3 ms·

Pursuit of the truth is worthwhile in and of itself.

ajross 2y ago
The word "Endangered" in this context (which, again, hasn't applied to the bald eagle for 30 years!) is defined by and used within the context of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Inserting an "actuallly" argument is doing nothing but harming understanding.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  It is common for people to have an understanding of terms which differs from their precise legal definition, and the difference between the two can be interesting.
  - ajross 2y ago
    Right, so you agree with me then that calling out ambiguous usage and citing the relevant definitions is valuable? People are getting outrageously bent out of shape in this thread when all I'm trying to say is that the Endangered Species Act is a valuable and important tool and that attempts to "define it away" with ambiguous rhetoric is bad. The fact that I keep trying to pin you guys down on policy implications with no success tells me an awful lot about who I'm arguing with. (Again: do you or don't you want to return to the use of DDT? Do you or don't you agree that the bald eagle should have been listed as endangered until 1995? Do you or don't you agree that "Endangered" as a legal classification has been a good law? No one answers!)
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      I really got the strong impression from your comments that you were trying to say there was some hidden nefarious intent behind his comment. You haven't really done anything to dispel that impression. Otherwise, to what are you referring with "attempts to "define it away" with ambiguous rhetoric is bad." ?
      - ajross 2y ago
        Don't know about "nefarious", but cryptolibertarianism is extremely common on this forum. People throw out points like that all the time and then (as here) run to semantic arguments when challenged. But the point was the challenge, not the intent. Is it possible I'm wrong about intent? Sure! But the Endangered Species Act remains a really important law and a seminal moment in US conservation policy. And the fact that no one seems to want to talk about it is... suspicious. So I think I'm probably right. Both about the poster above and you. But more importantly, I'm right about conservation law, even though no one wants to discuss it.

The word "Endangered" in this context (which, again, hasn't applied to the bald eagle for 30 years!) is defined by and used within the context of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Inserting an "actuallly" argument is doing nothing but harming understanding.

lupusreal 2y ago
It is common for people to have an understanding of terms which differs from their precise legal definition, and the difference between the two can be interesting.
- ajross 2y ago
  Right, so you agree with me then that calling out ambiguous usage and citing the relevant definitions is valuable? People are getting outrageously bent out of shape in this thread when all I'm trying to say is that the Endangered Species Act is a valuable and important tool and that attempts to "define it away" with ambiguous rhetoric is bad. The fact that I keep trying to pin you guys down on policy implications with no success tells me an awful lot about who I'm arguing with. (Again: do you or don't you want to return to the use of DDT? Do you or don't you agree that the bald eagle should have been listed as endangered until 1995? Do you or don't you agree that "Endangered" as a legal classification has been a good law? No one answers!)
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    I really got the strong impression from your comments that you were trying to say there was some hidden nefarious intent behind his comment. You haven't really done anything to dispel that impression. Otherwise, to what are you referring with "attempts to "define it away" with ambiguous rhetoric is bad." ?
    - ajross 2y ago
      Don't know about "nefarious", but cryptolibertarianism is extremely common on this forum. People throw out points like that all the time and then (as here) run to semantic arguments when challenged. But the point was the challenge, not the intent. Is it possible I'm wrong about intent? Sure! But the Endangered Species Act remains a really important law and a seminal moment in US conservation policy. And the fact that no one seems to want to talk about it is... suspicious. So I think I'm probably right. Both about the poster above and you. But more importantly, I'm right about conservation law, even though no one wants to discuss it.