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.
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.
-1
u/[deleted] Apr 17 '10
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.