3 ms·

So you're still not going to try and back up your original claims and, instead, are going to try and nitpick over anything so you can make the same argument? Ho

So you're still not going to try and back up your original claims and, instead, are going to try and nitpick over anything so you can make the same argument? How petty... Regardless the rainforest being dangerous is actually a really common theme (I know I learned about it in primary school). Tips for tourists: http://traveltips.usatoday.com/dangers-amazon-rainforest-1167.html http://traveltips.usatoday.com/dangers-amazon-rainforest-116... Surviving the Jungle: http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/survival/wilderness/jungle-survival.htm http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/survival/wilderness/jungl... Poisonous plants of the jungle: http://www.ehow.com/list_6698309_poisonous-plants-amazon.html http://www.ehow.com/list_6698309_poisonous-plants-amazon.htm... I mean if this is how petty you want to go I can pull up thousands of links; the rainforest can be a pretty scary place and there are countless things in it that can kill you.

zepto 11y ago
Sure - but that definition of 'dangerous' is palatable for loggers in a way that disease carrying insects are not.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  It is? Source (why do I even bother asking you at this point)? Regardless dangerous isn't tied to a specific set of dangers. That's simply not what the word means. I gave a set of links, mentioned I could send you many, many more, and you cherry-pick a topic I didn't post...for what purpose? I'll admit I'm not used to being trolled on HN but this is just ridiculous. If you want to just post random garbage without providing a way of backing up claims (extreme claims nonetheless) then go to reddit.
  - zepto 11y ago
    So your reasoning is simply broken here. The word dangerous is indeed not tied to a specific danger, however it is not simply a binary label that is either true or not true about a specific noun. Dangers do in fact vary in type and in relative degree. That is how the word is used in English. Words draw their meanings from their context as well as their definition. It seems you're upset about something I said that you disagree with and are using hostility instead of reason.
    - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
      You're arguing over the usage of dangerous, which was perfectly valid, as if it were a binary term? I don't get it. It was never used as such. I gave you a sampling of data and you want to continue off an example left off the sampling. So just add it? Who cares? > It seems you're upset about something I said that you disagree with and are using hostility instead of reason. You made a statement that was extreme and never supplied a source. At this point you're just trying to troll and branch the argument down paths that are unrelated. Just go back to reddit. If you want to have a real, intellectual discussion about topics you yourself brought up then you need to provide source. Trying to find irrelevant faults just make you look like a troll. Have fun arguing with yourself.
      - zepto 11y ago
        One of your sources as to why rainforests are dangerous for loggers already is an ehow article on dangerous plants. You aren't trying to have a real intellectual discussion.

zepto 11y ago

Sure - but that definition of 'dangerous' is palatable for loggers in a way that disease carrying insects are not.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
It is? Source (why do I even bother asking you at this point)? Regardless dangerous isn't tied to a specific set of dangers. That's simply not what the word means. I gave a set of links, mentioned I could send you many, many more, and you cherry-pick a topic I didn't post...for what purpose? I'll admit I'm not used to being trolled on HN but this is just ridiculous. If you want to just post random garbage without providing a way of backing up claims (extreme claims nonetheless) then go to reddit.
- zepto 11y ago
  So your reasoning is simply broken here. The word dangerous is indeed not tied to a specific danger, however it is not simply a binary label that is either true or not true about a specific noun. Dangers do in fact vary in type and in relative degree. That is how the word is used in English. Words draw their meanings from their context as well as their definition. It seems you're upset about something I said that you disagree with and are using hostility instead of reason.
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    You're arguing over the usage of dangerous, which was perfectly valid, as if it were a binary term? I don't get it. It was never used as such. I gave you a sampling of data and you want to continue off an example left off the sampling. So just add it? Who cares? > It seems you're upset about something I said that you disagree with and are using hostility instead of reason. You made a statement that was extreme and never supplied a source. At this point you're just trying to troll and branch the argument down paths that are unrelated. Just go back to reddit. If you want to have a real, intellectual discussion about topics you yourself brought up then you need to provide source. Trying to find irrelevant faults just make you look like a troll. Have fun arguing with yourself.
    - zepto 11y ago
      One of your sources as to why rainforests are dangerous for loggers already is an ehow article on dangerous plants. You aren't trying to have a real intellectual discussion.