Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A non theological case of ridiculous assumptions...
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 29 (198858)
04-13-2005 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by StormWolfx2x
04-12-2005 1:22 PM


quote:
what I am saying is that each thing I mentioned has people that belive in them so entirely that they dissconnect themselves from the reality of the facts. Like I said if you don't belive me pick a topic and Ill writeup the request, if your going to resort to childish namecalling, then by all means don't bother.
And I say that is an ad hominem assualt on those who hold opinions you do not like. To assert your opponents are disconnected from the facts - and in the case of environmentalism, we are talking about the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists - is to slander their credibility BEFORE you engage in the debate.
So go on then, lets see your criticism of environmentalism. At the moment I am expecting you to produce discredited "evidence" from a narrow sect of global warming deniers who have zero credibility in the big bad world. But by all means, bring it on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by StormWolfx2x, posted 04-12-2005 1:22 PM StormWolfx2x has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by StormWolfx2x, posted 04-13-2005 7:29 PM contracycle has replied
 Message 18 by StormWolfx2x, posted 04-14-2005 5:03 PM contracycle has not replied

  
StormWolfx2x
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 29 (199053)
04-13-2005 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by contracycle
04-13-2005 4:59 AM


It’s not an ad hominem attack as all I’m saying is that I can find SOME PEOPLE within each area I mentioned whose arguments have no credibility.
Like I said
I’m not saying that any of those issues have no credibility whatsoever. (even Feng Shui has some interior decorating credibility)
If you want to argue against someone who as you say has the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists against them then you’re talking to the wrong person.
I’m still not going to request a post for this as I believe you still are not listening to what I’m saying.
As per your request, here’s a case of some liberals whose arguments have no credibility.
In March, 1996, the International Panel on Forests of the United Nations held its first meeting in Geneva. The media paid little attention to what appeared to be one more ponderous assemblage of delegates speaking in unintelligible UNese. As it turned out, the big story to emerge from the meeting had nothing to do with the Panel on Forests itself. In what has become a common practice, The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) chose to use the occasion of the UN meeting as a platform for its own news release.
The WWF news release, which was widely picked up by the international media, made three basic points. They claimed that species were going extinct at a faster rate now than at any time since the dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago. They said that 50,000 species were now becoming extinct each year due to human activity. But of most significance to the subject of forests, WWF claimed that the main cause of species extinction was "commercial logging", that is, the forest industry. They provided absolutely no evidence for this so-called fact about logging and the media asked no hard questions. The next day newspapers around the world proclaimed the forest industry to be the main destroyer of species.
Since that announcement I have asked on numerous occasions for the name of a single species that has been rendered extinct due to forestry, particularly in my home country, Canada. Not one Latin name has been provided. It is widely known that human activity has been responsible for the extinction of many species down through history. These extinctions have been caused by hunting, the conversion of forest and grassland to farming and human settlement, and the introduction of exotic diseases and predators. Today, the main cause of species extinction is deforestation, over 90% of which is caused by agriculture and urban development. Why is WWF telling the public that logging is the main cause of species extinction?
While I do not wish to guess at the WWF’s motivation, it is instructional to consider the question from a different angle. That is, if forestry does not generally cause species extinction, what other compelling reason is there to be against it? Surely the fact that logging is unsightly for a few years after the trees are cut is not sufficient reason to curtail Canada’s most important industry.
Despite the WWF’s failure to support its accusations, the myth that forestry causes widespread species extinction lives on. How can a largely urban public be convinced that this is not the case? The challenge is a daunting one for an industry that has been cast in the role of Darth Vadar when it should be recognized for growing trees and providing wood, the most renewable material used in human civilization.
This wasn’t written by some outcast of the scientific community, it was written by Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of Greenpeace.
I’m accusing the people that spoke at this event on behalf of the WWF of being at best grossly misinformed about the effects of commercial logging on the extinction of species of animals, and at worst deliberately lying about the effects of commercial logging in order to discredit it in the eyes of the public.
Again I’m NOT saying that all arguments of people against deforestation are fallacious, and I myself, as I’m sure most reasonable people do, support preserving the overall amount of forests on the planet, and I also support protecting rare and fragile forests, such as the American Redwoods, but I believe that when environmental organizations lie about the facts its damaging both to the legitimacy of the movement and in turn the overall well being of human kind.
The people that I’m calling liberal radicals are the ones that take statements, like the one mentioned above, that are unsupported and run with them, since I know you’re going to want an example, here you go.
In my senior year of high school I took a class called environmental science, the teacher continuously ranted about how commercial forestry was wiping out American forests to make paper (the first time she brought up this argument was when she ridiculed a student for taking notes on only one side of her paper) and that soon there would be none left. I was so offended by her shortsighted arguments that I provided evidence that
1. Demand for wood based materials (lumber, paper, etc.) has steadily increased in America.
2. Americans use more far more wood products than the rest of the world.
3. Despite these facts, or in part because of them, the US has had an increase in forest coverage over the past 10 years, and over the past 80 years.
The next time she started one of her rants I challenged her and said that logging was not as harmful to the environment as she claimed, she responded (and this was the funny part) prove it, I showed her the evidence I collected, she had no response except asking me to stay after class, I did, and I got 1 week of detention for classroom disruption.
The teacher was one of the liberal radicals that I was talking about and the WWF was at least in part one of the sets of propaganda and yes men to which I originally refered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by contracycle, posted 04-13-2005 4:59 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mick, posted 04-14-2005 5:46 PM StormWolfx2x has not replied
 Message 20 by contracycle, posted 04-15-2005 7:17 AM StormWolfx2x has replied

