Posted on 06/06/2006 5:13:56 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Son, I wouldn't trust you anywhere near a goat.
None of which justifies your blatant misrepresentations of Coulter's statements. Are you half the man you think others should be? Or is honesty and truthfulness only for your debating opponents, while you can make up whatever?
Are you half the man you think others should be? Or is honesty and truthfulness only for your debating opponents, while you can make up whatever?
Here we go again. You blew onto the previous thread with a personal attack, and then we had to retract your contentions, though you never retracted the insults. Don't you ever get tired of this?
No, you misrepresented me. You said
But pretending that supporting DDT is unpatriotic is just too ridiculous to be taken seriously.
This is just a lie. I did not say that supporting DDT was unpatriotic. I said Coulter categorized the bald eagle as vermin and compared it with a rat. That is unpatriotic.
Why you're defending Coulter is beyond me. I've taken a look at the rest of the book, and it's laughable. Coulter clearly doesn't understand science, and you, as a self-proclaimed scientist, are defending her.
This bothers me too. I had to see it for myself.
Now I love Ann as much as the next guy, but this - imo - was a low blow - maybe even too low... or maybe I'm just not gettin' it.
http://www.exposetheleft.com/ has the entire interview in .wmv format - 4th item down. Here is the direct link...
I attacked her on evolution in another thread. But on greens being fools, she is simply right and you are one of them.
No. The oil spill was meant to illustrate the point that birds are like rats, according to Coulter. Including it in a paragraph about DDT would make no sense otherwise.
But on greens being fools, she is simply right and you are one of them.
Lies and attacks are no substitute for being able to argue your point.
Lol! The thing is, Ann's attributes really are more attractive than they otherwise be largely because of her fierce energy and intelligence. Look at a woman with a similar build--- Audrey Raines from "24". I'm sure she's great in real life, but on the show her blandness drained her looks of vitality.
So you do agree she compared eagles to rats. (Eagles have two offspring a year, BTW). So we've established one of the two statements I made was in fact true. Now let's talk about vermin...
You commit the fallacy of division. Programmers are highly paid. Therefore Joe Goofoff, in his fourth entry level programming job this year, is highly paid. Does not follow. Attributes of a collective need not and in general are not attributes of each several part.
Sure, like the Carolina parakeet, Labrador duck, great auk, passenger pigeon, etc..
You commit the fallacy of division
No. If birds in general are like rats, but not the particular birds threatened by DDT, then it makes no sense to make the comment that birds are like rats in the context of the effect of DDT on birds. To do so, in fact, would be the fallacy of equivocation.
I really hope Coulter is giving you some, because I can't imagine why else you'd be contorting yourself so badly to find excuses for her.
OMG this woman is good! Ann for President!!!! I love her.
That is sufficient but not actually necessary, since limiting the stakes of DDT effects on birds is another legitimate reason for it to appear in the context. That is, to argue that DDT use will not result in the extinction of all birds, as Carlson's title implies. "Silent" means no noise, not noise of fewer varieties.
Had she intended the meaning you attempt to impose, she could have said "all birds are like rats", but she did not. Which you know (having had the fallacy pointed out to you), so you are (now, whatever you were doing originalyl) deliberately twisting her meaning to put the least charitable words in her mouth you can. And we know why - because you ideologically dislike her on other grounds.
Then you indulge yourself in a silly personal smear directed at me, and are laughably wrong about it. Which is simply an admission of bankruptcy.
Translate this into English, and get back to me. I'm sure you think you meant something.
That is sufficient but not actually necessary, since limiting the stakes of DDT effects on birds is another legitimate reason for it to appear in the context. That is, to argue that DDT use will not result in the extinction of all birds, as Carlson's title implies. "Silent" means no noise, not noise of fewer varieties.
' limiting the stakes of DDT effects on birds is another legitimate reason for it to appear in the context' What the heck does that mean? And that's Carson, not Carlson. If you're going to opine on environmentalism, at least figure out who the main players are, or were.
Then you indulge yourself in a silly personal smear directed at me, and are laughably wrong about it. Which is simply an admission of bankruptcy.
No really, I seriously thought Coulter was putting out for you. Clueless much?
On the limiting stakes point - the debate over DDT is not a debate over whether their shall be birds in the world or not. To make that point, is already sufficient reason for discussing the robustness of birds as a class. So your previous claim that Coulter must have meant bald eagles when she said rats, is not remotely justified.
On the pure logic point, since you do not have a universal ("for every"), you commit the fallacy of division when you try to argue 1. "birds are like rats" (Coulter), 2. "bald eagles are birds" (known), so 3. "bald eagles are like rats". Granting 1 and 2 does not make 3 follow, because the inference depends on a fallacy.
If in place of (1) you had "all birds are like rats", you could make the claim. But you do not. Programmers are highly paid, Joe GoofOff is a programmer, Joe GoofOff is highly paid, is a parallel example of the fallacy.
