🚀 go-pugleaf

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

Although my name was left here, no contribution of mine is contained 
below>

MF




> 
> [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