  
StormWolfx2x
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 29 (199393)
04-14-2005 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by contracycle
04-13-2005 4:59 AM


you disconnected parts of my arguements from the whole and then accused me unsupported verbal assaults against the scientific community, and then you portrayed me as illogical conspiracy theroist.
I believe you owe it to me to either refute post #17, or at least admit that your post was made based on a misunderstanding.
This message has been edited by StormWolfx2x, 04-14-2005 04:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by contracycle, posted 04-13-2005 4:59 AM contracycle has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 19 of 29 (199407)
04-14-2005 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by StormWolfx2x
04-13-2005 7:29 PM


1. Demand for wood based materials (lumber, paper, etc.) has steadily increased in America.
2. Americans use more far more wood products than the rest of the world.
3. Despite these facts, or in part because of them, the US has had an increase in forest coverage over the past 10 years, and over the past 80 years.
Not wanting to go too off-topic, but it's worth pointing out that the majority of US paper is imported, not home-grown. it's imported from Canada and Europe. Maybe that's why Americans use far more wood products than the rest of the world, but had an increase in forest coverage. The costs of American over-consumption are paid by poorer countries. Environmental costs are externalised.
added in edit:
A similar situation works for oil, by the way. americans use far more oil than the rest of the world's countries, per capita. But Americans don't live under dictatorship and the threat of torture as much as citizens of the world's oil-producing countries. The costs of american over-consumption are externalised.
This message has been edited by mick, 04-14-2005 04:48 PM
This message has been edited by mick, 04-14-2005 04:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by StormWolfx2x, posted 04-13-2005 7:29 PM StormWolfx2x has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 29 (199517)
04-15-2005 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by StormWolfx2x
04-13-2005 7:29 PM


