Author Topic: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments  (Read 9192 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7116
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« on: November 17, 2007, 10:42:56 am »
As many of you may be aware, I sometimes like to argue for argument's sake.  Not because I enjoy winning or losing, but because I find it instructional to see how far I can go without committing a logical fallacy.  If you don't know what a fallacy is, here is the definition from my Logic book (Hurley, 2003):

Quote
A fallacy is a defect in an argument that consists in something other than merely false premises {wrong information}. . . A formal fallacy is one that may be identified by merely examining the form or structure of an argument . . . Informal fallacies are those that can be detected only by examining the content of the argument.

I bring this up only because I find that, most of the time, people on both sides of arguments I see are using fallacious arguments. Since Renee Zapf's article is the exciting thing of the moment, I thought I would make a point to show some of the fallacies that are used both in the article and in the comments against her point of view. 

Please remember that at the moment I am trying to be unbiased.  I am only looking for the fallacious arguments on both sides, and I think I have done a decently thorough job of it.  If you happen to be a Philosophy major and want to point out where I may appear biased, or where my interpretations are incorrect, please feel free to let me know!  I started this list as a personal exercise before I decided to post it.  I am not an expert!

Appeal to pity (getting support by invoking a feeling of pity in the reader):
Quote from: Renee
How can any self-respecting person venture out to the beautiful world of nature to destroy it? How does a civilized human being get their jollies from murder?
. . . taking the lives of animals that have no defense from you.

Hasty Generalization (drawing a conclusion from a group from specific examples):
Most of the article.  Some excerpts:
Quote from: Renee
Don't boast loudly during class about the deer . . .
And definitely don't boast about how its head is now dripping blood in your garage . . .
Don't wear your hunting gear to class . . .
. . . all-night spree of gunfire and beer . . .
Having animal blood all over your pants . . .

Slippery Slope (following a chain reaction to an unlikely end):
Quote from: Renee
You think the deer of future generations are going to be able to get out of the way of your speeding vehicle any faster if you kill off their best genetic lines? You're really shooting yourself in the foot with that one, or rather, shooting your children and grandchildren in the foot.
She may be more correct than I think.  I have not done any research on what effect hunters have on deer genetics and evolution.

Appeal to Force (if you don't agree, you will have harm done to you):
Quote from: Renee
. . . nor will you ever gain my respect for taking the lives of animals that have no defense from you.
Here Renee tries to use herself as a reason for being nice to animals: she threatens to withhold her respect from those who do not agree with her.  If you are close to Renee (or want to be), this would probably make an impact, but from the outside, it jumps out as a fallacy.

I have to point out that Renee's article does qualify as an opinion, and as such does not (according to common practice) have to be wholly supported by facts.  However, since she is trying to convince the reader of something, she is arguing in favor of a point, which means that she should have to follow some semblence of the rules of logic.  I am not picking on you in particular, Renee, because many writers (from the Dakota Student staff and beyond) commit the same logical mistakes.

On to the article comments on the DS website.  Again, I myself am not arguing for or against any one of these people, I just want to exhibit some of the most common fallacies committed.  Just a quick observation, I was originally thinking that the comments on Renee's ignorance and idiocy were ad hominems, but then I realized that most of them are the intended conclusions of the argument, i.e., "You are an idiot, and here are the reasons why: . . ."

False Cause (the link between the premise and the conclusion depends on a cause that does not exist):
Quote from: Dustin
This is the most ignorant article I have ever read, especially coming from an author in North Dakota!
Essentially, Dustin seems to be saying that since Renee is living in North Dakota, she should write good articles.

Quote from: Matt Amick
want to stand up to this article? join the facebook group
I think Matt is implying that joining a Facebook group will somehow change what Renee wrote.  It may also be that Matt wants to get enough people in the Facebook group so that he can use a Bandwagon fallacy (everyone else is doing it!) to convince Renee that she is wrong in her beliefs, but we cannot know what Mattís intentions are at this time.


Accident (a general rule is applied to a specific case):
Quote from: Kenny
I am very offended that you portray hunters like that. Especially in a state that prides itself on the outdoors and the recreation it provides.
Kenny is saying that, since North Dakota is friendly to hunters, and Renee lives in North Dakota, she should be friendly to hunters.  Actually, I think this could be considered Division (going from a rule applied to a whole to a rule applied to the parts).

