Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Shortsightedness

Really, how can anyone be against saving the environment? I'm not a huge environmentalist by any measure, but it just seems to make sense to want to save it for future generations and preserve some remnant of nature. I'm just ranting about how the Senate just voted in favor of drilling in the Arctic, and wrote it into the budget.

What is the justification for drilling? Money. We don't want to pay for oil and we want to seem independent of "other nations" (aka the Middle East) on our ever-expanding oil needs. So, instead of reducing demand for oil by investing in alternative energy sources and such, the administration and other politicians have decided that we just need to tap one of the greatest natural treasures in the United States. Can anyone explain to me why we need to destroy nature for the sake of driving SUVs?

19 comments:

Irony's Brother said...

I think you need a geography lesson. The arctic is not in the United States, as if it were a single location anyway.

yenniet said...

Oh, but the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve is, which is what I (and others) was referring to when talking about drilling in the "Arctic".

Irony's Brother said...

You are the only author of this page, so far as I can tell; so "others'" comments are hardly applicable here.

And you honestly equate the terms "artic" to "Arctic National Wildlife Reserve?" By that logic, if I were to mention legislation being enacted in the state of "Georgia," it would be the same place you were inferring as "The Independent Republic of Georgia" in south western Asia.

Don't be ridiculous.

Irony's Brother said...

And as a totally separate point, what makes you think the envirnoment needs saving from us anyway? How arrogant must a human being actually be to assume they have that much influence over nature itself.

Far more toxic and powerful things have walked the earth long before humans, and will continue to after we leave.

yenniet said...

"Others" are other commenters on the topic of drilling in Alaska/the Arctic.

And how arrogant is it of you to assume that because we may not be the most "toxic and powerful things [that] have walked the earth" means that we don't have a responsibility to do what we can to prevent destruction of it?

Irony's Brother said...

That's exactly my point. Read closely: Humans will not be able to cause the destruction of the earth, only the destruction of a habitable environment for ourselves.

I also like how you neatly skirted around my other point.

Anonymous said...

"And as a totally separate point, what makes you think the envirnoment needs saving from us anyway? How arrogant must a human being actually be to assume they have that much influence over nature itself."

She is talking about a specific situation where the human influence is pretty obvious. Drill there, or don’t drill there.

It’s called an ecosystem. Learn about cause and effect. You think an oil spill doesn’t influence nature?

By your logic, because we can’t save the whole, don’t try to save any of it’s parts.
That’s like saying, don’t vote, because it won’t affect the outcome.

Of course we don’t have much influence in the grand scheme of things, but that doesn’t mean we have no responsibility.

"Far more toxic and powerful things have walked the earth long before humans, and will continue to after we leave."

What has walked the earth that has been more powerful than humans?

"That's exactly my point. Read closely: Humans will not be able to cause the destruction of the earth, only the destruction of a habitable environment for ourselves."

How is that your point? Usually when someone has a point, there is some kind of premise. You don’t just skip to the conclusion.

So now humans can cause the destruction of our habitable environment? Before you said their influence is limited.

I think she is talking more about the short run and you are talking about the long run. You didn’t address her particular example about the reserve and skipped straight to the daunting conclusion that “the earth will never be destroyed.” A little extreme for what is being discussed and off-topic. I get it, so the earth will be fine in a million years. Why don’t you stick to the present day.

Irony's Brother said...

You are either having trouble with basic reading comprehension, or you are implying meaning in my words beyond what I have actually said. Either way, simply saying my argument makes no sense because YOU can't qualify it for yourself or you don't understand, doesn't mean it's not valid. Or not correct.

"As a totally separate point..." means exactly that, IT IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE POINT from that which was being discussed.

If my statement didn't relate exactly back to where we should or shouldn't drill, guess what, that's why I used the caveat.

Continuing: An ecosystem is not the same as the collective whole of "nature." This is a basic ecology concept, and you either forgot 6th grade science, or failed it. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you slept through it accidentally.

Our responsibility to "earth" or "nature" or whatever term you want to use only goes as far as it benefits ourselves. In the end, if the only thing we are doing is creating an environment that is unfriendly to human life, then we deserve every bit of what we get--which will be our own extinction. "Nature" will continue, and it will thrive without humans.

