As I said the range is anywhere from 1-5 million a year.
You can take your petroleum apologist nonsense somewhere else. Imagine someone bootlicking when then know millions of people have died and will continue to die.
Constantly moving goal posts in order to discredit a true fact because the way it was presented is not precise. This isn’t a scientific debate. This isn’t a paper. It’s a generic social media forum and people generally understand, barring any social development conditions, that exaggeration is acceptable as long as the general idea is true, even hyperbolic exaggeration. Everyone does this constantly in normal every day conversations. Conversations don’t stop and wait for you to look up something that ultimately is at best a minor correction, because it’s not needed and frankly its silly.
exaggeration is acceptable as long as the general idea is true,
Totally disagree. If the goal is to influence someone’s opinion, in any forum, then it will remain their opinion longer if it solidly fact based, without exaggeration.
even hyperbolic exaggeration.
Obvious hyperbolic statements can be very useful. They increase enjoyment for the billions of lemmy readers and make them more receptive.
Conversations don’t stop and wait for you to look up something that ultimately is at best a minor correction
However, in this format that luxury exists.
because it’s not needed and frankly its silly.
It is needed because otherwise it damages the argument.
Constantly moving goal posts in order to discredit a true fact because the way it was presented is not precise.
If you notice, my contributions have not touched any goalposts. Encouraging accuracy is not changing the argument.
Are you acting obtuse on purpose?
https://healthpolicy-watch.news/96476-2/
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/11/20/1213841798/a-new-study-says-the-global-toll-of-lead-exposure-is-even-worse-than-we-thought
As I said the range is anywhere from 1-5 million a year.
You can take your petroleum apologist nonsense somewhere else. Imagine someone bootlicking when then know millions of people have died and will continue to die.
If you want to argue scientifically, you have to be precise.
You’re doing the facebook boomer thing btw.
Which is what?
Note, I’m not disagreeing with the guy. I’m helping them make better arguments.
Constantly moving goal posts in order to discredit a true fact because the way it was presented is not precise. This isn’t a scientific debate. This isn’t a paper. It’s a generic social media forum and people generally understand, barring any social development conditions, that exaggeration is acceptable as long as the general idea is true, even hyperbolic exaggeration. Everyone does this constantly in normal every day conversations. Conversations don’t stop and wait for you to look up something that ultimately is at best a minor correction, because it’s not needed and frankly its silly.
Totally disagree. If the goal is to influence someone’s opinion, in any forum, then it will remain their opinion longer if it solidly fact based, without exaggeration.
Obvious hyperbolic statements can be very useful. They increase enjoyment for the billions of lemmy readers and make them more receptive.
However, in this format that luxury exists.
It is needed because otherwise it damages the argument.
If you notice, my contributions have not touched any goalposts. Encouraging accuracy is not changing the argument.
Oh god you act really dumb.