Where did you get the idea that I’m going to “take back” what I said about Palin simply because it offends your sensibilities? The only things I’m going to apologize for or “take back” are any erroneous statements I made concerning the current status of polar bears. Even if polar bears didn’t exist, I wouldn’t “take it back,” although I wouldn’t have had any reason to make the statement in the first place. However, Palin appears to have made it abundantly clear that as long as there are oil reserves underneath those bears’ paws, their welfare is of little concern to her.
Doesn’t matter if she broke the sugar bowl; she’s done plenty of other bad stuff - eh?
According to the linked article from Bricker, “Five main reasons for infanticide have been proposed: exploitation of young as an energy source, competition for resources, sexual selection, parental manipulation of progeny, and social pathology (Hrdy and Hausfater, 1984).” [/pedant]
Now that I’ve thought about it some more, you have a valid point. I’ll analogize it to the following situation: I live next door to Ms. Palin, and I emerge from my house one morning to discover, much to my horror, that my lawn gnome is missing. I furiously pound on Ms. Palin’s door, and when she answers the door, I vehemently attack her verbally while demanding the safe return of the gnome. Turns out later that a band of outlaw tree-worshipping Druids actually stole my gnome, and that Ms. Palin had nothing to do with it. Do I owe her an apology? Yes on both counts—I owe her an apology for accusing her in the first place without sufficient evidence, and for calling her a “gnome-appropriating fundamentalist twatwaffle.” There is absolutely no question about that—it’s completely cut-and-dry. So my hypocrisy lies in accusing Palin of glossing over facts which may or may not actually be true, while at the same time issuing ad hominem invectives concerning her theistic orientation and personal hygiene. So mea culpa—completely illogical and moralistically questionable on all accounts. So as it stands right now (and I can’t see any reason why it would change) I indeed owe Ms. Palin a hearty apology. If I had wanted to attack Palin’s position on the situation that would have been perfectly acceptable, but I should have done so in a separate paragraph apart from the main issue of polar bear conservation.
However, I probably would have come around to your way of thinking much sooner (like yesterday) had you not obfuscated the issue by citing specious references and using ad hominem argumentation yourself. You see the inherent pot vs. kettle conflict here, don’t you? For now though, I’m will to abdicate my claim to the moral high ground until I have all the facts, and I fully intend to obtain them to the best of my ability. The next thread I start on the subject will be substantially more reasoned.
To be honest, I can’t quite tell if you’re being tongue in cheek or not… but I’ll assume you’re on the level and apologize that I’m not able to read your text more clearly.
If that is the case, and you really do feel that you can address individual liberals (and conservatives, I’d hope) on their bullshit rather than relying on fallacious fungibility, I’d congratulate you on your intellectual honesty. I don’t mean that to be condescending, and I’m honestly sorry if it comes off that way, but the fallacies of composition and division are two of my major pet peeves.
Well, and according to the cite I linked to, even an adult female polar bear was hunted and killed by a male purely as a food source.
I wasn’t being facetious. The epiphany comment was slightly tongue in cheek but it was meant mostly to buy a little time because I had to leave (as I do again shortly) and because I wanted a little time to think over the very good points you raise. No apology is necessary in the slightest.
Thank you and again, no apologies are necessary. As you probably know, you are one of the posters here who I think highly enough of to take seriously when they think I’m off base in some regard, and the points you raise do explain a lot. Let me think it over and I’ll respond when I have more time and have had a chance to organize my thoughts.
Cheers.
Translated-
I apologize, sorta, but it’s your fault I didn’t apologize earlier because you used big words and you’re mean. I’m going to apologize for now, because I am losing the argument, but I’ll be back to try again.
I have kids too, WhyNot, the translator becomes second nature.
Others may pile on the rest of it, but this is a good thing to read.
Well played.
This is the weirdest thread I’ve read today. What do you all do for fun?
I hunt baby seals.
Welcome to the club.
::bows:: Well, at least one person recognizes comic genius.
Specious references? Dude - or dudette - you whined about the newly discovered outrage of polar bear cannibalism and I provided a link showing much older examples of polar bear cannibalism. In what possible universe is that “specious?”
Nor did I use “ad hominem argumentation,” although this is a closer question. I merely insulted you repeatedly. There’s a difference: an argument ad hominem says, in essence, “Your proposition is wrong because you’re an idiot.” (Or whatever characteristic is being attacked, of course, in place of idiocy.) I showed your argument was wrong by attacking its premises, and then gratuitously insulted you. I grant that this is a subtle distinction.
As I said before, I don’t know that much about Alaska, oil drilling, or polar bears, and I think that making Sarah Palin the whipping boy for the problem trivializes it to some extent. But putting all that aside, I’d like to say that I think you have to realize that Sarah Palin is the Governor of the state of Alaska, and her primary concern is the welfare of the state and the people in it.
Now, that’s not to say that caring about the polar bears isn’t a component of caring about the state…ALL of the state’s natural resources should of course be a matter for concern. But her job isn’t to put the polar bears first, despite all of ther other concerns. She, as governor, needs to weigh a lot of issues, and decide what’s the best course of action. She needs to understand how dire the plight of the polar bear is, and how much that will or will not be affected by oil drilling. She ALSO needs to understand how oil drilling will affect the people of her state, in terms of economics, jobs, etc. She needs to set priorities based on all of this. It’s not just a matter of “whatever is good for the polar bears, that’s what we need to do, and to hell with whatever other consequences there are.”
ETA: Just wanted to add that the “current status” of polar bears that you refer to here is completely relevant to this decision-making process.
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day.
I blew a seal in my car once. Man, what a mess.
In other words, Washoe just can’t win. She ceded the argument, admitted she was wrong, and said she would try to educate herself on the issues, but apparently, that’s still not enough. I’d hate to be one of your kids.
On the contrary, (s)he did too much. Having made the admissions you outline, (s)he should have ended his/her post. Instead, we’re treated to:
Having purported to accept responsibility earlier in the post, Washoe immediately sloughs some of it off. THAT is what gives rise to the current criticism.
She ceded the argument, admitted she was wrong, and continued to be a dick.
Moreover, she continued to be a dick and refused to actually apologise because Bricker did something- take a cheap shot or two- that she was doing in her own fucking OP.
I hate Sarah Palin. Don’t get me wrong. However, I’m also starting to hate everyone else that hates Sarah Palin because they see the glasses and hear the goofy Fargo accent and lose their fucking minds.
So she said some dumb things. BFD. She hasn’t actually done any dumb things as far as I can tell. Still there are more Pit threads about her than there ever were about Osama bin Laden. Perspective, people.
Lesbian polar bears obviously will not be reproducing, so obviously the species is in peril.
There needs to be an in depth study to see if these polar bears are just going through a faze.
Although this siteseems to support that homosexuality is sustainable in the ursine community.
(link contains no nudity, but could be nsfw depending on where you are)
ETA - Furfest?