You objected that birds hurt by DDT must have been the scope of the class intended by Coulter in (1), that otherwise there was no reason to mention the alleged similiarity of birds to rats in the context. But the reasoning would still be a fallacy even if this were granted (which it isn't, see "limiting stakes" above).
Suppose DDT hurts eagles and pigeons, and pigeons are like rats but eagles are not. Then (1) is true even of the subset of birds hurt by DDT, but (3) still fails to follow because it still depends on the fallacy of division. Anything else can be substituted for pigeons, it is a free variable over rat-like birds, in whatever sense Coulter intended (and whether one agrees with their alleged similarity to rats or not). So your requirement based on context that (1) must be taken to be restricted to birds hurt by DDT, would still not get your reasoning to go through.
The person you were debating with saw all of this clearly enough, and saw that you were putting words in Coulter's mouth without justification. Which you were. He was right to call you on it, and so am I.
And your continued slurs just make you look like an even bigger fool.
Odd that you continue making the same 'typo' , and that the 'typo', rather than being a typical typo, for example inversion of two letters, is an insertion of a letter to create a different but reasonably common name.
A more logical conclusion is you really don't know diddly squat about the subject, and not knowing the name of the author of Silent Spring is a reflection of that ignorance.
On the limiting stakes point - the debate over DDT is not a debate over whether their shall be birds in the world or not. To make that point, is already sufficient reason for discussing the robustness of birds as a class. So your previous claim that Coulter must have meant bald eagles when she said rats, is not remotely justified.
The issue is whether there shall be bald eagles in the world or not. Coulter is trying to argue that bald eagles are birds, and birds are like rats. Ergo, bald eagles are like rats.
Let's see what would happen to your argument if we included all the relevant qualifiers. DDT in the environment kills birds, but actually only a very small class of birds; specifically, predators that eat other birds or fish. Bird populations in general are not easy to kill off, but this does not apply to the specific class of birds killed by DDT, which indeed were nearly killed off. Therefore...what? Nothing! The second class of birds does not overlap with the first, and so the argument is entirely nonsensical.
So either we conclude that the argument is completely nonsensical, or else we conclude that Coulter indeed intended to lump bald eagles into the category of birds that are like rats.
It's called logic. Suppose DDT hurts eagles and pigeons, and pigeons are like rats but eagles are not.
False premises lead to false conclusions. Try sticking to the facts. DDT did not cause pigeon populations to collapse. If you need to suppose they did, you just conceded.
And your continued slurs just make you look like an even bigger fool.
Whereas yours are just a justified response. Get a life, a sense of humor, and maybe a couple of good books on biology. Note: none of them are by Ann Coulter.
The book Coulter is attacking did not limit its allegations about the effects of pesticides to raptors. Its author suggests that pesticide use in general, not just DDT, might be making the earth unfit of all life. She and others alleged that DDT was killing robins, which are not raptors, and that they received DDT dosage by eating worms, not other birds or fish. Coulter is entirely correct to argue against that thesis, and entirely correct to point out that birds as a group are not endangered by DDT. A point you not only concede but insist on.
On the logic of eagles and other birds, I explicitly pointed out that my "pigeons" hypothetical was a free variable and you may substitute any other you like. If there is a single bird Coulter is asserting is rat-like that is not a bald eagle then your reasoning commits the fallacy of division and fails.
As was to be demonstrated.
Crap. She starts with Carson, but then goes on to say Because of liberals’ druidical religious beliefs, they won’t allow us to save Africans dying in droves of malaria with DDT because DDT might hurt the birds. Silent Spring was published in 1962. Since then, we have ascertained, and we have known for a quarter century, what birds are killed by DDT and what birds are not. What is relevant is what we know now, while the issue of the use of DDT in Africa is under debate, not what Carson wrote in 1962. And Coulter acknowledges that.
Environmmentalists would prefer that millions of Africans die so that liberals may continue gazing upon rare birds
So, since in fact she knows that DDT only kills certain species, her claim that 'birds are like rats', if it is at all relevant, can only refer to the birds being killed by DDT.
On the logic of eagles and other birds, I explicitly pointed out that my "pigeons" hypothetical was a free variable and you may substitute any other you like. If there is a single bird Coulter is asserting is rat-like that is not a bald eagle then your reasoning commits the fallacy of division and fails.
So your thesis is that when Coulter wrote "birds are like rats", what actually she meant was 'peregrine falcons and brown pelicans, but not bald eagles, are like rats'? But wait. Her example was Proudhoe Bay, on the north slope of Alaska. There are no brown pelicans in Alaska. And it makes no sense anyway; it's not impossible to kill off brown pelicans and peregrines; in fact, it darn nearly happened.
You're a hilarious guy, JasonC, but doesn't that contortionism hurt your joints?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.