Apple Launches New Environmental Publicity Initiative

[Thunderbird]

Green = Cost: Fact
Not Green = Bigger Cost: Speculation and Hyperbole

Simple everyday examples: Saving money through energy efficiency. I bike to work, saving me money. The list goes on and is rather long. These are facts, not speculation.
Hy-per-bo-le
noun Rhetoric. 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

"Not Green = Bigger Cost" does not fit the definition of hyperbole. Nice try.

This is why the green movement is a joke:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120882720657033391.html

The green movement is a left-wing agenda. Left-wingers learned green rhetoric to coerce companies into doing things they think is right, as they distrust free market capitalism and blah blah blah blah blah blah

The problem is that once these green organizations are created, and they improve our conditions, they can't go away because there's too much money to be had, so they devise and machinate scare stories in order to blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

My post was about the founder of Greenpeace explaining why he left the organization he helped create.

There were several founders of Greenpeace.

That's an interesting opinion.


All the best,


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure

Not opinion, fact.

It also limits the materials that can be used to make a product because they're not recyclable. I want a carbon fiber Macbook Pro, and couldn't care less if it's recyclable or not. Think of all the awesome materials Jonathan Ive could work with if he didn't have these arbitrary restrictions.The green mentality is holding back innovation and product design.

You obviously don't understand the basic laws of thermodynamics. Current computer technology uses a limited range of materials. These materials evolve slowly, and are not particularly innovative. The materials that are used come from the mindset of what is cheapest and easiest to dispose of. This is usually the most wasteful and inefficient method of production. Take something simple like plastic. Every computer uses it. Industry has synthesized many different types of plastics that are extremely difficult to recycle. Indeed, one reason recycling is so expensive is that people are literally paid to stand on factory lines hand seperating those plastics for recycling, and all those paychecks add up quickly, even if you pay a very low wage. You have different numbering systems for the types of plastic you recycle, and the processes themselves are extremely nasty from a chemical perspective. So get rid of petrochemical plastics, replace it with biodegradable, and you don't have to do any sorting whatsoever. Just throw the plastic into a big vat with bacteria (with hundreds of thousands of these recycling centers littered across the world, in every town or city which choses to use plastics).

There's your innovation.

It's not the green movement holding back innovation and product design, it's you and your tiny imagination.

 

[Jason Lee]

Thunder, if you can't participate in civil discourse maturely, then please don't bother at all.

The quality of your post tells me that you had nothing substantial to counter with, so you did the only thing you could, which was to mock me by posting images and altering my text, essentially calling me a nutty conspirator. You remind of those fundamentalist Christians who try to link the theory of evolution to Hitlerism, atheism to Satan worship.

Instead of labeling me and my views as conspiratorial, how about actually doing the hard thing by telling me why I'm wrong.

 

[Thunderbird]

Thunder, if you can't participate in civil discourse maturely, then please don't bother at all.

Oh I love the sanctimonious attitude. You know, if you don't want your comments to be mocked, maybe you should think them through a little bit more.

You remind of those fundamentalist Christians who try to link the theory of evolution to Hitlerism, atheism to Satan worship.

Huh? I linked your conspiracy theory to....well, a conspiracy theory, which it is.

Here's what you wrote:

"The green movement is a left-wing agenda. Left-wingers learned green rhetoric to coerce companies into doing things they think is right, as they distrust free market capitalism and prefer a top-down style of economics.

The green movement is neither left nor right, at least, that's what their pamphlet says in my mail box. You will find greens on the right as well as the left ends of the political spectrum. That's just a fact. I'm sorry but if you are not aware of this then I can't do anything more than suggest you read about the history of environmental organizing, as well as pay closer attention to the Green Party platform, for example, which is replete with appeals to market solutions.