I also hate to bring up the question of HOW we are going to so substantially devastate this one particular microcline to the point of irreparable damage. That wasn’t addressed in the original entry, or since I might add. I just assumed she was correct, and so did you, but realistically how do any of us actually know this? We don’t, so maybe that should be my point after all.

What are things more powerful than humans? How about global floods, fires, volcanoes, magnetic pole shifts, atypical planetary orbits, ice ages, parasites, and least we forget the common bovine population? Yes, they pollute our global “environment” more than humans do, as a whole. Damn, foiled by a cow and its methane producing ass… now that’s gotta hurt.

And here is a basic English grammar lesson for you, a conclusion IS the point. It's the thesis of what is being said. The "premise" as a point makes no sense because a premise is information assumed as true to MAKE THE ARGUEMENT.

For example: My point would be that an object thrown into the air comes back down at the same rate at which it was thrown upward. ASSUMING the premise that I am occupying the physical world we know and all of its governing laws, like gravity, this is true. My point is NOT gravity exists.

Take a dictionary and look it up. Better yet: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=premise

(It’s the very first definition.)

I could conclude with some re-iteration of what I have already said about the environment, and why my statement doesn't have to tie into her exact blog entry, but then I'd be wasting my time; when all you'd have to do is read this post again for a bit of an education.

I am far better at saying what I mean than you are at interpreting my words.

Anonymous said...

I don't think you can really understand what you are writing, sersiously. You were babbling about what the word arctic meant, and your "separate point" was obviously related to that. This is true because you said "and as a totally separate point, what makes you think bla bla bla" so obviously you were referring to what she said. It is formed as an attack on what she supposedly said. So yeah, in that case, it does have to tie in with what she said, or else it is logically flawed.


ecosystem: a system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their physical environment. If I have to explain to you how this applies, then you are dumber than I thought.

You said what is more powerful that has "walked the earth" I don't think volcanoes have walked the earth.

A premise is not just "assumed" to be true you retard.

I can't interpret your words because they are flawed at such a basic level. And you keep trying to spin what you said earlier so that it makes sense now. But anyone who has any common sense can see this.

Between this post and your Terri post, it is obvious that you really don't understand what you are talking about.

Anonymous said...

I don't think you can really understand what you are writing, sersiously. You were babbling about what the word arctic meant, and your "separate point" was obviously related to that. This is true because you said "and as a totally separate point, what makes you think bla bla bla" so obviously you were referring to what she said. It is formed as an attack on what she supposedly said. So yeah, in that case, it does have to tie in with what she said, or else it is logically flawed.


ecosystem: a system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their physical environment. If I have to explain to you how this applies, then you are dumber than I thought.

You said what is more powerful that has "walked the earth" I don't think volcanoes have walked the earth.

A premise is not just "assumed" to be true you retard.

I can't interpret your words because they are flawed at such a basic level. And you keep trying to spin what you said earlier so that it makes sense now. But anyone who has any common sense can see this.

Between this post and your Terri post, it is obvious that you really don't understand what you are talking about.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who reads these posts, knows not to assume any of your "premises" as true or your arguments as being true either. You see, a premise has to be based in something called reality, look into it. In these two posts I read, you have given no real facts, multiple generalizations, off-topic arguments, skeptical bias, among other fallacies of thinking. In both your posts, you have been narrowed down to minute pieces of fluff to the point where you have to come back later and explain what you were saying and change things around so that it is not so incomprehensible.
Do you really know what an argument is? I don't think so. Your Terri argument is so f-ed up, i'm surprised you have the brain power to turn on the computer. To you, the true genius, murder is defined as "one human killing another" Well if it's that simple, then why do we even need trials or lawyers or anything? You have brilliantly broken it down into such simplicity, I'm surprised there are volumes and volumes of law books discussing it, when all they have to do is listen to you. I get it, you think assisted suicide is murder, it's your opinion. It's not fact. Or should I define what an opinion is for you, and give you a link like you like to do.
You say that volcanoes walk the earth and are more destructive than humans, therefore, humans can't destroy all of nature, only the nature we need to survive. Wow, great point. And you are telling me what an argument is? She was just talking about an arctic reserve. I think you have really gone off the deep end. Your "point" at the end was that humans can't cause destruction of the earth, only a habitable environment for themselves. Okay, then I said, wheres the premise. Then you give me the definition of an argument. Okay, where's the premise in your "argument"? You said it was your point, your conclusion, which is part of an argument. So wheres the premise? That volcanoes walk the earth? You just rehashed what I told you! I think you just realized what an argument was when you looked it up on dictionary.com. You say humans can't destroy a bla bla bla, but that wasn't what was being argued, and even if it was being discussed, there is nothing to tie it to objective reality. No premise or facts, just opinion. So it is just meaningless fluff. Okay, here is an argument, ironys brother says idiotic things, therefore, ironys brother is an idiot. Now you would probably say, "no, i'm not an idiot, you are" And that is expected because that is really the whole point of anything you say. You don't care about the truth, just spinning things so that you look smart, and it just makes you look pathetic. You have lost all authority on anything because you lack common sense. This argument is over.

