BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="cajanuma" data-source="post: 3788899" data-attributes="member: 45400">"A logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not"? (Yes, I looked it up in Wikipedia).Here is the logical fallacy you're implying, at least as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong):Paul Sweet/AMNH is arguing in favor of continued scientific collection. His statement "while we still can" acknowledges that bird populations are declining sharply worldwide. Therefore, scientific collecting is contributing to these population declines.I believe that's very misleading. If you had other reasons for bringing up "while we still can", please explain.And yes, bringing up carbon is whataboutery, you are absolutely right. It just seems to me that as birders we should be looking at the behaviors we engage in that contribute to harming the environment (and I engage in some of these enthusiatically, hence the "I shouldn't talk") before pointing the finger at the scientific/museum community who, on the whole, are doing far more for conservation than we birders are.</blockquote>