Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Forest Service at it Again
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Stefan
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 5085 | TRs | Pics
Stefan
Member
PostThu Sep 01, 2005 4:04 pm 
Dudes. Lets not also forget the latest ruling by the WTO and the impact it has on NAFTA with subsidies on timber. Ottawa will appeal to the International Trade group. Don't think what happens to just timber in the U.S....but also think about what is happening in Canada.....and South America where Weyerhaeuser now has large plots of land.....

Art is an adventure.
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostThu Sep 01, 2005 4:22 pm 
Stefan wrote:
I liked it when Georgie was on vacation. Nothing happened.
Cept 75 US and over 1k iraqis killed oh and Katrina shakehead.gif

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostThu Sep 01, 2005 4:36 pm 
OK guys, no more politics. Stay on topic or this gets locked.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Sep 01, 2005 5:28 pm 
Malachai Constant wrote:
Yes, it is impossible to prove a universal negative, satisfied confused.gif
Yes. Therefore, it's an invalid argument to make... if you intend any kind of proof to back it up.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostFri Sep 02, 2005 9:24 am 
MtnGoat wrote:
Malachai Constant wrote:
Yes, it is impossible to prove a universal negative, satisfied confused.gif
Yes. Therefore, it's an invalid argument to make... if you intend any kind of proof to back it up.
WRONG just because something cannot logically be proved it does not mean the argument is invalid. Few things can be logically proved except mathematical proofs (and only there when axioms are assumed to be true). In the case of using the "Free Market" to conserve natural resources. The result is the well know url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons]Tragedy of the commons[/url]. Historical Precedent is another example where unfettered development of natural resources led to decimation of forests and depletion on american oilfields in the late 19th and early 20 centuries. For future reference I am tired and will not play your sophistic games.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostFri Sep 02, 2005 10:03 am 
Quote:
WRONG just because something cannot logically be proved it does not mean the argument is invalid.
I expect rational argument to be grounded in rational process and method, and this includes the *requirement* for testability. If you are making a statement that has no possible condition for testability, wether or not you actually PURSUE said testability, you're making an irrational statement by definition... since reason cannot be applied to something non testable. If irrational conditions are not invalid as argument, then you're not pursuing a rational argument. Zillions and zillions of things can be proven beyond mathematics. I can prove I have an apple in my lunchbox. I can prove my eyes have a certain color. We can prove so and so's finger prints are on a stolen article. We can even determine if these questions are provable without actually doing so, and that's all that is required to meet the testability standard. So when you claim we can know what the market response is to logging public lands under regulatory conditions that as far as I know have never existed, yes, I have a problem with those statements. And since they cannot be tested, anyone using these ideas in rationally examining this issue is introducing a source of error into what they are basing decisions upon.
Quote:
Historical Precedent is another example where unfettered development of natural resources led to decimation of forests and depletion on american oilfields in the late 19th and early 20 centuries.
I think you'll find, if you care to actually examine these cases, that the free market played little role in any of these situations. Oil fields and production and transport right monopolies were granted and protected by govt power and law, just like they did with railroad lands and the forests that went with them. The sad fact is, the use of these issues as "proof" that free markets don't work is actually proof of the abuse of govt power by NOT permitting free markets.
Quote:
For future reference I am tired and will not play your sophistic games.
If you can't even see the point of defending what you think you know, and why you think you know it, that's fine with me. That will leave me an open field to critique points without response. I'm uncertain why it's too much trouble to show arguments have empirical value and rational basis, but that this is the case shows something about the nature of the arguments being made.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Guiran
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 621 | TRs | Pics
Location: University of Washington
Guiran
Member
PostFri Sep 02, 2005 10:40 am 
But I imagine you'd have no problem defending the statement: "Free markets always provide the best solution."

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostFri Sep 02, 2005 10:51 am 
hijacked.gif

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Lead Dog
Member
Member


Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 790 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kent Wa
Lead Dog
Member
PostFri Sep 02, 2005 11:13 am 
This whole thread has become sooooooo redface.gif Wake me up when M/C goes home.

My hair's turning white, my neck's always been red, my collor's still blue. Lynard Skynard
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostFri Sep 02, 2005 11:19 am 
That sounds like a personal attack to me. moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif moon.gif You have no class How typical of right wingers when confrontedwith something they do not agree with to attack the person making the argument.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2197 | TRs | Pics
#19
Member
PostFri Sep 02, 2005 11:27 am 
Malachai Constant wrote:
That sounds like a personal attack to me.
Nope. It was long ago established that personal attacks come only in the form of something like me calling you a jerk. Sarcasm, inuendo, do not qualify. Sorry, jerk. biggrin.gif

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostFri Sep 02, 2005 11:27 am 
If it's considered an "attack" to examine the basis of your posts, then maybe it's time to consider the nature of their content. I did not attack *you*. I critiqued the basis of your statement. And I didn't post butt showing icons either.... whose derisive nature *does* indicate personal attack. as for marylou, she apparently has a problem with discussing thread topics in any depth, beyond initial claims and statements made in response to said topic. I trust any discussion of any other points made by any other posters will be met with the same criteria for "hijacking". the bottom line... if you expect to have a rational discussion, use rational arguments... which does not include the untestable.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostFri Sep 02, 2005 11:29 am 
Goat I did not say you attacked me that was for Leaddogs benefit

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostFri Sep 02, 2005 11:33 am 
Guiran wrote:
But I imagine you'd have no problem defending the statement: "Free markets always provide the best solution."
Nope, I wouldn't have a problem defending it... but I wouldn't claim that that statement is a rationally testable argument, as it contains value judgements I(best). After all, there's a difference between using admittedly irrational defenses and ideals, and using irrational ones but claiming they are not. I have no problem admitting the idea of "best" is in the eye of the beholder, and will never contend that 'best' is sufficient for rational argument without explicit modifiers that contain testable axioms to establish context.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Forest Service at it Again
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum