2 ms·

I don't need to be a caretaker of cave systems to notice the manipulation in this article. Lying for a good cause is still lying, and in the end destroys any cr

I don't need to be a caretaker of cave systems to notice the manipulation in this article. Lying for a good cause is still lying, and in the end destroys any credibility. Bullshit like for example saying that cave ecosystems could be destroyed because <huge improbable number> of trash has been discarded in the sum of <every> protected areas. Sorry but, how much of these areas do have cave ecosystems? A cheetos bag does not have the same impact in a prairie than in a cave. The article is leading the reader toward the assumption that caves are flooded with millions of tons of trash; but does not show any data to support that claim except that "the problem was solved in 20 minutes". If we don't have a real value, we should do research and find a real estimate. Extrapolating from things unrelated to achieve our desired emotional response (based in fake data) is dishonest towards the public. And eventually they will discover the trick and will stop caring.

llamaimperative 2y ago
You're jumping from "this article is bad" to "the underlying event is 'a storm in a teacup'" I don't take issue with the argument that this article (which is clearly blogspam) is bad. I take issue with your assertion that this is a non-event despite NPS saying otherwise. Frankly I can't bring myself to believe that you're actually confused by the distinction between the blogspam and the NPS's statement, but I suppose it's possible.
- pvaldes 2y ago
  If is so bad, just show me the research, or at least any proof showing that the ecosystem is collapsing. You know, as me, that the blogspam is the only part what the public will read. And then you have a lot of people with lots of silly and wrong ideas about how nature works.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    I'm happy to defer to the professional caretakers of caves to have collated the relevant research behind their opinions, which is why I asked whether you are one. You're not, so I think onus is on you if you'd like to provide evidence to the contrary of actual expert opinion.
    - pvaldes 2y ago
      So you require other people to provide links and all sorts of guarantees and royal letters, but you refuse to provide one flimsy cite to support your opinion apart of "experts are experts are experts". And you think that know all about me. Okay. Keep thinking that. Any other thing that you would want to include before to end this conversation?
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Wait sorry, if you're just discarding the entire concept of expertise, then what source could possibly convince you of anything? The sources themselves are just more experts! Also to be clear, I didn't assume anything about you. My very first question was about your expertise.

llamaimperative 2y ago

You're jumping from "this article is bad" to "the underlying event is 'a storm in a teacup'" I don't take issue with the argument that this article (which is clearly blogspam) is bad. I take issue with your assertion that this is a non-event despite NPS saying otherwise. Frankly I can't bring myself to believe that you're actually confused by the distinction between the blogspam and the NPS's statement, but I suppose it's possible.

pvaldes 2y ago
If is so bad, just show me the research, or at least any proof showing that the ecosystem is collapsing. You know, as me, that the blogspam is the only part what the public will read. And then you have a lot of people with lots of silly and wrong ideas about how nature works.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  I'm happy to defer to the professional caretakers of caves to have collated the relevant research behind their opinions, which is why I asked whether you are one. You're not, so I think onus is on you if you'd like to provide evidence to the contrary of actual expert opinion.
  - pvaldes 2y ago
    So you require other people to provide links and all sorts of guarantees and royal letters, but you refuse to provide one flimsy cite to support your opinion apart of "experts are experts are experts". And you think that know all about me. Okay. Keep thinking that. Any other thing that you would want to include before to end this conversation?
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Wait sorry, if you're just discarding the entire concept of expertise, then what source could possibly convince you of anything? The sources themselves are just more experts! Also to be clear, I didn't assume anything about you. My very first question was about your expertise.