quote:
In March, 1996, the International Panel on Forests of the United Nations held its first meeting in Geneva. The media paid little attention to what appeared to be one more ponderous assemblage of delegates speaking in unintelligible UNese.
See Stormworlf, I am already alienated by the arrogant tone of these two sentences. Appealing to a "ponderous assemblage" and "unintelligeible UNese" is a blatant appeal to orthodox Conservative dogmas about the "big state" and how the UN is some sort of world government in waiting. This is more in the realm of conspiracy theory than cogent argument. But soldiering on...
quote:
But of most significance to the subject of forests, WWF claimed that the main cause of species extinction was "commercial logging", that is, the forest industry. They provided absolutely no evidence for this so-called fact about logging and the media asked no hard questions. The next day newspapers around the world proclaimed the forest industry to be the main destroyer of species.
Well yes obviously. Its well established, and has been since the 1970's. The most biologically diversity-dense region of the world is the Amazon rainforest, and it is being logged, and there have been multiple appeals about the dangers iof the loss of this doiversity - not least becuase we stand to gain many medical treatements from the highly developed chemistires of such a dense biomass.
And whay would you, or whoever wrote this piece, expect all evidence to be produced at a press conference? Thats what the scientific peer-reviewed journals are for. Probably, as is usually the case, the press would have been given a package with relevant statisticis and refernces to papers and whatnot.
All of that is elided in this snide and unfair criticism. If whoever wrote this is so ignorant that this is the first time they have enountered the idea, then they should be slapped around the head and told to wake up and smell the coffee. This is old news.
quote:
Since that announcement I have asked on numerous occasions for the name of a single species that has been rendered extinct due to forestry, particularly in my home country, Canada. Not one Latin name has been provided.
An appeal to personal incrdulity; 2 minutes on Google produces the Caribou dawsoni subspecies and the Sea Mink, see Statistics Canada - We couldn't find that Web page (Error 404) / Statistique Canada - Nous ne pouvons trouver cette page Web (Erreur 404)
quote:
Today, the main cause of species extinction is deforestation, over 90% of which is caused by agriculture and urban development. Why is WWF telling the public that logging is the main cause of species extinction?
Maybe because logging is, by definition, deforestation? Duh.
quote:
This wasn’t written by some outcast of the scientific community, it was written by Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of Greenpeace.
Irrelevant - thats an appeal to Moore's presumed authority. For all I know, Moore has since aquired Alzheimers, or a very large estate courtesy of the logging industry. Moore's personal authority is simply not comparable with the consensus of the scientific world.
But that said, it may also be making mountains out of molehills. This looks like a crtitic seizing on a dispute and turning it into a huge issue that it may not be. Two scientists have different opinions - whats weird about that? Leave it to the method to resolve the impasse.
quote:
I’m accusing the people that spoke at this event on behalf of the WWF of being at best grossly misinformed about the effects of commercial logging on the extinction of species of animals, and at worst deliberately lying about the effects of commercial logging in order to discredit it in the eyes of the public.
... which is a HUGE assumption to make from the evidence at hand! In order to make that kind of harsh accusation, you need to demonstrate first of all that threy are actually wrong, and all you have in that regard is Moore's isolated opinion! Motion denied.
quote:
but I believe that when environmental organizations lie about the facts its damaging both to the legitimacy of the movement and in turn the overall well being of human kind.
Well IF that were true, I might agree wit you, but so far you have zero evidence that it is true. All you have are Moore's objections - that simply is not enough of a basis to leap to the assumption that the WWF - a well respected body - is actively perverting facts for no apparent reason. This is indeed a conspiracy theory type accusation.
quote:
The next time she started one of her rants I challenged her and said that logging was not as harmful to the environment as she claimed, she responded (and this was the funny part) prove it, I showed her the evidence I collected, she had no response except asking me to stay after class, I did, and I got 1 week of detention for classroom disruption.
I'm sorry thas also invalid. I once had a teacher tell me that "light always moves in straight lines". This is not, in fact, true; but it was good enough, she thought, for a 14-year old. It is not legitimate to seize upon a single anecdote of human failure and from there construct a grand conspiracy theory about how the public are being defrauded.
Nevertheless, I can and will challenge some of your claim anyway - while total forestry stocks in the US have increased, as they have in swededn, the problem is that this increase is in short growth evergreens, like pine. This is good and useful, but it is actually tangential to logging ancient growth woodland, not least because big reserves of pine are a monoculture and thus restrict the diversity of both animals and plants. Furthermore, pine growth, being so fast, and the wood being relatively light, means that the carbon trapping carried out by pine and other evergreens is substantially less than would be the case for a hard timber woodland.
So what this all adds up to is the following: evergreen farming is a good eidea, especially for high turnover products like paper, but is in fact not a substitute for the old growth woodlands we are destroying in any of the important respects.
quote:
The teacher was one of the liberal radicals that I was talking about and the WWF was at least in part one of the sets of propaganda and yes men to which I originally refered.
And as far as I am concerned thats about as well informed as accusing them of being vampires and sucking your blood. And you know, I do understand your response to your teacher - if nothing else, it does look like she abused her authority in an unethical way. But come on - people are people with all their frailties, and to presume that becuase of this single experience, all, or even a substantial number, of environmentalists are ill-informed or fanatical is simply not reasonable. You need to account for the fact that there are going to be stupid people on both sides of every debate; thats the way humanity works.
But that is absolutely no defence against the solid, peer reviewed, scientific consensus on environmental dangers. Certainly, accusing the WWF of such dishonesty is simply ridiculous IMO; even if they are mistaken, it would be much more reasonable to assume such a mistake is honest. But as I have already shown, they are not in fact mistaken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by StormWolfx2x, posted 04-13-2005 7:29 PM StormWolfx2x has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by StormWolfx2x, posted 04-16-2005 3:43 AM contracycle has replied