Irony's Brother said...

I am going to make this easy for you and break it down point by point. I won't even call you an idiot, I promise, as it appears your points have degenerated into nothing more than base insults and emotional ranting:

"You were babbling about what the word arctic meant, and your "separate point" was obviously related to that."

Obviously not, or our "environment" or "ecosystem" point wouldn't have been raised. More on that later. I will also point out you haven't refuted one thing that my "artic definition" post raised.

I will still contend that "as a totally separate point" has the ability to specifically NOT refer directly back to a previously stated argument; if you can't see that as valid, perhaps we'll have to simply disagree as to the definitions of the words "total" and "separate."

"ecosystem: '[a faulty definition of ecosystem]'"

(for informational sake: you can't use the word in question to scientifically define itself, typically at least, in the English language. Using 'system' to define ecosystem falls into that category.)

Yes, now look up "nature" or "global environment." Notice how they aren't the same as “ecosystem?” Yes? Good. Proves my point again: that which affects one ecosystem (or microcline, as I have stated it) does not necessarily have a global effect.

"I don't think volcanoes have walked the earth."

You are right here. Volcanoes have never 'walked' the earth. But then again, neither have parasites, viruses, or any aquatic animals of any kind. Maybe the term "walked" was a little loose with the language and threw you off, but the overall intent, that forces far greater, more toxic, more destructive, and more pervasive than humans have certainly affected earth in profound and more severe ways than we have or will be able to should not have been *entirely* lost.

Oh yeah, and I did mention cows, which you had no response for.

"A premise is not just "assumed" to be true you retard."

I even put in a link to the dictionary definition. I will now quote it for you so you can expand your verbal and vocabulary skills without the pesky need to click on a link: "premise: To state or assume as a proposition in an argument."

The remainder of your post is then just half-hearted attempts to insult me, and overall not very productive in this discussion--Onto the next post. (Oh wait, you double posted, I must mean the "third" post in this series.)

"[discussion about premises... again] ...premise has to be based in something called reality"

Who gets to define reality, you? Yen? Surely there are people who would define the act of drilling as non-hazardous. Do they get to define your reality? The term reality is relative to your perspective (thank you Einstein), so clearly your reality and mine are going to differ slightly. Even so, how is my contention that 'humans will never have the power to save/destroy nature' based in a non reality?

"In these two posts I read, you have given no real facts, multiple generalizations, off-topic arguments, skeptical bias, among other fallacies of thinking."

I have read much of the same in your posts, including arguments about voting, Terri Schaivo, walking volcanoes, as well as some very exotic and pointed (yes this sarcasm) insults. Should we call it even then? Well, maybe not even, you haven't actually countered any of my actual points, only refuted how I define them, so maybe we can call it behind us.

"[Incoherent ramblings about written debates, or arguments as you put it, and my Terri Schiavo post]"

OF COURSE it's my opinion, who else’s would it be? By definition opinions aren't facts. Yes, please, link to the definition of "opinion" and while you are at it look up murder. You might find: "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being" and therefore I would be right again. Why? Because assisted suicide IS CURRENTLY ILLEGAL and encompasses all terms of that definition. I will save further discussion for the actual post we are referencing.

"...humans can't destroy all of nature, only the nature we need to survive. Wow, great point. And you are telling me what an argument is?"

By misquoting me or misunderstanding me, whichever it was, you thereby end up arguing a point I didn't make. This is the reading comprehension issue I mentioned in an earlier post.

"[further digression trying to define my 'argument' and 'premise']"

Let's make it as simple as possible:

PREMISE: Humans have the power to save/destroy the environment.

