i am more than willing to engage on any positive claim you want to make (i probably agree with a lot of them). what i’m not willing to do is tolerate personal attacks and dogpiling.

“The vast majority of people are not communist, therefore communism wouldn’t be better for workers.”

“The world isn’t powered by renewables, therefore renewables aren’t better than coal.”

“Things aren’t currently better, so no change would make it better.”

none of these accurately characterize my position

Go back to talking about…

this, too, does not change the truth of what i’ve said, nor bolstered your own claims

calling me a troll (and saying that i haven’t made any strong claims), doesn’t change the truth of anything i’ve said nor bolster your own claims.

this is an appeal to ridicule. it is not a rebuttal.

it hasn’t decreased the industrys impact yet

I want a better system, but I don’t believe buying beans helps me get there

I object to the supposition that Russia wanted trump to win. I believe Russia wanted Americans divided and trump was simply a means to that end.

Coal pollution is also higher now than when renewable energy was first invented, therefore renewables wouldn’t help us!

I don’t know if that’s true, but if it is, then you’ve almost reached the right conclusion. I wouldn’t say “wouldn’t”, I would say “haven’t”.

by what metric can you claim that veganism has made the environment better? pollution and resource use has only increased since the 1940s when veganism was invented.

if the industry doesn’t decrease production, being vegan has done no good.

being vegan has a smaller footprint.

i reject the narrative of footprints. the issue is resource use and pollution, and those don’t happen in grocery stores or restaurants: it happens during production. being vegan doesn’t stop production, so being vegan doesn’t help the environment.

that’s your opinion.

Not something journalists make a habit of doing, either.

because most are cowards

Aiding someone in exfiltrating classified documents on the other hand decidedly is.

but shouldn’t be if the goal is to expose wrongdoing in a journalistic publication.

some might call it espionage. others might just call it journalism.

that doesn’t make him not a real journalist. sloppy, unprofessional, maybe, but he’s still a real journalist.

as it turns out, i provided exactly as much evidence as you did, but you have, once again, included an appeal to ridicule.

he’s a journalist. he got one of the hardest deals any journalist has gotten.

this is an appeal to ridicule, not a rebuttal.

being vegan has no effect on the environment