It's funny because people on the far left claim the exact opposite: that the whole environamtal movement is one big scam concocted by a wealthy cabal of the world's capitalist elites. They cite the Pew Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefellers, The Heinz family, the Du Pont family, the Agnellis, Prince Bernhard, the Dutch Royal family and host of other dynasties and billionaires and even presidents like Richard Nixon (yes, that old time republican who presided over the world's first Earth Day) as being behind and funding the green movement. This is hardly a list of organizations and people who are "distrustful of free-market capitalism and prefer a top-down style of economics" as you claim. So when the far left claim the green movement is a right-wing agenda, and the far right claim it is a left-wing agenda, I split the difference and conclude they're both partly correct and partly incorrect, that the green movement must probably be on both sides. And if you follow the money, the campaigns, the protests and the rhetoric, it seems to bear out where the green movement's constituency is. They are literally from all walks of life and all political persuasions. You can't pin it down to one side or the other because the environment has become a universal issue. To say that the green movement comes from the dark corners of the left or right is to engage in conspiratorial thinking. Especially when you claim that they are somehow "coercing companies". I'm sure all the environmental groups wish they actually had that kind of power, because most of the time they are a pretty demoralized bunch who get burned out from long struggles they often end up losing.

The problem is that once these green organizations are created, and they improve our conditions, they can't go away because there's too much money to be had, so they devise and machinate scare stories in order to self-perpetuate and make more money. Currently, "green" has less to do with the environment, and more to do with advocating left-wing political beliefs.

To say that green organizations are in it for the money is just absurd. Go to a local grassroots environmental group fighting some local issue, and ask how much money they have in their piggy bank. You will be in for quite a surprise. Larger organizations may be different and better funded, but most of them still operate by volunteer staff. No one's getting rich.

As for left-wing political beliefs, you might want to glance through Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken. It's become somewhat influential in green circles, and there's not one left-wing idea in its' 416 pages. Other similar books and schools of thought have sprung up around the same theme of creating a greener free market capitalism. Green ideas are coming from both the left and the right.

As always, I think people need to be skeptical, ruminate, and put things into perspective before being indoctrinated.

Right, so you chide me for mocking you, but you call people in the green movement "indoctrinated."

Instead of labeling me and my views as conspiratorial, how about actually doing the hard thing by telling me why I'm wrong.

There....how was that.

 

[MorphingDragon]

I think any attempts to reduce toxic chemicals in products will have a negligible postive impact on the environment. With more affluent people able to afford all manner of products at the same time that the world wide population continues to rise the "environment" is basically doomed.

Is it better to have 1,000 more toxic laptops buried in a landfill or 100,000 slightly less toxic laptops?

There are too many people, ultimately too few resources, who will someday be crammed into too small a space.

Tokyo, Shanghai and HongKong on a world wide scale.

At the first chance to replace my respiratory system with an Bionic alternative Im going for it. They are inefficient for the future.

 

[TMay]

Because all this green nonsense represents a cost that I am not willing to pay for. I am not even talking about higher prices, I am talking about a quality and experience cost.

Instead of Apple shipping all of their DVDs in solid, beautiful boxes they are now using plain clear plastic sleeves.

It also limits the materials that can be used to make a product because they're not recyclable. I want a carbon fiber Macbook Pro, and couldn't care less if it's recyclable or not. Think of all the awesome materials Jonathan Ive could work with if he didn't have these arbitrary restrictions.

The green mentality is holding back innovation and product design.

Carbon fiber isn't an ideal material for impact and delamination is the primary failure mode. It is also more expensive and difficult to fab. I can't speak for its thermal properties, but probably quite a bit less efficient than aluminum.

The basic promise of Green design, is that you take into account the life cycle of the materials and the energy footprint.

You are never going to get a carbon fiber Mac Book Pro from Apple, but you might be one to see it as an aftermarket business opportunity.

Kudos for Apple for creating the current line of Mac Book Pro's; power efficient, strong, impact resistant, attractive, and easily evolved.

 

[Takuta-Nui]

It all helps, guys - it all helps. =)

 

[ArtandStructure]

Yep, because most anti-environmentalism is based on opinions instead of fact.

