A highly misleading new documentary claims soil carbon storage can redeem the livestock industry – it’s all so much ‘moo-woo’, says the Guardian columnist George Monbiot
Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised.[22] Often paired with moving the goalposts (see below), as when an argument is challenged using a common definition of a term in the argument, and the arguer presents a different definition of the term and thereby demands different evidence to debunk the argument.
Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam)—also known as the false compromise, argument from middle ground, fallacy of gray, middle ground fallacy, or golden mean fallacy[1]—is the fallacy that the truth is always in the middle of two opposites.
What word are you accusing me of redefining and what moderation am I suggesting?
The argument of this article can apply to literally all of agriculture, not just animal produce. It applies to fucking backyard tomatoes. Increasing sustainability and reducing emissions should be seen as a good thing. Even when you don’t get directly to 0 from the beginning.
Starting with the lowest-hanging fruit isn’t capitulation, it’s progress. If your position is completely undoing all of a global capitalist system tomorrow or bust, you’re getting bust and likely taking others with you.
Redefining the counterfactual scenario. Why ignore the case of less beef production out of hand? Beef consumption has been declining over time in a number of countries. Then proceed to ignore the rest of the article’s main point after that one word
Beef is an enormous outlier in emissions and they are pointing out that the claims that supposedly reduce it are highly missleading. They’re not much of a reduction. People tout it as if the emissions were gone. They’re nowhere near that
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
What word are you accusing me of redefining and what moderation am I suggesting?
The argument of this article can apply to literally all of agriculture, not just animal produce. It applies to fucking backyard tomatoes. Increasing sustainability and reducing emissions should be seen as a good thing. Even when you don’t get directly to 0 from the beginning.
Starting with the lowest-hanging fruit isn’t capitulation, it’s progress. If your position is completely undoing all of a global capitalist system tomorrow or bust, you’re getting bust and likely taking others with you.
Redefining the counterfactual scenario. Why ignore the case of less beef production out of hand? Beef consumption has been declining over time in a number of countries. Then proceed to ignore the rest of the article’s main point after that one word
Beef is an enormous outlier in emissions and they are pointing out that the claims that supposedly reduce it are highly missleading. They’re not much of a reduction. People tout it as if the emissions were gone. They’re nowhere near that