The U.S. Olympic team is one of a handful that will supply air conditioners for their athletes at the Paris Games in a move that undercuts organizers’ plans to cut carbon emissions.
sure it does, if you’re gonna make the claim that people should suck it up and suffer from the heat for the benefit of climate change, then you should also believe that people should suck it up and suffer from not consuming animal products.
if one or the other benefits the environment (i’m dubious), then doing either is good, and if you only do one that’s still good. but one has nothing to do with the other.
if there is a train wreck and i go start pulling people out of the wreckage, i’m not doing something wrong by ignoring chemicals spilling out of the train.
you can’t stop a chemical spill and pull people out of a wreckage at the same time, so it’s not really a close comparison. it’s more like, if you loudly proclaim that anyone who’s not boycotting nestle is an asshole, but then you’re not also boycotting coca cola, people might point that out as a way to demonstrate that you can’t criticise others without expecting to receive criticism in return.
if both are good (and, again i am dubious either of them is), you don’t need to do both to be doing a good thing, and doing one and not the other would still be good.
I tentatively agree with that - if we add on, “and a person who does not boycott either or both corporations isn’t doing anything wrong” then that’s basically my point. I’m highlighting hypocrisy.
both. it seems to me that being vegan has never stopped the animal agriculture industry from growing. similarly, not-using air conditioning has never reduced the amount of energy produced. i’m open to being wrong about these, but i haven’t seen any compelling evidence.
sure it does, if you’re gonna make the claim that people should suck it up and suffer from the heat for the benefit of climate change, then you should also believe that people should suck it up and suffer from not consuming animal products.
no. one has nothing to do with the other.
You should stop using <thing>, because it has negative environmental impacts.
Replace thing with either animal products or air conditioning.
if one or the other benefits the environment (i’m dubious), then doing either is good, and if you only do one that’s still good. but one has nothing to do with the other.
“these two things share this similarity, but they have no similarities with one-another” ok
if there is a train wreck and i go start pulling people out of the wreckage, i’m not doing something wrong by ignoring chemicals spilling out of the train.
you can’t stop a chemical spill and pull people out of a wreckage at the same time, so it’s not really a close comparison. it’s more like, if you loudly proclaim that anyone who’s not boycotting nestle is an asshole, but then you’re not also boycotting coca cola, people might point that out as a way to demonstrate that you can’t criticise others without expecting to receive criticism in return.
if both are good (and, again i am dubious either of them is), you don’t need to do both to be doing a good thing, and doing one and not the other would still be good.
I tentatively agree with that - if we add on, “and a person who does not boycott either or both corporations isn’t doing anything wrong” then that’s basically my point. I’m highlighting hypocrisy.
i am dubious that they do, in fact, have any similarities.
ok, which of these claims do you doubt?
both. it seems to me that being vegan has never stopped the animal agriculture industry from growing. similarly, not-using air conditioning has never reduced the amount of energy produced. i’m open to being wrong about these, but i haven’t seen any compelling evidence.