That's an interesting opinion.

Not opinion, fact.

I reintroduced your original remark I responded to so your post makes sense. Otherwise you removed the whole substance to the quote. You made a remark which you insist is fact, but unless you have a significant formal and scientific study which validates your assertion that "most anti-environmentalism is based on opinions instead of fact" is in fact true, it is an opinion. I was pointing out the irony of your so-sure assertion regarding the difference between opinion and fact.

This is the crux of the discussion in this thread. If people weren't so quick to assert their own biases as fact but rather paid attention to and respected what was opinion, this thread would be much shorter and richer with untainted facts, instead of self-righteous and condescending "opinions".


All the best,


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure

 

[Jason Lee]

Thunder, I wasn't "chiding" you, I was making a suggestion to maintain the quality of this thread. It's unfortunate that you equate civil discourse to sanctimony. What annoys me is that you automatically mark any criticism as "conspiratorial," which is fundamentalist behavior.

I linked an editorial by Patrick Moore and you ignored it. Why?

On BS he said, "Basically, they are using sensation, misinformation, and scare tactics. The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric . . . to cloak agendas that actually had more to do with anticorportism, antigloblalization, antibusiness, and very little to do with science and ecology. And that's when I left. I realized that the movement that I helped started was being taken over by political groups . . . and that they were using it for fundraising purposes."

Thunder, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are never entitled to your own facts. The Green Party is both socially and fiscally left wing. And who are the people on the far left that blame the far right for the green movement scam? What's their source? Evidence?

And while you trust pamphlets, I disagree that the green movement is evenly split between the left and the right as you suggest. I don't think there are as many conservatives committed to green cause as liberals. The left and the right both make moral judgments, and while there's some overlap, currently, the right is more concerned with religion and sexual purity, while the left is more concerned with the environment and healthful foods. And I never said the "dark corners of the left . . ." That's your stupid attempt to make me look a nutty conspiracy theorist.

Green organizations are not in it for the money? Perhaps not at the beginning, but have you heard of carbon credits? And don't be disingenuous. You know that I'm criticizing the heavy hitters such as Greenpeace and RAN.

And green organizations have no influence on companies? That's the whole point of environmentalism. From Moore's editorial:

"Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.

Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children's toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.

Phthalates are the new bogeyman. . . . Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm. DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.

Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure."

A lot of people are indoctrinated into a lot of things, especially the green cause. Have you heard of the dihydrogen monoxide hoax?

To be clear, I'm not completely dismissing environmentalism/green technologies, but green hysteria/fundamentalism is retarded, especially when activists' motives may be more political than environmental. I just don't think criticism should be willfully ignored, and the importance of some of the environmental claims and efforts are exaggerated and counter-productive.

 

[TMay]

Thunder, I wasn't "chiding" you, I was making a suggestion to maintain the quality of this thread. It's unfortunate that you equate civil discourse to sanctimony. What annoys me is that you automatically mark any criticism as "conspiratorial," which is fundamentalist behavior.

I linked an editorial by Patrick Moore and you ignored it. Why?

On BS he said, "Basically, they are using sensation, misinformation, and scare tactics. The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric . . . to cloak agendas that actually had more to do with anticorportism, antigloblalization, antibusiness, and very little to do with science and ecology. And that's when I left. I realized that the movement that I helped started was being taken over by political groups . . . and that they were using it for fundraising purposes."

Thunder, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are never entitled to your own facts. The Green Party is both socially and fiscally left wing. And who are the people on the far left that blame the far right for the green movement scam? What's their source? Evidence?

And while you trust pamphlets, I disagree that the green movement is evenly split between the left and the right as you suggest. I don't think there are as many conservatives committed to green cause as liberals. The left and the right both make moral judgments, and while there's some overlap, currently, the right is more concerned with religion and sexual purity, while the left is more concerned with the environment and healthful foods. And I never said the "dark corners of the left . . ." That's your stupid attempt to make me look a nutty conspiracy theorist.

