Ok there are no campaigns against eating animals

Yep

Most of the meat goes to fast food, you don't think it's curious nobody put a halt on that

it's all distraction

they're distracting you

You really like to move on and ramble when confronted with the issues with your arguments

My mind goes all over the place, I already had that type of convo with Vlad

it's not something I do on purpose

Well, it certainly doesn't help you in your discussions, that's for sure lol

Especially because it fits very closely with cowsrdly weasly tactics that right wingers like to use - we see it here all the time. Sorry to lump you in with those guys, but that's the sad state of affairs

Basically, if I didn't label myself a republican I would've gotten different treatment

ngl, yea you probably would have, but that's because of the experiences they have had w other republicans in this channel

Well, probably - except it's your particular arguments and way of...debating, that seem to be the most offputting

not a good impression lol

I'm trying to see the biggest picture

When people argue about global warming they push one narrative only

There are bigger narratives at play which are ignored

And I wonder why

But see thats like saying when people argue about flat Earth theory, they push one narrative only

Exactly

<:peepobad:538084182644228112>

Well how bout you all support nuclear instead getting spoon fed leftist propaganda to think solar and wind are useful

Is it really about narrative though? That sort of post-modernism makes it seem like scientific study isn’t as important as the politics

GG @abby_ella, you just advanced to level 9!

People who push the flat earth narrative only approach that idea from one angle

GG @Cuccolover, you just advanced to level 15!

levels

and that's their empirical evidence

levels everywhere

🥳

I dont have levels

<:cringe:583238348093652993>

I'm saying scientific studies are segregated from one another to push a political narrative, a scare tactic

It's religion strategy

Yea no shit

Environmentalists are just paid by companies to promote fake science and narratives

But is it really science if they pre-observed other factors weighed in harder than their narrative and purposely left it out of the equation?

Can you give an example of what you’re referring to?

The predictions made 40 years ago about climate change were based on the same models we have today... However the predictions over-exaggerated the results by 20 fold

These scientific studies are still used as a determining factor

I'm asking why