Hasty Generalization:
Quote from: Aaron Johnson
What I find particularly disturbing about most anti-hunting rants is the misconception we all are out there boozng it up playing with our guns with no respect for our hunting partners and the general public. They also often seem to portray us a country bumpkins, cousin marrying, wife beating, smalltown, backwoods, snoose chewing, uneducated, toothless morons with no social, common, or personal sense.
Aaron presents the other side of Renee's argument and commits the same fallacy: just because Aaron does not booze it up, play with his guns, marry his cousin, beat his wife, come from a small town in the backwoods, chew snoose, lack an education, snoose, or teeth, he is arguing that nobody else does either.

Quote from: Jon Bahl
it doesn't matter if we bag any game its just the joy of being outdoors to which i can tell you have obviously never done before. we are not out drinking and shooting our guns like lunatics, where do you get your information from i would love to know. just making assumpions isn't good enough.
"This is why I hunt, therefore this is why all hunters hunt.  I am a safe hunter, therefore all hunters are safe hunters."

Red Herring (diverting the attention of the reader):
Quote from: Aaron Johnson
"All night spree of gunfire and beer"; you obviously are very ignorant to the laws set forth by the state, and seemingly ingorant in general. No night hunting and no shining of deer at night.
Red Herrings are always tricky, but here I think I can spot one: Aaron begins by taking a statement made by Renee (which was actually a Hasty Generalization) and implying that he is going to refute the statement that hunters go out on an "all night spree of gunfire and beer."  Instead, he chooses to invoke the law, which says that you cannot hunt deer at night.  In doing so he is committing an implied fallacy of Accident, saying that since the rule is "no hunting at night," no hunters hunt after dark.  At no point does Aaron address what Renee actually said, which was that [some] hunters get drunk and shoot their guns after dark.

Tu Quoque
(or, calling the other person a hypocrite.  A special form of Ad Hominem)
Quote from: Aaron Johnson
Do you eat beef, pork, or other animals??

Whether or not Renee eats beef, pork or other animals is not what is being argued about.  While it makes her look silly to rant against killing animals and then eat meat, this is not a valid basis for argument.

Quote from: Derek Wehrman
Also, I hope you make sure all your make-up, hair gell/spray and other beauty products arent tested on animals.

Quote from: John Tunge
Show some respect??? Renee should have access to a dictionary. Do as I say - not as I do.

Quote from: Tim R.
Saying you refuse to understand it, then turn around and tell many hunters (myself included) to abide by your rules of 'decency' is a gross hypocrisy.
(As an aside, Tim, this is not "Social Darwinism," this is a combination of natural and artificial selection.)

Appeal to Pity:
Quote from: Aaron Johnson
It would be a slow painful death by pesticide vs a well placed .270 round through the chest.
Here Aaron appeals to pity, which is ironic because it was Renee's appeal to pity with which he disagreed in the first place.

Appeal to Force:
Quote from: Brenden Jehlicka
this does not only slap me in the face but the majority of the campus,
This is the only one of these from the comments that I am going to highlight, but Brenden is essentially saying "I will continue to be offended unless you change your mind."  Whether or not Renee cares is up to her, but since there i actually no substance to this comment, she probably will not worry about it.

Quote from: Carson
You are more than likely the most hated person on campus and you rightfully should be. . . . i'm sure you drive a P.O.S. foreign car which means the deer will go through your windshield
Most of Carson's post was either like this or Ad Hominem.  It is a good example of letting your emotions get in the way of making a logical argument.  Yes, I know that Carson probably has the opinion of "I am right, you are wrong, and I do not care if I make any sense or not," but again, I am here to illustrate logical fallacies.

Appeal to the People (everyone else is doing it . . .)
Quote from: Brenden Jehlicka
not to mention the state of which she now lives in which has one of the highest percentage of hunters
"There are lots of hunters in North Dakota; why is Renee being so weird?"  This is also probably Accident again: "Since the majority of North Dakotans think like hunters, all North Dakotans must think like hunters."

Begging the Question (reasoning in a circle):
Quote from: Jon Bahl
this article is completely ludacris and completely false. i think you should state true facts and maybe research before you go about writing lies.
"How do we know this article is completely false?  Because I said it is!"  This may falls under Appeal to Unqualified Authority as well, but since it is couched as an opinion we can probably let it slide.

Ad Hominem:
Quote from: Scott
YOUR DUMB!

Quote from: Carson
LOL....judging by your picture, you have NO room to talk about fashion.... your hair looks GREAT and those earings REALLY bring out your eyes! I feel terrible for the person you call your boyfriend.