Green organizations are not in it for the money? Perhaps not at the beginning, but have you heard of carbon credits? And don't be disingenuous. You know that I'm criticizing the heavy hitters such as Greenpeace and RAN.

And green organizations have no influence on companies? That's the whole point of environmentalism. From Moore's editorial:

"Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.

Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children's toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.

Phthalates are the new bogeyman. . . . Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm. DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.

Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure."

A lot of people are indoctrinated into a lot of things, especially the green cause. Have you heard of the dihydrogen monoxide hoax?

To be clear, I'm not completely dismissing environmentalism/green technologies, but green hysteria/fundamentalism is retarded, especially when activists' motives may be more political than environmental. I just don't think criticism should be willfully ignored, and the importance of some of the environmental claims and efforts are exaggerated and counter-productive.

A little online search will show that there are in fact concerns by the scientific community that specific phthalates have links to

http://www.ewg.org/chemindex/term/480

"Phthalates have been found to disrupt the endocrine system. Several phthalate compounds have caused reduced sperm counts, testicular atrophy and structural abnormalities in the reproductive systems of male test animals, and some studies also link phthalates to liver cancer, according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control’s 2005 National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Though the CDC contends the health hazards of phthalates to humans have not been definitively established, for some years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has regulated phthalates as water and air pollutants.

The Environmental Working Group has focused on phthalates since 1998, when bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found in Beauty Secrets, found that dibutyl phthalate was present in the bodies of every single person tested for industrial pollutants."

Phthalates are hardly the safe family of plasticizers that you would argue, and studies indicate that fetuses and children are especially at risk. Enough to warrant legislation of specific limits of phthalates in children's toys especially those that would be chewed.

Here's an easily read article that lays out the health issues.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-schapiro/the-case-against-phthalat_b_93092.html

 

[Jason Lee]

A little online search will show that there are in fact concerns by the scientific community that specific phthalates have links to

http://www.ewg.org/chemindex/term/480

"Phthalates have been found to disrupt the endocrine system. Several phthalate compounds have caused reduced sperm counts, testicular atrophy and structural abnormalities in the reproductive systems of male test animals, and some studies also link phthalates to liver cancer, according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control’s 2005 National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Though the CDC contends the health hazards of phthalates to humans have not been definitively established, for some years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has regulated phthalates as water and air pollutants.

The Environmental Working Group has focused on phthalates since 1998, when bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found in Beauty Secrets, found that dibutyl phthalate was present in the bodies of every single person tested for industrial pollutants."

Phthalates are hardly the safe family of plasticizers that you would argue, and studies indicate that fetuses and children are especially at risk. Enough to warrant legislation of specific limits of phthalates in children's toys especially those that would be chewed.

Here's an easily read article that lays out the health issues.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-schapiro/the-case-against-phthalat_b_93092.html

Hey, T, I actually read those articles already when I was researching the issue. The comments section in the Huffington Post article does a good job in explaining why that editorial was meaningless.

Have you read these?

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS187857+27-Jul-2009+PRN20090727

http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/acc-addresses-misinformation-about-phthalates-school-supplies

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS177604+25-Jun-2009+PRN20090625

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_phthalate/sec.asp?CID=1907&DID=8755

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605104540.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102567295

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_phthalate/sec.asp?CID=1906&DID=7585#NPR

Those are the most recent studies I could find.

There's plenty more, but a careful—not a little—Google search will take care of that for you.

 

[TMay]

Hey, T, I actually read those articles already when I was researching the issue. The comments section in the Huffington Post article does a good job in explaining why that editorial was meaningless.

Have you read these?

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS187857+27-Jul-2009+PRN20090727

http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/acc-addresses-misinformation-about-phthalates-school-supplies

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS177604+25-Jun-2009+PRN20090625

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_phthalate/sec.asp?CID=1907&DID=8755

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605104540.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102567295

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_phthalate/sec.asp?CID=1906&DID=7585#NPR

Those are the most recent studies I could find.

