[headsoup]

Another fallacy: relative privation. Let's not worry about the bees and pesticides because of bigger problems.

I think the problem here is that over-emphasis, bluster and hyperbole are so normalised and frequent now that the use of emphasis to try and draw attention to an issue is now practically useless (maybe it was never useful...).

Perhaps we shouldn't worry about any of these 'small problems' because we're working hard to destroy the Earth anyway...

[tptacek]

No, once again, the glossary of logical fallacies you're working from isn't serving you well. I would be arguing relative privation if I was saying "things are so bad elsewhere it doesn't matter if the bees were dying", or "the bees are dying and that's all that really matters".

In fact, what I'm saying is that the bees are pretty much fine, and not an issue at all.

[gerbilly]

>what I'm saying is that the bees are pretty much fine, and not an issue at all.

You have stated this opinion many times, I think we are all clear on that.

Do we have more than your authority to go on in evaluating your claim?

I think HN would become a very uninteresting place to debate if every discussion devolved into unsupported arguments from authority, which seems to be the logical fallacy you are relying on in your 'argument.'

[headsoup]

A matter of differences between intent and actions I guess, you suggested the concern should be redirected to habitat.

How fine is 'pretty much?' How not-fine should we let it get before we show concern?

This seems to be general sentiment in that we are not overly concerned about the impact to wildlife until it becomes 'endangered,' at which point we need to act...