  
StormWolfx2x
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 29 (199706)
04-16-2005 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by contracycle
04-15-2005 7:17 AM


quote:
But of most significance to the subject of forests, WWF claimed that the main cause of species extinction was "commercial logging", that is, the forest industry. They provided absolutely no evidence for this so-called fact about logging and the media asked no hard questions. The next day newspapers around the world proclaimed the forest industry to be the main destroyer of species.
Well yes obviously. Its well established, and has been since the 1970's. The most biologically diversity-dense region of the world is the Amazon rainforest, and it is being logged, and there have been multiple appeals about the dangers iof the loss of this doiversity - not least becuase we stand to gain many medical treatements from the highly developed chemistires of such a dense biomass.
Simply because logging goes on in areas of the rainforest does not make them the main cause of species extinction, the main cause of species extinction now is overpopulation, and the combined over hunting of certain types of animals and systematic clearing of the rainforest for agricultural use. Foreign influences are still responsible in that much of this agricultural use is grassing land for cattle, but that is a different problem.
And whay would you, or whoever wrote this piece, expect all evidence to be produced at a press conference? Thats what the scientific peer-reviewed journals are for. Probably, as is usually the case, the press would have been given a package with relevant statisticis and refernces to papers and whatnot.
If he expected that, then you are correct in your comment. I think he said it more to point out that there was no evidence, and he did so improperly.
All of that is elided in this snide and unfair criticism. If whoever wrote this is so ignorant that this is the first time they have enountered the idea, then they should be slapped around the head and told to wake up and smell the coffee. This is old news.
I highly doubt this is the first time he encountered this idea, he was merely using it as a reference to show that major organizations are using these claims, and that its damaging an industry which he supports in his later claim
quote:
Despite the WWF’s failure to support its accusations, the myth that forestry causes widespread species extinction lives on. How can a largely urban public be convinced that this is not the case? The challenge is a daunting one for an industry that has been cast in the role of Darth Vadar when it should be recognized for growing trees and providing wood, the most renewable material used in human civilization.
I can attest to his claim, as I come from a suburban area, and many people do think that American + Canadian logging practices are a far larger threat to the environment than they really are. So much so that students in my school’s ecology club circulated a petition to prevent selective logging on what I later found out was a privately owned section of forest taht was deemed at high risk for forest fires due to the fact that it was over dense.
quote:
Since that announcement I have asked on numerous occasions for the name of a single species that has been rendered extinct due to forestry, particularly in my home country, Canada. Not one Latin name has been provided.
An appeal to personal incrdulity; 2 minutes on Google produces the Caribou dawsoni subspecies and the Sea Mink, see Statistics Canada - We couldn't find that Web page (Error 404) / Statistique Canada - Nous ne pouvons trouver cette page Web (Erreur 404)
Yep those 2 are extinct all right, but 2 more mins on google would tell you that the Caribou dawsoni subspecies disappeared after introduction of firearms for sport and food hunting to a small island, and went extinct between 1908 and 1935(at the latest)
And the Sea Mink disappeared after intensive fur hunting in 1894
neither are from modern North American logging practices, or even the unregulated logging of early settlers.
quote:
Today, the main cause of species extinction is deforestation, over 90% of which is caused by agriculture and urban development. Why is WWF telling the public that logging is the main cause of species extinction?
Maybe because logging is, by definition, deforestation? Duh.
Commercial logging in Modern NA practice is logging done for making wood products. It’s Deforestation if that land is then used for agriculture and urban development because it is not thereafter forest.
Commerical logging, especially in NA, either only selectively logs, or replants after they harvest.
quote:
This wasn’t written by some outcast of the scientific community, it was written by Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of Greenpeace.
Irrelevant - thats an appeal to Moore's presumed authority. For all I know, Moore has since aquired Alzheimers, or a very large estate courtesy of the logging industry. Moore's personal authority is simply not comparable with the consensus of the scientific world.
For more info on Moore please visit Just a moment....
You said that I would "produce discredited "evidence" from a narrow sect of global warming deniers who have zero credibility in the big bad world. But by all means, bring it on."
Patrick Moore is not some kind of wacky conspiricy theroist, hes simply an enviormentalist that wants to work with industry by creating solutions, not just creating conflict between the two.
And I highly doubt the consensus of the scientific world is that commercial logging (especially when practiced right) causes more species to go extinct than overpopulation, deforestation for agriculture, and hunting.
quote:
The teacher was one of the liberal radicals that I was talking about and the WWF was at least in part one of the sets of propaganda and yes men to which I originally refered.
And as far as I am concerned thats about as well informed as accusing them of being vampires and sucking your blood. And you know, I do understand your response to your teacher - if nothing else, it does look like she abused her authority in an unethical way. But come on - people are people with all their frailties, and to presume that becuase of this single experience, all, or even a substantial number, of environmentalists are ill-informed or fanatical is simply not reasonable. You need to account for the fact that there are going to be stupid people on both sides of every debate; thats the way humanity works.
Ok, but I never said that all or even a substantial number of environmentalists are ill-informed or fanatical. I merely stated that they exist. To state that they don’t is the same as stating that religious radicals don’t exist. I think this is where we are having our misunderstanding.
The problem is not that these people exist, its that they are the ones that shape political movements because they are the most dedicated and outspoken, and when uninformed people hear extremist arguements, many people will ethier accept them in their entiraty, and forge their beliefs on inncorrect facts, or disregard them completely, and miss the positive aspects of the arguement.
This message has been edited by StormWolfx2x, 04-17-2005 12:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by contracycle, posted 04-15-2005 7:17 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by contracycle, posted 04-18-2005 9:06 AM StormWolfx2x has replied

  
Verzem
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 29 (200024)
04-17-2005 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Rrhain
04-11-2005 3:35 AM


