3 ms·

I can't agree with you. It's the same as saying that slaves were responsible for deforestation by working the cotton fields. It's shifting the blame away from

by myshpa 4y ago

I can't agree with you. It's the same as saying that slaves were responsible for deforestation by working the cotton fields. It's shifting the blame away from real culprits.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> It's the same as saying that slaves were responsible for deforestation by working the cotton fields. How? The point of a cotton field isn't to provide a habitat for your slaves. By the time the slaves are there in the field, the deforestation has already occurred.
- myshpa 4y ago
  I see how my example can be perplexing. My bad. To blame the destruction of the marine ecosystem on those cows is misleading. The marine ecosystem is not the only victim in this situation. Those cows were placed there by humans, for human consumption, and are also victims. We chose to breed and eat them. So my point is, that by formulating it in this way (Cows destroyed ...) instead of slightly more specific way (like Animal husbandry practices destroyed ...) the real problem is hidden, and that it could be a hinderance in undrestanding of the problem, delaying the necessary changes in our behaviour for more responsible handling of the matter in the future. Sorry for my english.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    Except, AFAICT, it wasn't the husbandry of the cows that caused the destruction. The cows were left to roam free and their population exploded and damaged the ecosystem in unexpected ways like has happened with many other invasive species. > more specific way (like Animal husbandry practices destroyed This is less specific. It doesn't clarify which species shouldn't have been introduced or should have been managed better.
    - myshpa 4y ago
      > The cows were left to roam free I think they mean that a farmer had a herd and let it roam free over a vast area. Then he sent some cowboys to take the herd to the city / town with a train and sell them. Just like in Red River movie ;) > It doesn't clarify which species shouldn't have been introduced It may be the cows 150 years ago. Now the species mix would be probably different, with similar effects on the marine ecosystems. Does it really matter if the river of urine and excrements is from cow, pigs or chickens? I don't know.
Waterluvian 4y ago
The thing about semantic pedantry is that it doesn’t really serve any goal and it consumes oxygen that’s better spent on the substance of the issue. Reasonable people aren’t confused by the use of “cows.” It’s just low-hanging fruit, ripe for fabricated outrage.

by myshpa 4y ago

I can't agree with you. It's the same as saying that slaves were responsible for deforestation by working the cotton fields. It's shifting the blame away from real culprits.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> It's the same as saying that slaves were responsible for deforestation by working the cotton fields. How? The point of a cotton field isn't to provide a habitat for your slaves. By the time the slaves are there in the field, the deforestation has already occurred.

myshpa 4y ago
I see how my example can be perplexing. My bad. To blame the destruction of the marine ecosystem on those cows is misleading. The marine ecosystem is not the only victim in this situation. Those cows were placed there by humans, for human consumption, and are also victims. We chose to breed and eat them. So my point is, that by formulating it in this way (Cows destroyed ...) instead of slightly more specific way (like Animal husbandry practices destroyed ...) the real problem is hidden, and that it could be a hinderance in undrestanding of the problem, delaying the necessary changes in our behaviour for more responsible handling of the matter in the future. Sorry for my english.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  Except, AFAICT, it wasn't the husbandry of the cows that caused the destruction. The cows were left to roam free and their population exploded and damaged the ecosystem in unexpected ways like has happened with many other invasive species. > more specific way (like Animal husbandry practices destroyed This is less specific. It doesn't clarify which species shouldn't have been introduced or should have been managed better.
  - myshpa 4y ago
    > The cows were left to roam free I think they mean that a farmer had a herd and let it roam free over a vast area. Then he sent some cowboys to take the herd to the city / town with a train and sell them. Just like in Red River movie ;) > It doesn't clarify which species shouldn't have been introduced It may be the cows 150 years ago. Now the species mix would be probably different, with similar effects on the marine ecosystems. Does it really matter if the river of urine and excrements is from cow, pigs or chickens? I don't know.

Waterluvian 4y ago

The thing about semantic pedantry is that it doesn’t really serve any goal and it consumes oxygen that’s better spent on the substance of the issue. Reasonable people aren’t confused by the use of “cows.” It’s just low-hanging fruit, ripe for fabricated outrage.