4 ms·

He destroyed a national park? That's not my take.

zorpner 13y ago
I'd love to learn more about your background -- trail maintenance planner? Ecological impact study coordinator? Surely it's something that would allow you to make an authoritative statement about what does or does not damage a piece of protected parkland, otherwise you'd simply be making unsupported assertions on a topic you know nothing about.
- lkozma 13y ago
  I haven't read the article or much of the discussion here, I would just like to point out that you are applying (maybe unintentionally) a fallacy called "excluded middle", frequently used in propaganda of all sorts. Between being an absolute expert of a topic and knowing nothing about it there is a whole continuum of possibilities.
  - zorpner 13y ago
    Fair point -- I was being hyperbolic. Rather than "a topic you know nothing about", it would be more accurate to say "a topic which people (namely the parties which assessed the fine) who are demonstrably qualified have already passed judgement on, and which you therefore must show specific reasons that your assessment is more accurate in order to be taken seriously".
- phdp 13y ago
  I think he meant destroyed a national park vs destroyed a small section of a national park.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  Appeal to authority, one of the weakest rhetorical devices.
peterwwillis 13y ago
What, the whole national park? No. He didn't destroy an entire national park. That would be ridiculous. He developed, without permission or permit, in an ecologically sensitive area, without any thought given to erosion control (amongst other things). Some of the other issues include that this land was supposed to be used for the general public. While Sean Parker unfortunately is a member of the general public, the general public should not do whatever the fuck they want with land designated for public use. "The unpermitted development has thus impacted the existing redwood forest habitat and has likely caused sedimentation of Post Creek."

I'd love to learn more about your background -- trail maintenance planner? Ecological impact study coordinator? Surely it's something that would allow you to make an authoritative statement about what does or does not damage a piece of protected parkland, otherwise you'd simply be making unsupported assertions on a topic you know nothing about.

lkozma 13y ago
I haven't read the article or much of the discussion here, I would just like to point out that you are applying (maybe unintentionally) a fallacy called "excluded middle", frequently used in propaganda of all sorts. Between being an absolute expert of a topic and knowing nothing about it there is a whole continuum of possibilities.
- zorpner 13y ago
  Fair point -- I was being hyperbolic. Rather than "a topic you know nothing about", it would be more accurate to say "a topic which people (namely the parties which assessed the fine) who are demonstrably qualified have already passed judgement on, and which you therefore must show specific reasons that your assessment is more accurate in order to be taken seriously".
phdp 13y ago
I think he meant destroyed a national park vs destroyed a small section of a national park.
wavefunction 13y ago
Appeal to authority, one of the weakest rhetorical devices.

peterwwillis 13y ago

What, the whole national park? No. He didn't destroy an entire national park. That would be ridiculous. He developed, without permission or permit, in an ecologically sensitive area, without any thought given to erosion control (amongst other things). Some of the other issues include that this land was supposed to be used for the general public. While Sean Parker unfortunately is a member of the general public, the general public should not do whatever the fuck they want with land designated for public use. "The unpermitted development has thus impacted the existing redwood forest habitat and has likely caused sedimentation of Post Creek."