helpful recoil stats for you
Rrhain,
Hello from your gun nut buddy Verzem!
I just thought I'd bring some things to light to help you, and any others who might be interested, better understand things like recoil and ballistics. For this, I am referfing to what ballistics truly is and not what television purports ballistics to be. What they are almost always talking about is forensics, and not ballistics. Sorry, I digress, but that is a sore spot for me.
I know you are a math guy, so this will be easy for you to understand. First, some facts to get this example established. There are 7k grains in a pound. For demonstration purposes, I have selected a hunting rifle in the calibre of .358 Norma Magnum that will fire a 250 grain bullet. It is a high-end hunting rifle as far as power goes, but a good one to example. We will go with a rifle weight of 10 lbs. which is a fairly common average hunting rifle weight.
So, here is how it works: The muzzle energy for the .358 Norma Mag with a 250 grain bullet, and the powder charge selected, is 4,117 ft./lbs. To figure recoil, we must compute the weight relationship between the bullet (250 grains) and the rifle (10 lbs.). This gives us a ratio of 280:1. The muzzle energy is 4,117 so we divide that by 280 and get 14.7 ft./lbs. of felt recoil energy. Now, that may not sound like a lot, but believe you me, you don't want to fire a powerful gun like that very many times in a day, or you will have a very sore shoulder the next day.
As for the whallop it packs downrange, at 100 yards the energy of the bullet is 3,357 ft./lbs. Obviously, you can figure out that without any outside resistance, this would be a force capable of moving a 3,357 lb. weight backwards one foot. Or, it could also move a 180 lb. man backwards 18.65 feet.
This is the math of it. I think you may have been tricked in that thing you saw with the pig carcass, or whatever it was.
This hunter has personally seen deer go flying backwards after I shot them. Now, if a bullet happens to go all the way through a body and exits without expending all of its' energy into the body; it is understandable if that body doesn't go flying backwards since it didn't absorb but a fraction of the energy.
FYI, the energy of a typical handgun (9mm) with a 125 grain bullet at 25 yds. is only 373 ft./lbs. For a typical 180 lb. man who is standing, he could probably absorb that without being thrown backwards. Still, I surely would not want to be on the receiving end of one.
Verzem

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2005 3:35 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 29 (200061)
04-18-2005 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by StormWolfx2x
04-16-2005 3:43 AM


