Speyside wrote:When scientific consensus comes to a different conclusion than many people want, they reach for straws. In this case they laugh at lowering the usage of plastic straws because they won't admit the damage plastic is causing. MACS needs to espouse his view as correct even though science doesn't agree with him. Though not on the same scale, this is similar to the POV of flat earthers. I don't consider him or those like him a science denier, rather simply wrong, and tedious with his repetition.
The damage plastic is causing?
So I guess you blame the bullet for killing people in mass shootings. Because that's a direct equivalent.
If you don't blame the bullet, but do blame the plastic, I'd like to hear your logic.
And since you're on your soapbox here, please explain how science is able to "agree" or disagree with anyone.
Scientific studies may support a viewpoint, but science isn't in the business of agreeing or disagreeing with anyone or anything. Too literal? Perhaps. But it's like using the wrong version of "you're" or "they're" when you're posting about the poor grammar of someone else. An otherwise forgivable faux pas become worthy of ridicule.