Quote from: Randy Bates
Brainee speaks of becoming a more, "ethical person." Let me see, she eats meat from giant animal mills that pack the animals together by the 10s of thousands, feed them for a short time, then has some indiscriminate person kill them in droves on an assembly line. Not one animal destined for the market has any chance of living beyond 16 months of age, be it a chicken, pig or cow.
Since we donít know where Renee gets her meat, we have no basis upon which to judge this statement.  The same goes for this one:

Quote from: Randy Bates
But let's guess how Brainee spends her weekends? Anyone thinking she attends the odd Frat party or hangs out at the local club or bar? Hmmm, I drink the odd beer(never more than 2) and spend my time enjoying nature. On the other hand there is a good chance that Brainee gets smash mouth drunk, wakes up with a hangover, and brags about not being able to remember if she hooked up with anyone last night.
Randy has a few good arguments, but the rest of them are either direct attacks on Reneeís character (basic Ad Hominem) or calling her a hypocrite (Ad Hominem: Tu Quoque).



It seems that this post has gone on long enough.  While there are more comments on the article at the Dakota Student website, I think Iíve covered the major fallacies that have been used by both Renee and the people arguing against her.  As you may have realized, this is not a perfect science and that trying to find fallacies in an opinion article and comments on that article is like shooting fish in a barrel.  However, I hope this is instructional to you, and maybe next time you have to argue a point (or write an article), you will think of what you are basing your comments on before you write them.

« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 12:26:16 pm by Sal Atticum »
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline Admiral Ackbar

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: 1
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2007, 02:14:26 pm »
It gets better.  Like this one:

Quote from: Erik Marquette
Can I have you phone number. I'd like to take you out some night then when I wake up at 4am in your nice pink bed and put on my bloody pants and leave, you would then feel how I do right now after reading this, SICK.

Yes.  Calling someone a slut because you don't agree with them.  Stay classy UND.
IT'S A TRAP!!!!1!

Offline Admiral Ackbar

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: 1
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2007, 02:17:23 pm »
This one from the Facebook group is nice. Hey Renee, now you can call the cops on this kid once he starts to harrass you, although I bet he doesn't have the balls to do it.

Quote from: Jon Bahl
so wherdoes she live anyone got her number im planning on calling her tomorrow at about 4:30 A.M. to see if she would like to tag along on some goose slayin, i think ill call her everyday when i go out and check in...haha
IT'S A TRAP!!!!1!

Offline Tim

  • Lord of the Laugh
  • Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: 4
  • Gender: Male
    • Tim the Conservative Flower Child Press
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2007, 02:57:37 pm »
"Saying you refuse to understand it, then turn around and tell many hunters (myself included) to abide by your rules of 'decency' is a gross hypocrisy."

Hello, thank you for quoting me.

This IS a hypocrisy.  She says we should "grow up" and expand our horizons but, by her own admissions, says she refuses to do the same.  It negates her point that she is enlightened and we hunters are people who refuse to grow up when she refuses to try and understand why individual hunters are the way they are.  It's a perfectly valid point and I reiterated it in my final sentence.  And sorry for the incorrect usage of terms; I'll be sure to wear a cone hat and sit in the corner later today.  ;)

As for the other comments, I agree, they were grossly out of line hence why I was careful in my wording. 
Tim the Conservative Flower Child Press wants your ideas!  Submit them today!!

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7116
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2007, 03:20:55 pm »
I figured you would enjoy being quoted :)

According to the 'rules of logic,' however, the fact that she is a hypocrite is irrelevant to the argument she is making.  Everybody commits this fallacy all the time, but if we are to judge the quality of her argument, we should leave her actual actions out of it.  Granted, in the real world people get judged on whether their words and actions match up, and I can agree that I may not fully trust a person who says one thing and does another, but when you evaluate the argument itself and ignore the person who said it, calling them a hypocrite doesn't make much sense.

For some reason Renee decided to give up certain truths about her actions, e.g., that she was not a hunter, and that she thought of hunting as murder.  This was as damaging to her reputation as basing the actions of all hunters off of the actions of a few was to her argument.  I can only wonder what would have happened had a hunter written this article, admitted she was a hunter, and then said "You know, maybe we should do these things to enhance our image with the rest of the campus . . ."



JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline Tim

  • Lord of the Laugh
  • Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: 4
  • Gender: Male
    • Tim the Conservative Flower Child Press
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2007, 03:28:57 pm »
According to the 'rules of logic,' however, the fact that she is a hypocrite is irrelevant to the argument she is making.  Everybody commits this fallacy all the time, but if we are to judge the quality of her argument, we should leave her actual actions out of it.

