• Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’d say he didn’t. He gave an “it depends” with a scenario that hasn’t happened resulting in full death of humanity. It’s a way to handwave away the question, to sidestep it, we’re standing where we stood before.

        To rephrase it: Had the question been “do you want to put out a house on fire?” And the answer is “well that depends, if the house was hit with a meteor that kills all life, then that would put out the fire” isn’t really an answer to the question. It makes it so big and vague that you’re answering a completely different question

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Libs will cry “whataboutism” or bring up 10 fallacies they remembered from high school for hours to avoid addressing the substance of a conversation, then come back with shit like “well what if a meteor killed everyone, huh?” and tell themselves they’re the ones operating in good faith

        • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It actually is. It’s the same as saying “No, not under those circumstances”. If you are comparing something to the destruction of the earth, you are not in favor of that thing.

          • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            1 year ago

            But the question wasn’t “under these circumstances, would you put out the house on fire?” They invented the circumstances and have yet to answer under what circumstances they would put the fire out. If they had done that, then it would have been an answer