Darryl Shannon schreef:
> Kristen wrote:
>
> >I will not post to ANY
> >more threads about this guy. I think he is a traitor. I think he is
> >horriubly dangerous with this be-happy attitude and as for the "global
> >warming is staving off an ice age" claims....
>
> Kristen, this attitude is exactly why you have made so many people on
> this list angry with you.
So many people? People been complaining to you about Kristen or what?
> Let me break your implied logic down for you.
>
> 1. Environmental damage is horribly dangerous.
> 2. People who cause horribly dangerous situations are evil.
> 3. No intellectually honest person could disagree with you about
> environmental issues.
> 4. People who disagree with you about environmental issues create
> environmental damage.
> 5. Anyone who disagrees with you about environmental issues is evil.
>
> You have essentially immunized yourself from accountability.
I think quite the opposite is true.
> You feel you have no need to listen to criticism from intellectually
> dishonest
> people--like people who disagree with you.
Twisted logic. By making it public that she disagrees she already shows that
she listened to people disagreeing with her. Not accepting the statements,
or even totally rejecting them is entirely different from not listening. So
unless my understanding of English is failing me here I think you are using
some kind of twisted logic to make your rather strange statements look
absolutely correct.
> Claiming that misguided people are evil is not the behavior of someone
> who wants to be part of civilization. If you continue with this belief
> you are eventually going to support and condone evil actions
> yourself...all in the name of the greater good, of course. You will
> end up like the extremists from David Brin's Earth who decide to
> exterminate humanity, or Ted Kascinzsky sending bombs in the mail to
> scientists. All in the name of the greater good. People who believe
> their opponents cannot be acting in good faith are capable of any sort
> of crime.
>
> Is this the future you see for yourself? Is this how you want to end
> up? Do you think that acting this way is, on balance, likely to be
> helpful? Or perhaps, *even if you are right*, acting this way is
> actually doing more to harm your cause than several dozen misguided
> opponents could do.
This looks more like a personal attack then a well reasoned argument
tackeling Kristens statements/rejection of statements if you ask me. But I
could be wrong of course.
> As I see it, you have a choice. You can either decide to be a part of
> our civilization and treat people who disagree with you with a basic
> level of intellectual respect, or you can retreat to a cabin and start
> mailing bombs to the evil people.
Huh? Did some one get the licence number from that truck. You know the one
that just ran over Kristen. What has vocalizing strong disagreement with
someones statements to do with starting to send mail bombs in this case?
I know that Kristen can be somewhat overstating her facts sometimes, but
cutting her personally down with statements like that isn't a nice thing to
do.
Sonja
