5 ms·

Not sure I agree with protecting the trees over preventing brain damage in babies, but that's just me.

zepto 11y ago
If you kill all the trees, we'll have worse problems than the current harm from mosquitos. Humans depend on the biosphere for survival. I agree that protecting babies from brain damage is very important, but certainly not at any cost.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  > If you kill all the trees An undertaking so MASSIVE to "kill all the trees" is absolutely hyperbolic nonsense. The parent never suggested that. At worst, if your claims above are true, more logging may occur. This is a far, far, far, far cry from killing all the trees (even when limiting the context to the rainforest). When you're arguing with someone don't derive meaning from someone's rebuttal that doesn't exist in order to help your position; it makes it appear that you only want to deal with extremes without evidence which paints your views in a nonrealistic way.
  - zepto 11y ago
    Why not say the same to the parent, or yourself then? The rebuttal was all about sacrificing trees to prevent brain damage to babies which is a false dichotomy. Seems like you don't have a problem with 'extremes' of meaning that don't exist when they support your position.
    - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
      > Why not say the same to the parent, or yourself then? While I thought the parent's comment was in snark / sarcastic it was still contextual and not as extreme (it was regarding the issue you brought up). As for me? What did I say that was hyperbolic? > The rebuttal was all about sacrificing trees to prevent brain damage to babies which is a false dichotomy. Yes what krschultz wrote was a false dichotomy. Sarcasm tends to be just that. Though you, on the other hand, took his / her comments to an extreme that didn't make sense because of exactly what I said: you creative a narrative that didn't exist out of someone else's comment only to be hyperbolic to try and bolster your position. "Not sure I agree with protecting the trees over preventing brain damage in babies" - krschultz "If you kill all the trees[...]" - zepto (in reply to krschultz) Do you understand now? Surely you can see the ridiculousness of your response to krschultz, regardless of his / her own snark / saracasm, right?
      - zepto 11y ago
        Ah - so you're going to conveniently label it as 'sarcasm' now that it suits you. If it's sarcasm, then it doesn't stand as an argument and my original point goes unrefuted. You can't have it both ways.
        BinaryIdiot 11y ago
        Um...what? That doesn't even make sense. How does labeling it as sarcasm "suit me" especially when I gave a talking point about how it doesn't even matter if it was or wasn't sarcasm? This is digressing into utter nonsense. Go back to reddit if you want to troll.
        zepto 11y ago
        It matter because if the comment about causing brain damage to babies wasn't sarcasm, then it was extreme and a false dichotomy, so your accusation against my rhetorical style would apply there equally. You have chosen to label it as sarcasm to make your attack on the style rather than the substance of my point look reasonable - that's what I mean by it 'suiting you'. I don't actually believe that the point about brain damaging babies was sarcasm. I think the poster was being serious because that is one of the harms caused by malaria. I don't at all see how this could be construed as a sarcastic comment. If sarcasm was irrelevant, why did you base you use it to account for the false dichotomy?
        BinaryIdiot 11y ago
        Haha okay I'm done. You've very obviously a troll. All you want to do is try to (falsely) redirect the conversation far, far away from your hyperbolic claims that you have still yet to source (and you obviously never will). You're sitting here arguing over the intent of a statement made by someone not even in this argument simply because I stated I thought it was sarcasm but then went on the explain how it didn't even matter if it was sarcasm and why. Go back to reddit and have run arguing with yourself.
- Nadya 11y ago
  70-80% of atmospheric oxygen comes from ocean life [0]. I'm not that worried about trees - especially since a vast majority of logging comes from forests that are maintained with the intent of logging [1]. Areas are cleared, new trees planted, and areas are harvested in cycles. [0] http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism/ http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_forest_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_forest_management
  - pvaldes 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Indonesia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Indonesia Around the 88% of logging in Indonesia and 80% of logging in Brazil and Bolivia could be illegal in fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_logging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_logging
jcromartie 11y ago
Let's see how babies do on a planet without rainforests.

