You are making very different argument,

But they’re not. They’re making these ame point, an you just said you agreed with it. What is the point of the rest of your responses?

Like, the person you’re responding to laid out the argument from the article, you said “nah, but if they said that I would totally be on their side”.

Then, they pointed out how the article definitely made the point they’re saying it made and gave you a citation.

Then, you went, " nah, fam. RE: Windmills - That’s crazy talk".

Brother, you demonstrably said you agreed with them if they were making the point they obviously made. What are you doing?

“But see, if you draw all these bizarre, arbitrary lines around things, I’m absolutely correct. We’re talking about technology, not economics when it comes to war, because then I’d have to acknowledge that imperialism drives economics and it immediately defeats my argument.”

“Plastic doesn’t count because it does more good than harm and – STOP GESTURING EXCITEDLY AT GLOBAL WARMING!!! WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT!”

That’s what you sound like. Why are the things that invalidate your point out of bounds?

I could prove to you that war is actually a good thing as long as we don’t discuss the loss of human life, or the losing side of any of them in any way. Should we have that discussion next?

We needed nuclear arms to teach us that giant bombs that could vaporize cities and irradiate significant portions of the globe were bad? We needed asbestos to teach us to be careful what we used to insulate things? We didn’t learn that from the untreated tin cans we stored foodstuffs in that poisoned people in the 1800’s?

You phrased this as a “gott’em”, but it’s really bizarre logic.