[shibumi]

"What we have here is a poorly thought-out sentence, not an atrocity."


And what we have here is a poorly thought out analysis of said sentence.

This is not a randon quote from a press conference, nor is it an ambush in which Holdren "misspoke." - And by the way "newguy" - a little learning is a dangerous thing. You should have been paying more attention when Sr Mary of the Steel Ruler was teaching sentence diagrams. The whole first part of the sentence is a parenthetical phrase.

The point is, that this is a quote from a book. It presumably has been proofread, edited and proofread again. Further, it must be taken in context with the whole book, which, co-authored with Paul Erlich (a Komrad in Arms with Noam Chomsky and Pete Singer) clearly sends a message that fits neatly into the eugenicist mold championed by Margret Sanger and her ilk.

The whole body of work from this group is an atrocity.

[newguy357]

The whole body of work from this group is an atrocity.

I agree! The problem is: their work is full of morally abominable things. What frustrates me is that everyone here is mistakenly latching onto the weakest, most ambiguous one. When entering debate you make your case strongest by conceding as much benefit of the doubt as possible to your opposition and showing that even then he is wrong. We don't need to mislead people or twist specific sentences to prove our point. It only weakens our case and makes us look like WND type people.