If you don’t give bezos money every month, then he has less money than if you did give him money every month. This doesn’t mean that you not giving him money makes him poorer, but he has less money than he would have if you had given him money. This isn’t tough to understand, I know I grasp it.
If you don’t give bezos money every month, then he has less money than if you did give him money every month
in one hypothetical versus another, sure. but in the real worlds, we can’t prove a counterfactual. you can’t prove whether, if I had given him money, if he’d have ended up poorer anyway.
Removed by mod
no one said that. what i said is that emissions from agriculture have always risen, so it can’t be that anything you’ve done has decreased them.
If you don’t give bezos money every month, then he has less money than if you did give him money every month. This doesn’t mean that you not giving him money makes him poorer, but he has less money than he would have if you had given him money. This isn’t tough to understand, I know I grasp it.
in one hypothetical versus another, sure. but in the real worlds, we can’t prove a counterfactual. you can’t prove whether, if I had given him money, if he’d have ended up poorer anyway.