CONCLUSION/ARGUEMENT: No we don't. It's just that we are arrogant enough to believe so.

See how nicely that goes together? You make the reference that: "She is talking about a specific situation where the human influence is pretty obvious." If you are speaking for her (Yen), than make sure that is *her argument* as well. My counter-point would be that it is not obvious nor has she detailed why it should be.

"This argument is over."

Agreed; the moment you resort to name-calling and "bla bla bla" as part of your attempt to counter my debate skills, the discussion is indeed over.

Separately from all of the above:
You probably consider yourself an educated person, of above average intellect, and witty, at least amongst your friends. While you are not necessarily incorrect, consider who it is that you may be debating with, especially on a forum as anonymous as the internet, before you claim intellectual superiority. Your verbal and grammar skills demonstrate that you are likely much younger and less well educated than I am, and yet I don’t disqualify your opinions based on assumed intellect, I do on their own merit.

Anonymous said...

I promise, as it appears your points have degenerated into nothing more than base insults and emotional ranting:

um...hypocritical maybe?

yeah, ecosystems and the environment should never be in the same discussion, your right...or maybe try doing a search on google for pollution, environment, earth and ecosystem, you may learn something, seriously

you're whole arctic definition rant was just sounded like a baby whining "waaa you said arctic! not arctic reserve! waaa!"
you are a "quibbler"
and as everyone can see, the wall of ignorance is strong with you

"premise: To state or assume as a proposition in an argument."


so when someone gives you an argument, you just assume the premise to be true??

maybe for the argument to be true, the premise needs to be true, but humans effect on the environment is not just automatically excepted

Here are the premises given in your arguments:

Murder is one human killing another human : false

Terri should live because criminals may be set free: false


there are objective realities in logic, look them up....you said humans cannot destroy the earth, when i said base it in reality, i meant give a fact, dont just spout out something with nothing to back it up, especially when it's a non sequitor

so killing of terri was illegal? yet they did it legally, thats weird....

your connection of murder to assisted suicide was based on faulty definitions, it made no sense, I am getting sick of going over the same point

misquoting me or misunderstanding

i just repeated what you said. do you know how to read?

PREMISE: Humans have the power to save/destroy the environment.

CONCLUSION/ARGUEMENT: No we don't. It's just that we are arrogant enough to believe so.

you see, this is where you're whole " i am really intelligent" attitude falls apart....

this is not an argument...its a statement, and an opinion on that statement, they arent connected in the form of an argument, god i am getting tired of this

your premise: Humans have the power to save/destroy the environment

the conclusion is something that we can infer if that statement is true

YOUR conclusion is " no we don't"

you see, for your statement that we are arrogant enough to believe so, you would need to point out something that has to do with attitudes toward the environment, because the conclusion is based on belief

OH MY GOD. YOU REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND IT! THIS IS PERFECT! HAHAHAHAHA

you have just lost all credibility... for a second, i thought you might be somewhat intelligent

you haven't actually countered any of my actual points, only refuted how I define them,

when your argument is definition based, it does refute them

i already made my points, they are all valid, you skipped the ones you couldnt avoid on a technicality...my points were simple and obviously you didnt understand them

Anonymous said...

Sorry I can't leave well enough alone, but after all your big talk and describing what a presmise etc etc

you even mentioned your "debate skills"

you even said Let's make it as simple as possible, condescendingly, and you even labeled the premise and the argument to make it clear!

and then you totally screw up and reveal your true ignorance, sorry but it's usually not this apparant...and furthermore, you had me debating over the issue explaining your argument back to you and you never understood what was wrong...now i see what the problem was, just a totally misunderstand of one of the most basic forms of communication...it wouldnt be a big deal if you didn't think you knew about it, thats what makes it all the more funny

as stated below:The conclusion is often stated as the final stage of inference. It is affirmed on the basis the original premises, and the inference from them.

you are totally without understanding of logical flow and inference...i don't know how many more ways to describe the magnitude of your ineptitude

here, I'll rearrange what you said, this is good:

because it is a conclusion, we have to put "therefore" or "so" or something like that

Humans have the power to save the environment, therefore

your conclusion:No we don't. It's just that we are arrogant enough to believe so.

so to rearrange it:Humans have the power to save the environment, therefore we dont have the power to save the environment.

okay, i am just being cute there, but you get the idea...i was arguiing all along for a point that you could never understand....


here read this:
What is an argument?
An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition". There are three stages to an argument: Premises, inference, and conclusion.
Stage one: Premises
One or more propositions will be are necessary for the argument to continue. They must be stated explicitly. They are called the premises of the argument. They are the evidence (or reasons) for accepting the argument and its conclusions.
Premises (or assertions) are often indicated by phrases such as "because", "since", "obviously" and so on.

