Uh no, you know that is a fallacy as well, I don't think that is quite right
for
the record.
Actually, interesting fact about Teddy Roosevelt, one big
area he preserved is right down the street from me, the Quabbin Resevoir, they
tore down 4 towns to build it. (Rather interesting side note*)
But I think Budiansky is just making a point just because your an
environmentalist, doesn't nessacarly mean you may be a good person. It's a
playful argument
at best. Any takers on opinion out there?
In a message dated 07/20/00 6:55:42 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< Is this the analogy that Budiansky is making in his argument, that all
people that paint landscapes are environmentalists?
So what about Teddy Roosevelt? He did not paint landscapes, is he therefore
not an environmentalist?
What about Aldo Leopold. I don't think he painted, so he cannot be an
environmentalist?
Hitler tried to get into art school in Vienna, but he was not accepted into
the school, and he made a partial living selling his sketches and paintings.
If he had been admitted into art school. perhaps WW2 would never have
happened.
>>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|