I guess this is where I scratch my head in bewilderment since I disagree with the "rules" entirely.  In the world a person's message is also judged by who it is being sent by and how they conduct themselves.  It's like when Rosie O'Donnel preached against the private ownership of firearms, yet her bodyguard kept a concealed firearm on him at all times and even when he took her kids to school.  People personify their messages when they preach it as "fact" or a "moral truth," thus when they are proven wrong their message is proven wrong.  I can see how this might be considered a fallacy but consider this; once their message is thrown down because they have been thrown down, there's a slight chance that they'll open up to see the other side just for a looksee.  Slight chance but the world turns on such chances. 

I guess the fundamental difference between the rules and the world is that one is idealistic while the other is practical. 
Tim the Conservative Flower Child Press wants your ideas!  Submit them today!!

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7116
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2007, 03:46:33 pm »
I definitely appreciate the difference between Logic and the Real World.  What saddens me is that in the Real World, no one is ever allowed to change their mind when they learn new facts or have new experiences.  That's not what happened here, of course, but if Renee wanted to go out and hunt tomorrow and write a column about it, how many of the people who support her now (I am sure there are some) would throw a fit about that column?  Most of them, I imagine.  The thing is, if that were the case, they wouldn't have anything they could base their anger on.  It would be her choice to hunt, just as it is her choice not to hunt, and there isn't anything anyone else can do about it.

I'm getting a little far afield in my imaginary cases.  Yes, I think it was rather silly for Renee to write a column about something she may not understand completely.  I think it was silly of her to try to make people conform to her standards of dress by attacking something they apparently hold very dear.  In my opinion, however, attacking her personally in order to bring down her message is a low tactic (see that ad hominem that slipped in there? ;)).  There are many reasons (many of them stated in the comments) that hunting is not an absolute evil, and I think that if she had marshaled her arguments in a less demeaning way towards hunters, she may have received some more polite feedback.  If she had stuck to her title "Showing some respect to those of us who don't hunt" and her four points, she would have had something going for her.  By claiming that people shouldn't hunt at all she opened herself up to more vitriolic attacks.

The idealistic rules are interesting when you apply them in an idealistic setting--if, for example, you were on the debate team and the argument you were assigned was "Hunting is bad," your opponent should NOT be able to say "Well, Tim is actually a hunter, so you can't take anything he says at face value."  It's one of my dreams that American citizens be able to analyze arguments critically in order to make decisions about out country in a more logical way.
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline Admiral Ackbar

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: 1
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2007, 09:50:58 pm »
Here's some more great quotes from Facebook from these assholes.  Hope your parents google you sometime and read these!


Quote from: Mitch Goertz
take every dead animal carcass you kill and put it on her doorstep. fuckin dyke deserves everythign she's gonna get in the next few weeks

Quote from: someone's idiot friend, supposedly
If that article wasn't bullshit... then i don't know what is. What is she thinkin? I only had to read for 10 seconds (prolly not even) before i was irate. Where in the hell does she think she is??? THis is the northern part of the country bia! This is ND and hunting is what it's all about up here. No-good, Hippy-loving, queer-supporting assholes like that should move to san fransisco and start marching down the street with a purple fuckin flag. Better yet... get the hell out of the USA!! We don't need ignorant morons like that polluting our air. Tree-huggin animal screwers who don't have a clue what they are talking about aren't worth any more than the dirt they walk on. I'm done ranting and raving, but shit like that needs to stop. Let's go start crackin the guns boys, but save 2 shells. One for Bin Laden, and one for any idiot who wants to write something that stupid in a hunting community.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 07:44:22 am by mburtonk »
IT'S A TRAP!!!!1!

Offline pmp6nl

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5617
  • Karma: 113
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota.com
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2007, 11:16:04 pm »
Wow this is crazy.

I will comment after my brain rests then has an opportunity to reprocess everything.
CampusDakota.com

Offline Admiral Ackbar

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: 1
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2007, 09:34:47 am »
This guy is not so much on her side but against people being mean to her.  He makes more sense than they do at least.

