🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim <msteitz@xmission.com> wrote:

>Harold Brashears wrote:
>> 
>> Mark Friesel <mfriesel@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[deleted]

>I don't want to fire up this thread again, but in one part Harold
>Brashears says:

Of course you don't, we al know you always do what you don't want out
of only the purest of motives, like wind driven snow you are.  I am
sure this pains you no end.  Hypocrisy gives me a rash.

>> >You insist the postulation of the existence of undiscovered species is
>> >not only
>> >unjustified,
>> 
>> I would be interested in where I said this.  I looked over the recent
>> exchange (mostly with Braun & Jim), and I believe this statement is a
>> misrepresentation.
>
>But in another he says:

>> that these individuals were very anxious for some Brazilian peasant to
>> cease making a living because of a hypothesized species loss based on
>> hypothesized species!
>
>Do you or do you not accept the existence of undiscovered species? 

That was never the question, though it clearly concerns you.  This is
what I mean by a "strawman".  You raise a question not considered.

>Once
>you concede their existence, you must assign them an importance equal to
>that of known species in your decision-making, because the term
>"unknown" does not describe any inherent properties of the species, only
>our ignorance of it. 

then you attribute some property to the question, so you can argue at
it.  If we concede importance in my mind to species unknown equal to
that of species know, this was not the question.

I will repeat what I argued, since I have clearly been unable to
communicate this.  I will try to strip it to what I see as the
essentials.

It was hypothesized that unknown species existed.  On the basis of
this hypothesis, it was hypothesized that they were being made
extinct.

On the basis of the hypothesis, it was determined that Brazilian
peasants must take drastic action to prevent the hypothesized
extinction.  The proposal to do this was made by someone sitting at an
expensive computer digesting a meal that probably would have fed a
Brazilian family for a week!

If the absurdity and elitism in that position is not apparent, I can
do no better.

Regards, Harold
---
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic 
statements, and make little mention of the doubts we may have.
Each of us has to find a balance between being effective and 
being honest."
     - Steven Schneider, proponent of CFC-banning.   
	"Our Fragile Earth", Discover, Oct. 1987. pg 47