Bob: "I hate <company> and what they're doing to this cute fluffy animal I would like to do things to stop that"

Tom: "Well actually they're not nearly as bad as <other company> to said fluffy creature and if you actually cared about fluffy creature you'd only focus on them"

Great argument. Hate to be the one to tell you this but, two things can be true at once.

▲

JuniperMesos 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why is your hypothetical Tom wrong to claim that Bob primarily cares about hating <company> and is using fluffy creatures as an excuse because it sounds superficially better than the actual reasons Bob has a problem with <company>?

▲

Levitz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And I'm guessing that I'm supposed to believe here that the reason Bob hates explicitly this one company and is dismissing 99% of the damage done to the cute fluffy animal by corporations that seemingly get paid to exterminate them in brutal ways, the reason many people seem to spouse this extremely bizarre, specific belief is "just because" right? Not an obscene amount of hypocrisy and dishonesty?

Because I don't have anywhere near enough brain damage to do that and I'm not sure I can get there in a medically safe manner.

	▲	hugeBirb 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Buddy, you don't know a damn thing about agriculture. These things aren't even remotely the same conversation. My point still stands that both can be true. Sure there's inefficiencies in agriculture that can be addressed and there's obviously inefficiencies in all data centers that can be addressed. If people chose to fight one over the other I guess they'll all brain dead according to your world view. I'll make sure to check-in with you next time I don't like something to make sure you approve of it :)