quote:
Simply because logging goes on in areas of the rainforest does not make them the main cause of species extinction, the main cause of species extinction now is overpopulation, and the combined over hunting of certain types of animals and systematic clearing of the rainforest for agricultural use. Foreign influences are still responsible in that much of this agricultural use is grassing land for cattle, but that is a different problem.
Umm, yes. Overpopulation is certainly the driver, becuase people need products that come from wood. That does not make overpopulation a different cause than logging; it means that logging is caused by the demand of large populations; that is elementary.
Yes of course the clearing of woodlands for arable is a problem, but that is still deforestation. This does not appear to be hard. And whether its foreign or local, we live on only one planet.
quote:
I can attest to his claim, as I come from a suburban area, and many people do think that American + Canadian logging practices are a far larger threat to the environment than they really are. So much so that students in my school’s ecology club circulated a petition to prevent selective logging on what I later found out was a privately owned section of forest taht was deemed at high risk for forest fires due to the fact that it was over dense.
Well, the problem is that seeing as you seem to be doing your best to discredit the problems of logging, I'm not sure that your assesment that their view is erroneous is correct. The alternative might be that some people in suburbia, such as yourself, have an overly complacent view of the safety of logging.
In addition, btw, its not always a good idea to log woods that are so dense as to be a fire risk - a lot of woodlands need to be burnt down from time to time to regenerate.
quote:
Commercial logging in Modern NA practice is logging done for making wood products. It’s Deforestation if that land is then used for agriculture and urban development because it is not thereafter forest.
Commerical logging, especially in NA, either only selectively logs, or replants after they harvest.
But as I pointed out, the bulk of replanting with fast-growing evergreens that do not adequately replace old growth hardwoods. the simple fact is no-one is going to plant a plot and wait 50 years before it can be harvested again. This is a cheap, quickie, partial solution.
quote:
Patrick Moore is not some kind of wacky conspiricy theroist, hes simply an enviormentalist that wants to work with industry by creating solutions, not just creating conflict between the two.
Now you are appealing to his alleged morality. But the problem is that that is the kind of thing that business always says when they mean "has sold out to us". Thus, politicians who work for a minimum wage threaten to "wrwck" the econommy and thoise who work against such ideas are "working in partnership with industry".
The whole environmentalism moevement has ALWAYS wanted to work with undustry to create solutions. That in fact is the entire purtpose of environmentalism as a whole - to raise into sight the problems that we face, so we can all see what needs to be done and organise to do it.
But business is resisting doing anything at all becuase any change threatens short term profits. And this has been going on for forty years now; it is ridiculous. Just as it is ridiculous to accuse environmentalism of "wanting to create conflict" when all it wnats is a proper reponse to the dangers we face. That is simply slandering the opposition.
quote:
Ok, but I never said that all or even a substantial number of environmentalists are ill-informed or fanatical. I merely stated that they exist. To state that they don’t is the same as stating that religious radicals don’t exist. I think this is where we are having our misunderstanding.
But why is your teacher a representative of the movement? Was she speaking an official capacity articulating the agenda of a group? Was she laying out a prospectus or election address?