There's plenty more, but a careful—not a little—Google search will take care of that for you.

The jury is still out. Caution and reduced exposure to phthalates is justified in utero and children. Until there is a consensus, which there is not now, those cautions are prudent.

 

[Thunderbird]

I reintroduced your original remark I responded to so your post makes sense. Otherwise you removed the whole substance to the quote. You made a remark which you insist is fact, but unless you have a significant formal and scientific study which validates your assertion that "most anti-environmentalism is based on opinions instead of fact" is in fact true, it is an opinion. I was pointing out the irony of your so-sure assertion regarding the difference between opinion and fact.

This is the crux of the discussion in this thread. If people weren't so quick to assert their own biases as fact but rather paid attention to and respected what was opinion, this thread would be much shorter and richer with untainted facts, instead of self-righteous and condescending "opinions".

Yes, the "irony" of it all, as if every written sentence must be taken as mere opinion unless coupled with extensive references. I don't need a significant and formal scientific study to state a fact, only to prove one, something that would require more space here than people would be willing to read. If you disagree with my assertion, your welcome to begin an argument to the contrary. Of course, that would make the thread longer, not shorter. As it is, you've added to the length with your attempt at being cute.

Thunder, I wasn't "chiding" you, I was making a suggestion to maintain the quality of this thread.

Please look up the word chide.

It's unfortunate that you equate civil discourse to sanctimony.

I used sanctimony to describe your righteous and dismissive tone. If mocking is considered uncivil, then so is calling anyone in the green movement "indoctrinated".

What annoys me is that you automatically mark any criticism as "conspiratorial," which is fundamentalist behavior.

I wasn't marking just any criticism as conspiratorial, only claims that are based on the belief that a group of people are somehow coercing corporations and who "devise and machinate scare stories in order to self-perpetuate and make more money". That is a claim about the nefarious activities of a group of people i.e. a conspiracy. And please look up the word fundamentalist.

I linked an editorial by Patrick Moore and you ignored it. Why?

Becasue I know the history of Greenpeace, personally have met a few of its founding members, and know through those people and others how little regard most environmentals have for him. He is a disgruntled ex-member of an iconic organization who now shills for Big Business. His criticisms are baseless and he fools no one with his bombast and rhetoric. The statement " I realized that the movement I helped started was being taken over by political groups" is nonsensical, since the movement he helped start was obviously itself a political group, by definition. Now, that's irony.

The Green Party is both socially and fiscally left wing. And who are the people on the far left that blame the far right for the green movement scam? What's their source? Evidence?

The Green Party draws its platform from both right and left economic policies, as it needs to appeal to a wide crossection of society for votes. Perhaps you don't know what left or right economic policies are. Socially, they are more leftist, that is true. The far left that I refer to are revolutionary socialists, trots, and some council communists. Since my views are no where near these groups, I can't give you website links as I don't read them. I'm basing this on personal knowledge of local groups in my city. Their sources are the annual reports from the Trusts and Foundations that I mentioned, and funding source-watch sites. What's the source and evidence for your opposite claims?

And while you trust pamphlets, I disagree that the green movement is evenly split between the left and the right as you suggest. I don't think there are as many conservatives committed to green cause as liberals.

I never said they were "evenly split" I said they were from all walks of life and from both ends of the political spectrum. It would be difficult to quantify how many greens were from traditionally left vs. right camps anyway. You seem to know there are more on one side than the other. What's your source?

Green organizations are not in it for the money? Perhaps not at the beginning, but have you heard of carbon credits? And don't be disingenuous. You know that I'm criticizing the heavy hitters such as Greenpeace and RAN.

What do carbon credits have to do with Greenpeace? I really don't understand your point.

And green organizations have no influence on companies? That's the whole point of environmentalism.

You didn't say 'influence', you said coercion. Are you suggesting that companies be allowed to do whatever they want?