zepto 11y ago

If you kill all the trees, we'll have worse problems than the current harm from mosquitos. Humans depend on the biosphere for survival. I agree that protecting babies from brain damage is very important, but certainly not at any cost.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
> If you kill all the trees An undertaking so MASSIVE to "kill all the trees" is absolutely hyperbolic nonsense. The parent never suggested that. At worst, if your claims above are true, more logging may occur. This is a far, far, far, far cry from killing all the trees (even when limiting the context to the rainforest). When you're arguing with someone don't derive meaning from someone's rebuttal that doesn't exist in order to help your position; it makes it appear that you only want to deal with extremes without evidence which paints your views in a nonrealistic way.
- zepto 11y ago
  Why not say the same to the parent, or yourself then? The rebuttal was all about sacrificing trees to prevent brain damage to babies which is a false dichotomy. Seems like you don't have a problem with 'extremes' of meaning that don't exist when they support your position.
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    > Why not say the same to the parent, or yourself then? While I thought the parent's comment was in snark / sarcastic it was still contextual and not as extreme (it was regarding the issue you brought up). As for me? What did I say that was hyperbolic? > The rebuttal was all about sacrificing trees to prevent brain damage to babies which is a false dichotomy. Yes what krschultz wrote was a false dichotomy. Sarcasm tends to be just that. Though you, on the other hand, took his / her comments to an extreme that didn't make sense because of exactly what I said: you creative a narrative that didn't exist out of someone else's comment only to be hyperbolic to try and bolster your position. "Not sure I agree with protecting the trees over preventing brain damage in babies" - krschultz "If you kill all the trees[...]" - zepto (in reply to krschultz) Do you understand now? Surely you can see the ridiculousness of your response to krschultz, regardless of his / her own snark / saracasm, right?
    - zepto 11y ago
      Ah - so you're going to conveniently label it as 'sarcasm' now that it suits you. If it's sarcasm, then it doesn't stand as an argument and my original point goes unrefuted. You can't have it both ways.
      - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
        Um...what? That doesn't even make sense. How does labeling it as sarcasm "suit me" especially when I gave a talking point about how it doesn't even matter if it was or wasn't sarcasm? This is digressing into utter nonsense. Go back to reddit if you want to troll.
        zepto 11y ago
        It matter because if the comment about causing brain damage to babies wasn't sarcasm, then it was extreme and a false dichotomy, so your accusation against my rhetorical style would apply there equally. You have chosen to label it as sarcasm to make your attack on the style rather than the substance of my point look reasonable - that's what I mean by it 'suiting you'. I don't actually believe that the point about brain damaging babies was sarcasm. I think the poster was being serious because that is one of the harms caused by malaria. I don't at all see how this could be construed as a sarcastic comment. If sarcasm was irrelevant, why did you base you use it to account for the false dichotomy?
        BinaryIdiot 11y ago
        Haha okay I'm done. You've very obviously a troll. All you want to do is try to (falsely) redirect the conversation far, far away from your hyperbolic claims that you have still yet to source (and you obviously never will). You're sitting here arguing over the intent of a statement made by someone not even in this argument simply because I stated I thought it was sarcasm but then went on the explain how it didn't even matter if it was sarcasm and why. Go back to reddit and have run arguing with yourself.
Nadya 11y ago
70-80% of atmospheric oxygen comes from ocean life [0]. I'm not that worried about trees - especially since a vast majority of logging comes from forests that are maintained with the intent of logging [1]. Areas are cleared, new trees planted, and areas are harvested in cycles. [0] http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism/ http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_forest_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_forest_management
- pvaldes 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Indonesia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Indonesia Around the 88% of logging in Indonesia and 80% of logging in Brazil and Bolivia could be illegal in fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_logging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_logging

jcromartie 11y ago

Let's see how babies do on a planet without rainforests.