• TheShadowKnows@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’ve gotten me to the point of writing out logical equations to try to make sense of your changing argument qualifications.

    first statement:

    Best thing = Killing self (humanity) off ∵ pollution

    Last statement: Best thing = something (extinction of humans) were to happen ∵ pollution

    But if

    something were to happen ≠ Making it happen/hoping it would happen

    and

    Making it happen = killing self off

    then

    Best thing ≠ killing self off


    (Z = K) ∵ P (Z = S) ∵ P S ≠ M S ≠ H K = M

    It seems that you have made two incompatible statements, which amounts to an erroneous argument.

    I’m willing to say that the first statement was hyperbolic and your second statement is more aligned with what you really think, but you say you stand by both, which doesn’t track.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That would be true, except for the simple fact that, just because I think it would be the best outcome for the planet as a whole, doesn’t mean I have to be working towards it. From the perspective of everything else living here, it would be best if we all died. If we don’t, it’s increasingly likely that we take some or all of them with us when we do.