 

[Jason Lee]

Becasue I know the history of Greenpeace, personally have met a few of its founding members, and know through those people and others how little regard most environmentals have for him. He is a disgruntled ex-member of an iconic organization who now shills for Big Business. His criticisms are baseless and he fools no one with his bombast and rhetoric. The statement " I realized that the movement I helped started was being taken over by political groups" is nonsensical, since the movement he helped start was obviously itself a political group, by definition. Now, that's irony.

It appears that I've wasted my time.

 

[Thunderbird]

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS187857+27-Jul-2009+PRN20090727

http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/acc-addresses-misinformation-about-phthalates-school-supplies

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS177604+25-Jun-2009+PRN20090625

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_phthalate/sec.asp?CID=1907&DID=8755

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605104540.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102567295

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_phthalate/sec.asp?CID=1906&DID=7585#NPR

Those are the most recent studies I could find.

um... those aren't studies, those are news releases, all of which (with the exception of the NPR piece and the Science Daily article) are responses by the American Chemistry Council who refer to studies. The ACC is a PR firm for the chemical industry.

 

[ArtandStructure]

Yes, the "irony" of it all, as if every written sentence must be taken as mere opinion unless coupled with extensive references.

Oh not at all, but your statement that, "most anti-environmentalism is based on opinions instead of fact" was definitely opinion, not fact. It is a broad generalization with no basis in study or fact. It's not much short of a stereotype. Stating it is fact and not opinion doesn't make it so.

If I were to say, "most liberals respond to disagreement with condescension and baseless facts", that too would be a generalization and an opinion. There is no way one could effectively study something like that and prove it as fact.

I don't need a significant and formal scientific study to state a fact, only to prove one

Totally agreed. However if you state something is fact and someone else questions the validity of that fact, it is customary and expected for you to provide the basis of that fact, the proof, which you refuse and are unable to do.

If you disagree with my assertion, your welcome to begin an argument to the contrary.

I already have, and very succinctly three times now. Here is a fourth: In science, nothing is called "fact" which is mere opinion or even theory, and when something is stated as "fact" it is backed up by something concrete or else it is refuted by the community. Calling out a fact is again customary. Since this thread revolves around scientific validity, it is entirely fair to expect you to back up your generalization or admit it is opinion. When questioned, it is the onus of the individual proposing the "fact" to prove it is correct, not on the questioner to prove the opposite is correct.

Facts aren't facts until proven when questioned. Dancing around the issue leaves the fact unproven, in question, and relegated to opinion.

I think this is where some of the folks on this forum take issue with the responses both for and against. Some responses are quite acceptable; others are dismissive, selective in the parts of the discussion they want to address while avoiding the ones they can not, or altogether constructed of straw-man arguments.

Again the importance of this little diversion is as an example of the tone of this entire thread where folks are brandishing about "science" and "facts" and clearly not demonstrating an objective sense of the meaning of fact versus opinion or bias. This is typical of the "environmental" movement as a whole. There are parts of it which are valid, proven and of value but it is so clouded with rhetoric, straw-men, opinion and bias it's a mess.

Responding without providing anything to back up the fact when questioned is a case in point. If you can provide a respected and valid proof, I will gladly give you kudos, otherwise take a deep breath, reconsider fact versus opinion and concede you phrased it improperly and it is your opinion. That I can not argue. Your opinion is yours and you are certainly welcome to it.


All the best,


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure

 

[Thunderbird]

Totally agreed. However if you state something is fact and someone else questions the validity of that fact, it is customary and expected for you to provide the basis of that fact, the proof, which you refuse and are unable to do.

Except you didn't question or dispute the validity of it, you didn't even ask me what the basis of my assertion was, you simply tried to be cute in pointing out the 'irony' of my statement by saying "That's an interesting opinion." I was therefore under no obligation to provide any such 'proof'. I could have just as easily countered by saying your assertion that my statement was opinion and not fact, was itself another opinion, since you stated it as a fact. I should have then expected from you 'proof' that your own assertion (that my statement was opinion and not fact) was indeed a fact, and we could have gone round and around playing that game for a long time. But that would have been pointless, as seems to be your modus operandi here.

