[Right Wing Professor]

She was speaking of the resilence of birds as a class, to environmental disruptions as a class

You keep repeating that. Bald eagles are an instance of the class of birds. Bald eagle mortality from DDT is an instance of the class of environmental disputions. Bald eagles are therefore part of the intersection of the two sets. The logical relation of the resilience of birds as a class to environmental disruption as a class can only apply to the intersection of the two sets, since otherwise one or the other does not apply. Ergo, bald eagles are indeed what she was referring to in 'birds are like rats'.

And your trying to pretend that means she called bald eagles rats - when she neither said it nor implied it - is simply bad faith and the fallacy of division.

Attempted 'proof' by repeated assertion of a fallacy. Tiresome and very dumb.

[balrog666]

Now we know what pathetic audience Coulter was writing for ... people too stupid to understand what see writes in the first place or too self-righteous to actually think about it. What a weird gig she has.

[JasonC]

For every bird, for every environmental disruption, bird is resilient to the disruption. That is what you need for your inference. But you don't have it, the "for every"s are missing. Pretending you have a "for every" when you have only a statement about a class, is how the fallacy of division works. It is the logical mistake involved. One can predicate of classes without implying "for every", we do it all the time to refer to general tendencies, expectations, correlations, averages, etc. By repeating the error thinking you are showing that no error is being committed, you show only that you do not know the reasoning is fallacious. It should therefore have been educational for you to have the fallacy in all its generality pointed out to you. You resist the instruction and it is your loss, but that does nothing to help your argument, which remains a known fallacy by now exhaustively demonstrated to you.