You either are or you aren't, you can't be "more" carbon neutral. And anyway, I'm not asking if it's better for the environment than fossil fuels, I'm asking if the claim that it is carbon neutral is true or not.
I was clarifying in case the author of the comment was unsure what "carbon neutral" means. It's not a comparative term, so it confuses the discussion to use it as such, just as unfunny comments derail discussion.
It's not a comparative term, so it confuses the discussion to use it as such, just as unfunny comments derail discussion.
"Either it is or it isn't," implies that it's a binary. That's incorrect and muddies the waters. It's quantitative in a practical sense, as in geography or geology, not in an absolute sense as in mathematics. So "more carbon neutral" can be sensibly interpreted in this quantitative sense. Your use of language implying that it's a binary, "confuses the discussion to use it as such."
You probably think it's "unfunny" because you missed the logical distinction. Now that it has been explained to you how you were the one who derailed the discussion in the first place with bad logic, you probably still think it's "unfunny."
I honestly can't for the life of me understand what you're trying to say here.
The poster said "They're more carbon neutral than dino diesel."
I was simply stating that not only was I not arguing otherwise (if we're assuming "more carbon neutral" means better for the environment), but also clarifying what the term means (the binary state of being carbon neutral).
I think your statement was unfunny because I did not personally find it funny, nor do I expect others to. Not for any other nefarious reason.
Well, if you're going to be that pedantic about it, then nothing we know of is technically carbon neutral. We might be off by an atom or two!