Anyway, congratulations on extending the thread even further.

I am done with your incoherent and pedantic nit picks. Get a life.

 

[ArtandStructure]

Except you didn't question or dispute the validity of it, you didn't even ask me what the basis of my assertion was, you simply tried to be cute in pointing out the 'irony' of my statement by saying "That's an interesting opinion." I was therefore under no obligation to provide any such 'proof'.

Actually, stating it was an opinion is a clear assertion on my part it isn't a fact. Rather than provide a proof to put an end to any question on the matter you simply replied it is a fact matter-of-factly (no pun intended).

On my second reply I clearly disputed it as a fact and asked you to validate it to which you again avoided providing proof essentially saying you did not need to. I then disputed it at least twice more in my following reply and requested your proof to which you again do not provide. So yes, I questioned and disputed your assertion 4 times and no you never even bothered to offer any proof.

I could have just as easily countered by saying your assertion that my statement was opinion and not fact, was itself another opinion, since you stated it as a fact. I should have then expected from you 'proof' that your own assertion (that my statement was opinion and not fact) was indeed a fact

This I did. I stated a fact is only a fact if proven, otherwise it is opinion. That would be my "fact". I knew you could not possibly prove such a statement because it falls under generalization, speculation, stereotype, etc. As proof of my "fact" you repeatedly refuse to offer proof showing your assertion is anything more than opinion. Therefore your "fact" is as yet unproven true, which is the essence of an opinion. Again the onus is on you.

So no, this is not a circular discussion. It is simply you repeatedly refusing to offer proof.

I am done with your incoherent and pedantic nit picks. Get a life.

My remarks have been clear. You were caught making a false statement but rather than just do the objective thing and admit it you want to sweep it away. Some of your pro-environmentalist remarks are fair, but you damage your veracity by refusing to remain objective or admitting when you were mistaken. It is apparently more important for you to not be wrong than to be right, and in all fairness admitting you are wrong is right and I would respect your admission. You would serve your purpose more greatly if you instilled balance and integrity in your posts.

What was that opinion I had about disagreement being met with condescending dismissal?

Again this seems to be indicative of many discussions of this nature. There appears to be a disproportionately vocal minority who denounce whatever they disagree with, espouse what they do believe and fail to fill in the gaps where there are inconsistencies. Instead they hold to those inconsistencies believing the longer or more often they insist it to be true, the more it will be or the more people they will convince it to be true. Thus there is difficulty separating the wheat from the chaff and all the average citizen gets is some biased, flawed sound bite moving them one way or another.

It is dangerous politically, morally, and humanly, yet those who act in this manner apparently are more concerned with their own personal agenda or bias than preserving the integrity of the political system, society and humanity itself as this behavior (especially in our media driven, quick take society) leads to an uninformed mass easily swayed by the next tide. WMDs anyone? "environmentalism" isn't inherently bad but it is laced with the same behavior. Why not step back, put egos aside and have a meaningful, objective and embracing discussion. If this topic is so vastly important to the survival of the world, does it not deserve that? I suppose it is too much to ask of a flawed mankind.


All the best,


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure

 

[bobertoq]

Oh I love the sanctimonious attitude. You know, if you don't want your comments to be mocked, maybe you should think them through a little bit more.

That bike analogy is bad one. Bike makers don't market their bikes as green alternatives to cars. Here is a better one: CFL lightbulbs. They usually cost several times more than an incandescent lightbulb, and the only good they do is use a tad less electricity. Buying a CFL is going to cost you a lot more up front. Most people don't care if you can save a whopping 30 cents a month, or if you don't have to replace it every short year. Not only that, they flicker and have a horrid color temperature. I could go on and on. Most consumers don't care if they can save the polar bears, truth is, one person can't, or if they can save a few bucks a month, or anything like that. Truth is, I'd rather have a cheap product that works then one that is expensive and an ugly color.