debate someone who was not radicalized. Stop Oil wants to end oil use yesterday with no viable alternative. A rational person thinks, at some point we will run out of oil and we should start working towards an alternative in a responsible manner.
See the difference?
Please actually read what I say without a preconceived prejudice. It is coloring your interpretation of what I am saying.
Where do I say their stance is rational?
And it is foolish and short sided to believe we have and endless supply of oil. At some point we will need alternatives. We will also be forced to start prioritizing how oil is used. I am not saying this will happen soon, but why not responsibly start developing alternative technologies?
|
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”