Quote from: John Kappel
While I do not totally agree with everything said in her article, there are some things that need to be stated right here and now.
1) YOU GUYS ARE SERIOUS ASSHOLES!!!!!!! Calling her a dyke, bitch, slut, ho, and ho bag along with various other insults and wanting to find out where she lives so you can leave dead animal bodies on her doorstep is probably one of the saddest most pathetic things I have ever heard of. You sit there and both you and Renee attack each other for the using the one thing above all else that makes this country great, PERSONAL FREEDOM!!! You people are unbelieveable. I am almost sickened that I plan on serving my country to protect the freedom's which both of you are attacking right now.
2) Everyday people say and do things that I find offensive. It happens to everyone, whether it be on the news, radio, newspaper, magazine or whatever. Does this mean that everytime I become insulted I am susposed to attack that person, with insults and threats? HELL NO!!!  You ignore it, you let it roll off your back. Ever heard the term, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words may never hurt me."? Guess not. When you say, "And who cares what people ware; you don't have to look at it." (taken from the article form on the DS website.) Well who cares what she says; YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ IT!
3) Did you ever think that what you are doing right now (becoming all worked up over this article) is exactly what she wanted and intended to happen, and that you are playing right into her hands? I would put money on the fact that the next issue of the Dakota Student is ate up like a fat kid on cake and that it will be near impossible to walk to where you would normally pick up a copy of the DS and get an issue 2 or 3 days later. Unlike the way it is now where many issues go unread and just sit there until they are recycled (at least I hope they are.)
4) You are sitting there attacking Renee for not understanding, not seeing your side, basically for being ignorant and uninformed. Yet you are doing the exact same thing! How many of you have heard what she is actually saying and not just taken offense and immediately written it off as tree-hugging, hippie, bull-crap? How many of you in reading that article went to the DS office and asked if you could set up an appointment with Renee to discuss her article with her; cooly and calmly? Don't make yourselves out to be higher and mightier than she is, by acting in this way you are actually sinking down to her level and are no better than she is. She wrote her opinion in a newspaper, because she is a editorialist and incase you didn't know that is what editorialist do; they write there opinion on things. It isn't some great sin just because she doesn't agree with hunting of animals, get off her back.
So inconclusion, STOP acting in this insulting fashion. You aren't actually helping anyone or anything. In fact by acting in this way you are polarizing yourselves, by pushing away people like me, who would otherwise be on your side. Not to mention by acting in this way you make yourselves look like a bunch of angry, drunk, uninformed, uneducated, country hicks; which I am almost positive most of you are not. Also presenting yourself in this fashion is actually supporting her views by giving her perfect examples of the grossly inaccurate sterotype that I just stated above. Sorry but you all are making yourselves out to be just as wrong on this as she is.
IT'S A TRAP!!!!1!

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7116
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2007, 09:39:48 am »
Maybe it's an age thing.  You can find more reasoned responses at NodakOutdoors.com.

EDIT:  Well, you could.  Now it's more of the same old thing.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 09:04:06 am by mburtonk »
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline red hibiscus

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Karma: 14
  • Gender: Female
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2007, 12:21:34 pm »
This guy is not so much on her side but against people being mean to her.  He makes more sense than they do at least.

At least somebody's willing to comment on how out of line some of these guys are. Not gonna lie...I'd be a little afraid if I was Renee...

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7116
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2007, 05:43:42 pm »
It's official:  Renee Zapf's article has pulled ahead of the article that started the Great Sweatpants Debacle of 2006, as measured by the number of comments on the Dakota Student website.  Renee now has 81 comments, most of which angrily attack her.  There are also a few on her other articles that attack her for this article, but those we're not going to count (seriously guys, you need to pay attention to which article you are posting!).

In comparison, Rhiannon Conley's article (Ladies, stay in bed - you look like trash) ended up with a total of 71 comments. 

While we're comparing utterly meaningless measures of popular opinion, let's go to Facebook.  The anti-Rhiannon group (Girls Who look better in Sweatpants than Rhiannon Does in Jeans) STILL has 194 members.  At its peak I remember it having over 400 within a couple days of the article coming out.  In contrast, The anti-Renee group (und camo unite in response to renee zapf [sic]) has a poor showing with only 51 members at the time of posting.

It looks like Rhiannon is still in the lead for now--but will Renee catch up?  Will she be hampered by the long weekend coming up, or will that give her detractors more time to organize themselves?  Will she be able to make people expend more energy over what she said than they did over what Rhiannon said?  We'll see in the next Dakota Student, I'm sure! 

Whether hunters on campus feel as strongly about their sport of choice as sorority girls do about their sweatpants is about to be decided--who will it be?
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7116
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2007, 07:10:11 pm »
It has spread to this site.

