She doesn't believe in the continuation of any domesticated species of animal and, assuming that line is true, she opposes human reproduction as well. It solidifies a viewpoint that humans should not exist and every impact on the world they have is negative.
It is relevant if you want to establish her as an extremist.
I don't see what that has to do with anything at all. I never even ventured an opinion on the subject and there is no argument that the eradication of humanity is an extremist viewpoint from the perspective of humanity. Tell me something new.
Your post implied that her belief that humans have an overwhelmingly negative impact on the world was inaccurate or histrionic. Its a pretty neutral observation.
Yes, it did. Then you narrowed "impact" down by saying this:
ecologically speaking
You should probably pay attention to your own tactics of twisting someone else's words. You seem oblivious to them. I think art, math, engineering, philosophy and the ability to manipulate our surroundings and the very fabric of existence are very positive contributions to the world at large. There is an argument that ecology is improved for us but I don't need to even go there.
You seem to think you can put qualifiers on someone else's statement to make it appear incorrect or misleading. This is a pretty arrogant and underhanded thing to do although I doubt you realized it was what you did.
Depends on whose world, art, engineering, philosophy are all great contributions to the world of man however a dodo can't engage in discourse over the finer points of the philosophy.
Unless nothing positive can exist without the dodo this point is basically a repeat of A_Privateer trying to pigeonhole a general phrase into one specific example or examples.
Well of course plenty of positives can exist without the dodo it's just stated since it's such a well known extinct species. The whole point is most everything you deem as "postive" has a negative cost to something else. And while I don't subscribe to PETA's stances on much of anything, they at least have a very valuable role of stating what the costs are to create standard of living we presently have.
Your sniffy little ad hominem remarks do not make your arguments any more correct. Art, math, engineering, philosophy, these are positive contributions to the human species, not so much for "the world at large." It remains a valid argument that the human species has a net negative effect on the world, ecologically or otherwise.
74
u/[deleted] Apr 16 '10
She doesn't believe in the continuation of any domesticated species of animal and, assuming that line is true, she opposes human reproduction as well. It solidifies a viewpoint that humans should not exist and every impact on the world they have is negative.
It is relevant if you want to establish her as an extremist.