Therein lies my issue with your statement. Of course, on ANY issue under the sun, there will be some nutcases. But if they are no representative of the serious people trying to get things done in the real world, it is unfair to hold the entire movement hostage to the example of the non-representative nutters.
Otherwise, any position or ideology could be discredited by finding a single person who claims to support it, but says nutty things. I do not think that the environmentalism movement is remotely similar to the UFO conspiracy "movement".
quote:
The problem is not that these people exist, its that they are the ones that shape political movements because they are the most dedicated and outspoken, and when uninformed people hear extremist arguements, many people will ethier accept them in their entiraty, and forge their beliefs on inncorrect facts, or disregard them completely, and miss the positive aspects of the arguement.
Well maybe, but the example breaks down becuase your teacher does not appear to be among them. I strongly dispute these people shape political movements - these people are unable to sustain any kind of position in any formal movement where you are likely to be publicly challanged. The lone nutcases are, necessarily be being alone, not part of such movements - may even have been kicked out, I point out as well.
And so this is why I react badly to your proposition; it appears to be an attempt to slander environmentalism unfairly, appealing as it does not to the headline statements or peer reviewed articles emerging from the serious venues and conferences, but takes nutters off the street as a fair represenatation of the Green movement. But that is NOT fair at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by StormWolfx2x, posted 04-16-2005 3:43 AM StormWolfx2x has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by StormWolfx2x, posted 04-22-2005 3:26 AM contracycle has not replied

  
StormWolfx2x
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 29 (201091)
04-22-2005 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by contracycle
04-18-2005 9:06 AM


quote:
Umm, yes. Overpopulation is certainly the driver, becuase people need products that come from wood. That does not make overpopulation a different cause than logging; it means that logging is caused by the demand of large populations; that is elementary.
Yes of course the clearing of woodlands for arable is a problem, but that is still deforestation. This does not appear to be hard. And whether its foreign or local, we live on only one planet.
Commercial logging is logging done for wood, it is not deforestion if the area remains forest, and it is not the largest threat to species extinction, especially in NA.
Clearing land for urban developement and agricultural use is deforestaion, and is not commercail logging.
quote:
ANY issue under the sun, there will be some nutcases.
Thats all I was trying to prove in the first place.
quote:
But if they are no representative of the serious people trying to get things done in the real world, it is unfair to hold the entire movement hostage to the example of the non-representative nutters.
I specifically said
"Ok, but I never said that all or even a substantial number of environmentalists are ill-informed or fanatical. I merely stated that they exist."
thats hardly holding the entire movement hostage.
sorry about keeping my reply so short but alot of serious things are going on in my life right now and this forum is taking up to much of my time that I should spend elsewhere, if you would like to respond again please do, but know that I won't be able to respond as Im going to have to go back to creeping only.
Thanks for the debate and goodbye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by contracycle, posted 04-18-2005 9:06 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 25 of 29 (201374)
04-23-2005 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Citizzzen
04-11-2005 11:50 AM


