Arguing that fission power won’t do anything is objectively incorrect.
Arguing that a general strike would be more effective than weekend rallies alone is objectively correct.
Your analogy is not analagous.
Beyond that, arguing against doing something is not the same as arguing for doing something else, in addition to /or/ instead of the original something.
Arguing that fission power won’t do anything is objectively incorrect.
That’s an opinion, regardless of whether it’s true or not. The analogy is analogous because I’m taking the same actions and statements, applying them to analogous topics in a different field. Dismissing that because you believe your beliefs to be objective fact is just dishonest.
Not it isn’t.
Arguing that fission power won’t do anything is objectively incorrect.
Arguing that a general strike would be more effective than weekend rallies alone is objectively correct.
Your analogy is not analagous.
Beyond that, arguing against doing something is not the same as arguing for doing something else, in addition to /or/ instead of the original something.
That’s an opinion, regardless of whether it’s true or not. The analogy is analogous because I’m taking the same actions and statements, applying them to analogous topics in a different field. Dismissing that because you believe your beliefs to be objective fact is just dishonest.
… Fission power works.
It generates energy.
This is objectively true.
That is not nothing.
If you were being hyperbolic, well then your analogy is not analagous because one end of it is hyperbolic.
Saying marches change nothing is hyperbolic as well.