> The implication you're making is that he is either knowingly damaging the environment, scamming vulnerable people or wasting energy without having to do anything to support that assertion.
I don't have to support the assertion because I never made it, you did.
You extrapolate my words to extremes by saying "The implication you're making" followed by a false dilemma of three choices based on that extrapolation. So no, I don't have to support the assertion you made.
So from just that you can extract my words must mean he "either knowingly damaging the environment, scamming vulnerable people or wasting energy"?
But I do think you need to be spotless for the term "pure of soul". And no, I don't think he is "either knowingly damaging the environment, scamming vulnerable people or wasting energy". But I also don't think he has a spotless record either.
I don't like this "everything is either black or white" trend.
I don't have to support the assertion because I never made it, you did.
You extrapolate my words to extremes by saying "The implication you're making" followed by a false dilemma of three choices based on that extrapolation. So no, I don't have to support the assertion you made.