[cycomanic]

I just want to clarify I am not accusing the OP of being an industry shill, they might just simply adopting arguments seen at other places (and they are very common). And it is incredibly easy to be led into this, I certainly have done this as well and only realized later. It is an important thing to be aware of.

I'm rejecting the type of argument, because they do not foster an honest debate. It's really classic FUD.

[Edit]: some further clarification

[SilasX]

When your entire argument is “you’re wrong because this pattern-matches to what shills say”, then yes, you are accusing the OP of shilling and it would be better to say what specifically is wrong with the arguments.

[cycomanic]

But why is it not on the OP to give some evidence, instead of making wild assertions? This is the problem that comes up again and again in lots of these discussions (be it climate change, health...), someone posts some assertions without evidence, people respond by dismissing it because it has been debunked again and again and they then get accused in not engaging in an honest debate.

Why are you not accusing the OP of not having an argument?

[SilasX]

It is on the OP to back their arguments! And I would have preferred a better argument there with better backing.

But the thing is, it was an argument, in terms of specifying a logical mechanism by which the conclusion would be unwarranted, even if the evidence doesn't bear it out in the way OP needs. And it's on you to make more substantive contributions than "you pattern-match to bad people" if you're going to respond at all.

I replied to you rather than the OP because your comment more obviously doesn't belong here. A culture of "you're wrong because you sound like bad people" is more toxic to this forum that a dubious counterpoint. (cf. "You know who else went vegetarian?")