Originally posted by DrKFWow...
Time to properly call you out on this one, whodey.
From the OP onwards in this thread, you have claimed that the WHO banned the use of DDT in the fight against malaria. In fact, this is untrue and wholly without foundation. You stated that 'this is, in fact, what occured'. This is not true. You claimed to be 'a person who has revealed the facts that million shred of honour or dignity, oughtn't you to apologise for spreading untruths?
And I was stupid enough to believe his propaganda and even speculated on WHO reasoning.
I shall have to remember to check my facts before buying in to misinformation.
Well caught!
I think there's a lesson to be learned from this.
When reading any book, it's important to always be asking questions about what the author is saying - always considering the possibility that the author is mistaken, exagerrating, or even telling outright lies.
And you need to be ESPECIALLY skeptical when reading something that supports your own views. (it's easy to be skeptical about something you already oppose).
Originally posted by whodeyI still don't get your constant use of the word statism - how do these decisions enhance the power of the state over the individuals within the state?
This thread is about the modern environmental movement. We will begin at the beginning of the movement. It seems to have been started in the US by one Rachel Carson in the 1960's, an opponent of pesticides, who succeeded in spreading widespread hysteria about DDT's effects on wildlife and especially children. In her book Silent Spring, she magnified the ef it? Did the first incidence of enviro-statism cause much more harm than potential good?
Originally posted by DrKFBut Dude this is how enviro-statism works. You appear to be the champion of something after you've made it successfully eradicate malaria in your own back yard, and then get your pals in the backrooms of power stall the use of something that works while it appears that you were promoting it.
In fact, the opposite is true: anyone can quite easily discover that your claim that the WHO banned DDT is entirely and wholly false. Between the early 1970s and early this century, DDT was approved but not actively promoted by the
WHO, which recognised that in some circumstances the use of DDT was the only available effective anti-malaria policy ...[text truncated]...
A bit like climate change. You use dirty energy to establish a modern world, but when the developing countries look like making inroads and pegging back your lead, you try and ban the very means that will allow them to close the gap***. 😀
**Except of course for the inconvenient truth that the US is not trying to force the world not to catch up by going hard on GW. So bad analogy!
Originally posted by DrKF
What was the book you read, whodey? Who was the author? I can quite imagine that you didn't want to tell us before, in case we went off and tried, ad hominem, to discredit the author as some sort of nut-job. But now that he or she has been revealed as a liar, maybe you'd be prepared to share? I trust that you have now discarded the book in question as being entirely unreliable, partisan nonsense deliberately spreading misinformation.
You? You were just credulous, I assume: you wanted to believe that the WHO had banned DDT and that this had resulted in millions of deaths and gobbled up base lies that fitted your preconceived prejudices. But the author of your 'book' must surely have deliberately lied in furtherance of his or her (unknown) objectives. Have you any other works by this 'anti-enviro-statist' author? Oughtn't you radically to re-evaluate how much weight you will give to what he or she says?
And really, to maintain a shred of honour or dignity, oughtn't you to apologise for spreading untruths?
It seems whodey just intends to brazen it out and wait for this one to go away.
Originally posted by FMFMan will occasionally stumble upon the truth, however, most of the time he will pick himself [up] and continue on.
It seems whodey just intends to brazen it out and wait for this one to go away.
-Winston Churchill.
User 211258