Re: That certain gullibility...
Citizzzen writes:
quote:
I am disturbed about the rise in people pursuing tech degrees with only core classes, and bypassing humanities, and other "liberal arts" courses.
Where does this happen? While I realize that Harvey Mudd is an anomaly in the world of education, my experience with my colleagues from places like CalTech and MIT and Rose-Hullman seem to indicate that there is no lack of emphasis on humanities courses by science majors. And note, this is at schools dedicated to the teaching of science as opposed to typical liberal arts colleges that include science, engineering, and mathematics departments.
It is my experience that the humanities requirements of science majors are usually more stringent than the science requirements of humanities majors. That is, you can get your BA taking "College Algebra" and never being exposed to anything complicated in Mathematics. However, you can't get your BS without having to take the Literature course where you're reading and analysing the great authors. You can get a Philosophy degree without having to take any sort of real Physics course. You'll have to read Plato and Socrates and Moore and all the rest of the great philosophers in order to get a Physics degree, however.
The big barriers are calculus and the ability to read. We as a society are much more concerned with teaching our children how to read than we are with teaching them calculus. Now, I handily agree that learning to read is something that can be acquired and developed much earlier than learning calculus. But we don't expect our children to eventually learn calculus. We do expect them to learn how to read. We don't find the inability to do calculus to be a failing the way we do the inability to read.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Citizzzen, posted 04-11-2005 11:50 AM Citizzzen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Asgara, posted 04-23-2005 10:27 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 26 of 29 (201402)
04-23-2005 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rrhain
04-23-2005 6:43 AM


Re: That certain gullibility...
I think he is referring to the Associates Degree you get at a tech college, not a BS in a technical field offered at a University or four year college system
The classes I had to take other than my program courses were:
  • Algebra
  • Business Math
  • Accounting Concepts
  • Economics
  • Contemporary American Society
  • Psychology of Human Relations
  • Foundations of Quality
  • Written Communications
  • Oral and Interpersonal Communications
No literature, no philosophy.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
select * from USERS where CLUE > 0
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 04-23-2005 6:43 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2005 4:56 AM Asgara has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 27 of 29 (202076)
04-25-2005 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Asgara
04-23-2005 10:27 AM


Re: That certain gullibility...
Asgara responds to me:
quote:
No literature, no philosophy.
And I notice no real math, either.
That said, "Contemporary American Society" sounds like a history class to me...Humanities department.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Asgara, posted 04-23-2005 10:27 AM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Asgara, posted 04-25-2005 8:10 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 28 of 29 (202114)
04-25-2005 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rrhain
04-25-2005 4:56 AM


Re: That certain gullibility...
Contemporary American Society was a lot like the gov/soc classes in high school. As far as the maths go, I'm sure other programs had different math requirements, (nursing, electrical engineering). Either way it is a tech degree with the bare minimum of gen ed classes to make it an associates instead of a certificate.
That said, it is a very good tech school.
Fox Valley Technical College

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
select * from USERS where CLUE > 0
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2005 4:56 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2005 3:26 AM Asgara has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 29 of 29 (204855)
05-04-2005 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Asgara
04-25-2005 8:10 AM


Re: That certain gullibility...
Asgara responds to me:
quote:
Either way it is a tech degree with the bare minimum of gen ed classes to make it an associates instead of a certificate.
True, but notice that even to get a technical degree, you are required to take more non-technical classes than for a non-technical degree is required to take technical classes.
For example, to get the AA in Accounting, you take 15 credits in what would be considered "Humanities" or "Social Sciences" courses. But to get the AA in Culinary Arts, you only take 3 credits of Math and no other science courses.
Our society places a higher value upon the citizenry knowing about culture than about math or science. Again, I think part of the reason this is is because the do-or-die point is quite different for the two. There is a do-or-die point in every field where you need to be able to understand this particular thing or you won't be able to progress much further.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Asgara, posted 04-25-2005 8:10 AM Asgara has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024