On Wed, 15 November 2000, "Steven Bissell" wrote:
>
> Foster, how in the world do you *always* manage to miss the point?
> sb
Easy. The point is that you are no longer 21 years old.
Also the issue you raise, from a philosophic point of view, is simple to resolve an environmental issue. The topic of getting one's message out about the concern for killing anceint redwood trees is not simply about process {how we do it} versus substantive issues. 'Diverting the issue' of killing ancient trees to an 'non-issue' regarding a 'person's' need to become famous, eg., to get on TV is simply 'ad hominem' type argumentation.
The people that attempt to have the issue made important are 'selfless' because they care more about the trees than short term immediate profits to a select handful.
Look at Intel's advertisement on TV? What is the point here? The only point is to get your attention and drill the message home: INTEL: INTEL: and then the next advertisement is ORACLE:ORACLE:ORACLE....
There is nothing 'immoral' in taking a shirt off, nor is there something 'immoral' about INTEL's advertisement.
So how did you figure out that a person taking her shirt is lying to you and the public in her attempt to protect your beloved ancient redwoods in California?
Apodicity on Motives
That thinking which always points to the messenger as being evil is 'immoral', that is, using redwoods for selfish purposes; and who are the most selfish here?
Like Benjamin said, the issue is not one of process {how you get your message out} but an issue regarding substance: " It is wrong, killing ancient redwoods is the wrong thing to do when they are almost gone?"
Jim Tantillo seems to support that it is not the redwoods that are the issue, but again the ad hominem arguement appears {they are no different than people who burn down ski resorts}:
that it is the people who protest against cutting ancient redwoods down that are the 'issue'. If that is the case, then the TV station is also immoral by reporting stripping.
It seems that the ad hominem arguement is back on this list and it is meant to divert new subscribers from a list that is set up to discuss environmental ethics.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John Foster
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 9:54 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: 'Striptease for the trees' - USATODAY.com Discussion
>
>
> I disagree with Steve Bissell. The issue is not credibility here. He seems
> to think that the woman is there because she has breasts and they TV Company
> is interested in breasts, and the redwoods are simple a stage prop.
>
> The exploitation of the female breast is BIG BUSINESS for corporations small
> and big. She is not charging anyone to see her breasts like a 'peeler' in
> the local bar. She is not thinking of herself at all. She is thinking about
> trees and there rights.
>
> "Where is the fourth, the one who will think for them all?"
>
> Goethe.
>
> By the way a 'peeler' is also a fat log used to make veneer.
>
> msyti
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Free Unlimited Internet Access! Try it now!
> http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/altavista/index.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Free Unlimited Internet Access! Try it now!
http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/altavista/index.html
_______________________________________________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