(The phrase "obviously" is often viewed with suspicion, as it can be used to intimidate others into accepting dubious premises. If something doesn't seem obvious to you, don't be afraid to question it. You can always say "Oh, yes, you're right, it is obvious" when you've heard the explanation.)

Stage two: Inference
The premises of the argument are used to obtain further propositions. This process is known as inference. In inference, we start with one or more propositions which have been accepted. We then derive a new proposition. There are various forms of valid inference.
The propositions arrived at by inference may then be used in further inference. Inference is often denoted by phrases such as "implies that" or "therefore".


Stage three: Conclusion
Finally, we arrive at the conclusion of the argument, another proposition. The conclusion is often stated as the final stage of inference. It is affirmed on the basis the original premises, and the inference from them. Conclusions are often indicated by phrases such as "therefore", "it follows that", "we conclude" and so on.

now, since you never knew this, well, i won't draw any conclusions, as you can probably make them out yourself. You're basic concept of human knowlege is flawed at the foundation. good bye

Anonymous said...

okay, fine, heres one more, to make it a more valid argument, in case you are still confused, you would have to say
premise: humans are arrogant
premise: it is arrogant to think that humans can save the environment
conclusion: therefore humans think they can save the environment.

although i could find a fallacy in that...you get the idea of the logical inference process?

you said
PREMISE: Humans have the power to save/destroy the environment.

CONCLUSION/ARGUEMENT: No we don't. It's just that we are arrogant enough to believe so.

nothing in your conclusion is even mentioned in the premise! you just negate your premise without any base, and then you talk about arrogance out of nowhere, it just doesnt fit. i dont get it, what's wrong with you?

this is what weve been arguing over this whole time, over what an argument and premise is, in both posts and you never even knew? that is a mindblower....

Irony's Brother said...

Why are you so caught up on the semantics of what my "premise" and "arguments" are and refusing to comment on the point that has actually been stated? Who cares what qualifier I am using to announce my end point?

The assumption/premise/statement of the original post was that humans have the power to save/destroy the environment. My argument/conclusion/contention/point/counter to this was the basic "no they don't."

Statement A has been made. I counter that statement A is false.

Does this fall into your schematic of a "traditional argument," apparently not. Does that make my point any less valid, no it does not.

As I said, we can argue the semantics for a dozen more posts, but you still haven't addressed the actual point. You keep firing back that "it is only an opinion." of course it is, what else would it be?

Let it go, you can win the premise vs. conclusion war. I conceed. Now how about a logical argument to any of the other points?

And by the way, is the term "emotional ranting" really that insulting for you?

Irony's Brother said...

And another "by the way," if you are going to plagiarize your entire argument to support your “superior skills,” at least site the original source: http://genbio.biol.vt.edu/biophile/geninfo/logargu.html

Even the Monty Python part you ripped off. Now THAT is just sad.

Anonymous said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU DONT GET IT!

I feel sorry for you!

Anonymous said...

you said: how about a logical argument to any of the other points?

You dont even know what a logical argument is, that's the problem. theres no point in continuing this dicussion, i already told you.

you said: Does this fall into your schematic of a "traditional argument," apparently not. Does that make my point any less valid, no it does not.

um, actually, yeah it makes it invalid. are you stupid? it's basic communication. validity comes from the argument form

you said:Why are you so caught up on the semantics of what my "premise" and "arguments" are and refusing to comment on the point that has actually been stated?

you dont have a point without an argument you dunce

all discussions or debates follow logical rules, you attack and defend according to forms of argument and fallacies..why do i have to teach you how this works? i'm tired your ignorance, dont you get it? if you dont understand that basic form, then nothing that you talk about is relevant or worth discussing, that is why i can't talk about any of your points anymore...you have lost all credibility and i've lost interest