Chris Lees wrote:
[quote]
Well I'm quite happy to pick on YOU, Jim. As someone who advocates the
killing of wild animals merely for fun, you're beyond the pale as far as
I'm
concerned. A large portion of my despair derives from the frustration that
so many folks 'just don't get it'; particularly, highly intelligent and
highly
educated individuals, such as yourself, who seem to think that all that
matters is Jesuitical playing with words and legalistic sophistry - the
Pharisees and Saducees of our times - and we two start from such different
places that I doubt very much that we'll find any meeting point here.
[/quote]


Well with an attitude I’d say it is obvious there will be no progress as
it is clear your mind is not open to discussion.

[quote]
As I said to you before Jim, I consider your position re cruelty to
animals
to be obnoxious and utterly repugnant; so offensive in fact, that in real
life I would not speak to you civilly.
[/quote]

Hmmm, would this qualify as an appeal to emotion?

[quote]
Extreme rhetoric is appropriate sometimes - if someone is beating up your
kid, you don't refrain from ad hominem remarks and stick to polite
academic etiquette and request that they please desist, do you ?
[/quote]

An extended analogy.  I believe the discussion was on cruelty to animals
not children.  Perhaps the problem is your inability to distinguish
between the two.  Also, this is a strawman argument as Jim did not make
the claim that one should not use extreme rhetoric every instance.

[quote]
I respect
philosophy immensely myself. If we didn't hold differing viewpoints and
attempt to justify them in rational argument…
[/quote]

Rational argument?  Where I haven’t seen any yet.

[quote]
However, that said, 2000 plus years of philosophy still hasn't sorted
fundamental questions, and we don't have the luxury to indulge ourselves
in the amusement of dissecting abstruse notions merely for entertainment,
when it comes to the global environmental crises we are now faced with.
[/quote]

Ahhh, I usually see this in regards to junk science.  "We don’t have time
for science!  We must ACT NOW!"  Nice to see a new twist.  "We don’t have
time to discuss the philosophical aspects of these issues we must act
NOW!"

[quote]
A US government commissioned survey of all reserves of resources,
coal,oil,
timber, minerals, from 1913 (I can supply the reference if I really have
to) warned that actually utilising those resources would very probably
lead to a heating of the atmosphere with unpredictable and probably very
undesirable consequences.
[/quote]

Great, no source or hint as to where this came from.  So how are we to
judge the validity of this statement?  You know there were many studies
also crying wolf about global cooling not too long ago.  I bet if I looked
hard enough I could find one done by the gov’mint.

[quote]
My geography teacher told me, forty years ago, that the mean global
temperature had increased by between a half and one degree (Fahrenheit)
since about 1900, and that this was most likely due to human activity,
that is, burning of fossil fuels, and that the likely result would be
climatic effects of one kind or another, so it is hardly a new
observation.
[/quote]

Wow, your geography teacher solved the urban heat island effect forty
years ago?!?!  Dang, he should publish it in Science or something.  Did he
mention rebound from the little ice age.  I guess we can forget what the
IPCC says about attribution not actually having been studied in great
detail right?

[quote]
I have neither time or patience to spare trading detailed references with
you regarding the reality or otherwise of global warming. The industrial
lobby of coal and petrochemical based corporations mounted a huge
offensive of disinformation and bent science to try and support their
position, and the internet is littered with the results.
[/quote]

Or in short form.  You are a True Believer™ and to Hell with the evidence.

[quote]
If I trust anybody on this, then its Greenpeace and maybe the Worldwatch
Institute and the British metereologists who have no vested interest in
telling lies or half truths to please their paymasters.
[/quote]

Well not quite true.  Greenpeace makes its money off of donations and if
it can convince people that there is an environmental problem then that
could increase donations.  Not exactly free of the influence of money. 
Question:  Why does Greenpeace use snowmobiles at their Ice Camp instead
of dog sleds?


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%