Thread: 800 free prints

Originally Posted by Mario F.

According to those environmentalists, it's these millions plus the industries that serve them that are ruining our oh-so-fragile planet. This makes every single individual as responsible as everyone else. Which results in that single individual actions to be either for or against the planet.

I don't disagree with that in the slightest.

I feel my point is either not understood, or is being argued for argument sake.

Let's say there are 10,000 people stranded on a tropical island. The island has one million coconuts (disregarding, for the sake of argument, the growth of new coconuts). Each person uses up one coconut a day. That would mean that the coconuts would only last one hundred days.

Now let's say one of those people realizes that the coconuts are a scarce resource, and decides not to partake. In that instance, the coconuts would last 100.01 days (or 100 days, plus fifteen minutes).

In this example, while there is clearly a difference, the effects of a single individual are, in my opinion, negligible to the overall conservation of that resource.

That was the point I made.

---------

I never said that the effects of a single individual "didn't matter," because that's not true and I don't believe that.

It's important to get more people on board with conserving natural resources, and the benefits to our environment would improve.

But that has nothing to do with the technical point I made that was apparently misunderstood.

---------

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Cut the crap.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Yeah. Let us know when you use up those credits, action man.

You have an interesting approach to discussions.

Maybe that was not your point, but you didn't state it in terms that was explicitly reserved for 1 individual but as a general case, i.e it would apply to any individual i.e the entire group. Further, ending it with claiming that it's a logical fallacy really opens up for arguments for arguments sake.

Refusing to print something in order to "save a few trees" is a logical
fallacy.

Originally Posted by Subsonics

Maybe that was not your point, but you didn't state it in terms that was explicitly reserved for 1 individual but as a general case, i.e it would apply to any individual i.e the entire group.

The OP is a single individual, and it was to them that the initial criticisms were made. Hence, it should have been implied that I was speaking about a single person. If I were extrapolating it to a more general case, then I would have been explicit in mentioning so.

Originally Posted by Subsonics

Further, ending it with claiming that it's a logical fallacy really opens up for arguments for arguments sake.

This, too, is a fallacy. But rather than entering into another circular debate confounded with semantical hoo-doo, I'll leave this as an exercise to the readers.

Claiming a fallacy wrongly is a fallacy because that can be construed as a strawman argument. You dispose of what the person actually said using some rhetorical problem as an excuse and keep going with your own argument. I think Subsonics's right though, since unless you do a lot of arguing you're liable to forget some of the problems you can call people out on; it's far more convincing to have a point of your own. Arguing for the sake of arguing has a word, too. It's called being eristic, but that's not a fallacy.

I think this has ventured a bit off topic. The OP asked about what we thought he should print, and it became an environmental debate, followed by a debate on debate techniques.

Originally Posted by std10093

I wonder which is the termination condition to all these recursive calls

the next stage is to start debating about what the debate is about.

Originally Posted by whiteflags

Claiming a fallacy wrongly is a fallacy because that can be construed as a strawman argument. You dispose of what the person actually said using some rhetorical problem as an excuse and keep going with your own argument.

My initial assertion of a fallacy was based on a summary of the arguments against the OP, so I don't know that I'd call it a strawman argument - but now that you mention it, it does seem to be bad form. Criticism accepted.

--------

@std10093 - Do you have any specific areas of scientific interest? Perhaps you'd get better answers if you narrowed down the subject matter you're interested in.

Another suggestion would be Dan Dennett - he's not a scientist, but a scientific philosopher who is well respected in scientific circles. He's big into the mind and consciousness. In the interest of paper, you can find a lot of his talks on youtube (his books are quite a heavy read).

Originally Posted by Matticus

My initial assertion of a fallacy was based on a summary of the arguments against the OP, so I don't know that I'd call it a strawman argument - but now that you mention it, it does seem to be bad form. Criticism accepted.

Just so that we're absolutely clear, I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything. In the post above mine you issued a challenge to the reader and I was just trying my best at your exercise. I'm still not quite sure of myself either. I've only ever heard of what I wrote down and I don't have any debate team experience or anything, either.

Originally Posted by Matticus

The OP is a single individual, and it was to them that the initial criticisms were made. Hence, it should have been implied that I was speaking about a single person. If I were extrapolating it to a more general case, then I would have been explicit in mentioning so.

Yes, but your example only work as a thought experiment because you would need to give exclusive rights for 1 person and have the ability to enforce it.

Originally Posted by std10093

I hope, that some people also should learn that they should twice before answering to a thread, just to pretend they are smart.

Who are those people, and what is your proof that the motivation is to pretend anything.

Have you thought about getting obsessed and making 800 paper aeroplanes each meticulously designed in its own custom colours to the point where you flunk your course and exams, fall out with the family and the girlfriend, infact loose it all and end up on the streets where you end up boring passers by with drunken tales of how you once had the biggest airforce in the world 'on paper' , and use chalk to write ingenious c programs on walls until the day some university hot shot professor walking by realises you must be some kind of undiscovered computer whiz-kid and wonders why you are on the streets and when you tell your sorry tale tells you he will see what he can do to help, and so for a few days you sleep with a little hope in your heart despite the rain, until a couple of weeks later turning a corner you see the professor begging on the streets with a sign round his neck saying "Beware the paper planes".

A Walter B Krondyke production starring

Matt Damon as the student
Dustin Hoffman as the professor
Featuring special guest appearance by Gary Oldman as a paper plane.