Re:Increased wind turbine rotor blade visibility to reduce a...
by anon_123g987 on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @04:39PM
(#32654759)
> A "mind worm" (to coin a phrase)
It's called a "meme" (in its original definition by Richard Dawkins). And this kind of forcing a rebuttal is "trolling". Dismissing this trolling is phrased as "Don't feed the troll!".
Re:Increased wind turbine rotor blade visibility to reduce a...
by trgn on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @05:01PM
(#32655001)
And this particular example of trolling, is "concern trolling".
Re:Increased wind turbine rotor blade visibility to reduce a...
by ALittleLight on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @05:15PM
(#32655174)
I'm imagining two conversations
A: We should use more windmills.
B: No, those kill too many birds.
A: You don't know what you're talking about, you have no credentials, and you are just motivated to stop renewables!
A': We can paint the rotors to avoid killing birds.
A' seems like a much better response even if A is accurate. Maybe you need to be A if you can't be A', but if you can...
Re:Increased wind turbine rotor blade visibility to reduce a...
by Schroedingersat on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @07:56PM
(#32656688)
"Wind turbines with a painted blade would still kill 1 million birds a year"
Doesn't help any. The number is already vastly smaller than cars or regular buildings or a single coal plant so making it even smaller willdo nothing if it'snot zero.
It is often better....
Many ideas are designed to be refuted. The refutation spreads the ideas. It is part of the strategy. A "mind worm" (to coin a phrase) only needs to be repeated and it will do its job. Refuting it is repeating it.
So dismiss the speaker, attack the speaker's credentials and motivations ignoring the ideas. argumentum ad hominem, whilst rhetorically invalid, is the best tactic in those circumstances.