I'm sure you don't care, but if you sound like a combination pocket-mulching, militant-vegan, cycling purist, those are the the only people who are going to hear what you have to actually say.
That might be your target market, in which case, congrats i suppose.
That level of condescension and pretension is pretty difficult to overcome, especially in a text only format, intentional or not.
I'd, personally, take the reddit and AI parts individually.
Sloperator and reddit chud, rather than attributing the AI evangelism to reddit specifically.
But again, im guessing, I could be entirely wrong.
Thats, very distinctly, not a denial of troll-like behaviour.
That's a lot of ad hominem for someone so vocally against it.
If your entire argument is "look at this mistake that was made, why did we trust scientists in the first place?" (with some personal attacks thrown in) you're going to struggle to find a genuine conversation.
Scientists are people too, they aren't a homogeneous pool of unassailable morals/ethics and correctness.
People fuck up, constantly, poor decisions and mistakes abound.
The whole idea of the scientific method is iteration towards success, if everyone always made the correct decisions there would be no need for iteration.
It's not an excuse for shitty work, science as a whole has a bunch of problems that urgently need addressing, but it is an explanation that allows for more nuance than "scientists stupid, hur hur".
Given your other answers so far I'm not expecting you to actually respond to this in good faith , i'm putting it out there mainly for me.
I can save you some time and say that if this is the calibre of response you normally provide, you should probably just block me, you are almost certainly not going to like interacting with me (or reading anything i write).
See, no relevance to the response required.
It doesn't even need to make sense.
Still devastating in it's efficacy.
I'll look into a way to archive Lemmy threads so that future generations might benefit from access to the raw brilliance.
Rather than some paraphrased anecdote.
Necessity is relative and contextual, there are legitimately places where eating meat is required because the caloric and nutritional consequences of not eating meat are life threatening.
Lack of access(for various reasons) to sufficient non-meat food is lacking.
These reasons are usually problems that can be solved, so on a long enough timescale (and assuming the right steps are taken to remedy the situation) then this problem goes away, but to disregard this proportion of the population is to leave an opening.
It's not the norm though, AFAIK.
You did not, points for effort though.
I'll try to make it simpler.
Ask for proof of claim they have made - YES ๐
Ask for proof to dispute/disprove claim you have made - NO ๐
if you suggest something is a fallacy , that's a claim you have made.
edit : emojis for visual cues
edit : changed no description to be more accurate
No, they don't.
You , as the party making the accusation of fallacy would be required to prove that the expectation of escalation is unreasonable or that the intention was not there.
edit: asking for an explanation of their thoughts around the issue is fine, but a requirement it is not.
The server CPU's are called epyc and they are powerful, but not in the same way.
Server CPU's are geared to different types of workloads but if you built a desktop workstation with decent one it would be still be a beast.
I wasn't arguing that the server CPU's aren't powerful, i was saying that the latest ryzen desktop cpu was something I'd personally consider to also be powerful.
The threadrippers are also up there in terms of power, but the OP was specifically talking about ryzen.
OK, so let's assume that's a good faith literal interpretation.
Let's try it this way.
Yes, it possibly would be considered more logical, but people who threaten kids over videogames aren't generally considered to be working with an abundance of logical thought.
I could however be wrong in this generalisation given I only have my experience to go on, if your experience leads you to believe people who threaten kids over videogames are not running with a logic deficit then your statement makes sense I suppose.
That's a particularly pretentious response to a reply that was subjectively factually correct.
Though expect it's difficult to hear what's actually being said with your head tilted so far back.
edit : I'm not the person to which you were responding, in case that wasn't clear