Prev: The First Affirmative Action Precedent in Action!
Next: Jose Iglesias quality
From: The Older Gentleman on 30 Jul 2010 12:39
<ZZH770(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:34:45 -0400, BG(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:24:26 -0400, Polarhound
> ><polarhound(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2007202,00.html
> >>
> >>President Obama has called the BP oil spill "the worst environmental
> >>disaster America has ever faced," and so has just about everyone else.
> >
> >It is the worst. Tons of oil under the surface of the Gulf.
> >
> >The dispersant only hides the oil under the waters surface.
> Also the "top kill" procudure fractured the floor of the gulf of
> mexico.


Orly

--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Triumph Street Triple Honda CB400F
Suzuki TS250 Suzuki GN250 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom
Nothing damages a machine more than an ignoramus with a manual, a
can-do attitude and a set of cheap tools
From: Vito on 30 Jul 2010 14:30
Polarhound wrote:
>> http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2007202,00.html
>>
>> President Obama has called the BP oil spill "the worst environmental
>> disaster America has ever faced," and so has just about everyone
>> else. Green groups are sounding alarms about the "catastrophe along
>> the Gulf Coast," while CBS, Fox and MSNBC are all slapping "Disaster
>> in the Gulf" chyrons on their spill-related news. Even BP fall guy
>> Tony Hayward, after some early happy talk, admitted that the spill
>> was an "environmental catastrophe." The obnoxious
>> anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing
>> that the spill � he calls it "the leak" � is anything less than an
>> ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh
>> eco-hype.
>>
>> Well, Limbaugh has a point. The Deepwater Horizon explosion was an
>> awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it's no
>> leak; it's the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It's also
>> inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal
>> communities that depend on tourism, fishing and drilling. But so far
>> � while it's important to acknowledge that the long-term potential
>> danger is simply unknowable for an underwater event that took place
>> just three months ago � it does not seem to be inflicting severe
>> environmental damage. "The impacts have been much, much less than
>> everyone feared," says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal
>> contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana.
>> (See pictures of the Gulf oil spill.)
>>
>> Yes, the spill killed birds � but so far, less than 1% of the number
>> killed by the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska 21 years ago. Yes, we've
>> heard horror stories about oiled dolphins � but so far,
>> wildlife-response teams have collected only three visibly oiled
>> carcasses of mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on
>> fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region's fish and shrimp have
>> tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And
>> yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the
>> destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes � a real
>> slow-motion ecological calamity � but so far, assessment teams have
>> found only about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was
>> already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year.

Heh! Truth is always less fun than imagination.


From: PatsSox on 30 Jul 2010 18:07

"Polarhound" <polarhound(a)comcast.net> wrote in message ...
> The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice
> arguing that the spill � he calls it "the leak" � is anything less than an
> ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype.


Why, oh why does anyone give credence to anything this man says?
He's an entertainer... he is not an expert on ANYTHING. He is there to
make you laugh at his foolish and outrageous statements. Come on... when
did he become an expert on the effects of oil on the eco-system? The
freakin' guy dropped out of Southeast Missouri State University... and
according to his mother, he flunked everything! Why do people listen to
this freakin' idiot?


From: Polarhound on 30 Jul 2010 22:11
On 7/30/2010 6:07 PM, PatsSox wrote:
> "Polarhound"<polarhound(a)comcast.net> wrote in message ...
>> The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice
>> arguing that the spill � he calls it "the leak" � is anything less than an
>> ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype.
>
>
> Why, oh why does anyone give credence to anything this man says?
> He's an entertainer... he is not an expert on ANYTHING. He is there to
> make you laugh at his foolish and outrageous statements. Come on... when
> did he become an expert on the effects of oil on the eco-system? The
> freakin' guy dropped out of Southeast Missouri State University... and
> according to his mother, he flunked everything! Why do people listen to
> this freakin' idiot?
>
>

Fallacy: Guilt By Association

Also Known as: Bad Company Fallacy, Company that You Keep Fallacy
Description of Guilt By Association

Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim
simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the
claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
2. Therefore P is false

It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the
following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that
1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy
all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."

The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be
associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person
shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into
rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the
claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and
because he does not want to be associated with such people.

Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with
people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For
example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves
around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person
would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the
company of people they dislike (or even hate).
From: PatsSox on 30 Jul 2010 23:15

"Polarhound" <polarhound(a)comcast.net> wrote in message ...
> On 7/30/2010 6:07 PM, PatsSox wrote:
>> "Polarhound"<polarhound(a)comcast.net> wrote in message ...
>>> The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice
>>> arguing that the spill � he calls it "the leak" � is anything less than
>>> an
>>> ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype.
>>
>>
>> Why, oh why does anyone give credence to anything this man says?
>> He's an entertainer... he is not an expert on ANYTHING. He is there to
>> make you laugh at his foolish and outrageous statements. Come on...
>> when
>> did he become an expert on the effects of oil on the eco-system? The
>> freakin' guy dropped out of Southeast Missouri State University... and
>> according to his mother, he flunked everything! Why do people listen
>> to
>> this freakin' idiot?
>>
>>
>
> Fallacy: Guilt By Association


Pardon me? The fallacy is in what this man spews daily hoping to get
fools to listen to him and hopefully, believe his lies. This fool is a
college drop-out who has too many people believing that he knows what he's
talking about. It's a cruel joke being played on the American people.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: The First Affirmative Action Precedent in Action!
Next: Jose Iglesias quality