When any discussion sinks to the level of attacking the person rather than the topic or issue at hand, it is a sign that the attacker has lost. When their position is so weak that debating the facts cannot convince their opponent, an ad hominem attack is a resort of the feeble.
Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized among informal fallacies, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.
Wikipedia
Thus, all you right-wing authoritarian, socially dominant, sexist, racist ‘climate deniers’ are the problem!
Asserting dominance over nature is a driving factor among climate denying conservatives, a new study has found.
Has anyone ever met a conservative who denies the climate?
Researchers from Victoria University of Wellington and the University of Canberra in Australia identified two “types” of conservative people who place less importance on climate change and the environment – socially dominant and right-wing authoritarians.
Two totally different topics are lumped together here. Care for the environment, fresh water, clean air, supporting Kiwi breeding programmes, looking after Blue Penguins or whatever is the “environment” and most ‘conservative’ people are well into these issues and concerns.
‘Climate change’, however you define it, is a whole different ball of wax.
Surveying 22,966 people over five years, they found both types had “lower willingness to make sacrifices for the environment over time”, but the socially dominant types were stronger climate change deniers.
If authoritarian right-wingers were not willing to buy an EV and pay more money as a ‘sacrifice’ to climate change, were they immediately categorised as unwilling to care for the environment?
Socially dominant types were defined as those who want a structured hierarchy in society, while right-wing authoritarians were those with a preference to conform to authority figures and punish those who oppose.
So what did they think about climate change? Put simply, they weren’t fans of making changes.
Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and its likely impacts, social dominants often viewed the whole issue as something that would never affect them – they thought they were “immune” to it.
They thought that issues such as rising sea levels, that are already threatening various Pacific Island nations, weren’t likely to directly affect them, so they weren’t too worried about it.
Considering that Pacific Island atolls are growing in size, not shrinking, and average sea level rise, as measured by the 76 global tide gauges with records over 100 years and no data quality issues, is currently 0.337mm/year – not being ‘too worried about it’ seems quite reasonable.
[…] This endorsement and acceptance of social inequality connected to behaviours such as sexism and racism, the study said.
That sentence makes as much sense as the study the journalist is reporting on!
Social dominants were also found to be accepting of environmental degradation, if it benefited high-status social groups.
Because they wanted power over lower groups, be it other people or nature as a whole, this group was difficult to reach in terms of environmental education. The authors of the study said it would be important to stress that the social hierarchy isn’t threatened by environmental action, in order to reach this group.
Authoritarian types were also considered to be difficult to reach, as they tended to view the conversation surrounding climate change and the environment as “overstated”.
“[Right-wing authoritarian] was related to statements that conceptualise environmental issues as overstated, environmental action as detrimental to the country, and environmentalists as deserving of punishment.”
Researchers explained those who endorse this conservative view were “less likely to assume responsibility for acting on global warming, or intention to mitigate the problem”. […]
Stuff
Perhaps they merely switched their brains on and thought for themselves? Perhaps the socially dominant, right-wing authoritarian conservatives can see through the man-made global warming, climate change, climate catastrophe, climate emergency, tax and control scam?
Interestingly, no journalist was prepared to own up to writing this nonsense.