EDIT:  This one as well.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 04:24:32 pm by mburtonk »
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline goon

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Karma: 4
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2007, 01:14:05 am »
Maybe it's an age thing.  You can find more reasoned responses at NodakOutdoors.com.

EDIT:  Well, you could.  Now it's more of the same old thing.

First off Hunters are a bunch of knuckle dragging nethanderals like this nit wit claims. Most hunters I know don't drink before they go out hunting and if she doesn't like North Dakota, go somewhere else. These are the same people that will also complain when they hit a deer on the highway driving back to the place they call home. Hunters are conservationist and hunting deer thins the herd.


Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7116
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2007, 07:47:36 am »
Maybe it's an age thing.  You can find more reasoned responses at NodakOutdoors.com.

EDIT:  Well, you could.  Now it's more of the same old thing.

First off Hunters are a bunch of knuckle dragging nethanderals like this nit wit claims. Most hunters I know don't drink before they go out hunting and if she doesn't like North Dakota, go somewhere else. These are the same people that will also complain when they hit a deer on the highway driving back to the place they call home. Hunters are conservationist and hunting deer thins the herd.



Aside from the "nit wit" line and the "these are the same people" conclusion, I don't see any logical problem with what you have to say.

Of course, this wouldn't be a North Dakota argument without the "if you don't like it, leave!" statement :)
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline goon

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Karma: 4
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2007, 08:16:23 am »
Maybe it's an age thing.  You can find more reasoned responses at NodakOutdoors.com.

EDIT:  Well, you could.  Now it's more of the same old thing.

First off Hunters are a bunch of knuckle dragging nethanderals like this nit wit claims. Most hunters I know don't drink before they go out hunting and if she doesn't like North Dakota, go somewhere else. These are the same people that will also complain when they hit a deer on the highway driving back to the place they call home. Hunters are conservationist and hunting deer thins the herd.



Aside from the "nit wit" line and the "these are the same people" conclusion, I don't see any logical problem with what you have to say.

Of course, this wouldn't be a North Dakota argument without the "if you don't like it, leave!" statement :)

LOL, that is funny. I can't believe she wrote this. I am not sure what she is trying to do. All I know is she will be the first one to complain when she has a deer strike with her vehicle.

Offline Admiral Ackbar

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: 1
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2007, 11:04:52 am »
Look ma, someone with a sense of scale!

Quote from: Really? (article comments)
It's so good to see a student body reacting to such a great cause ...because a columnist at a college paper is really going to change the atmosphere of hunting in the Midwest.

When I went home to hunt over opening weekend in Minnesota I noticed that in the Friday edition of the Duluth News Tribune, a more well written and rational view on why deer hunting was wrong in their opinion section and I reacted the same way as when I read this ...I decided to walk away from it as it had no impact whatsoever on my life.

I didn't hear of any response like this (to Zapf's coliumn) with the Tribune's letter to the editor, as I am assuming it has to do with the maturity of the readership, and in the Tribune's case the readership handled it properly- if you didn't agree just let it be.

But in this case the fact that the article was poorly written seems to add reason for reaction, but again, this is not true. It is all the more reason to ignore it and just let it be. Is it going to spark an anti-hunting movement in the Midwest? absolutely not. But apparently just disagreeing is enough to draw the ire of a student body that has habitually united under absolutely absurd causes.

In the DS on November 16, Cory Hann wrote about talking to a representative from another school in a similar situation as UND, with the move to Division I, and the rep had this to say: "English also noted the high cost of making such a move, saying, "It's been a challenge, we've pretty much tripled or quadrupled our student fee."

Past the fact that student fees will rise due to the move to Division I the school is dealing with a declining enrollment (less students is really going to help paying for that Division I move), a logo issue (another cost effective issue), and other dilemma's due to construction on campus ...but I guess a column that no one will care about in a week is more important than a hit to the pocket book.

My advice to any student at UND enraged, sickened, or whatever term you chose to use by this column is to walk away from the gut reaction that you have been following and realize how irrelevant this column is to your life and focus on the issues that are going to face you in the coming years as far as student costs, athletic competition and your logo are concerned.

I have a feeling all of those issues might be a little more relevant to you and whoever is responsible for paying for your "education" at UND.
IT'S A TRAP!!!!1!

Offline Admiral Ackbar

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: 1
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2007, 11:05:37 am »
Oh, and it looks like there is another Facebook group, looking to boycott businesses that advertise in the DS.

Woopedeedoo.
IT'S A TRAP!!!!1!

Offline Red

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Karma: 5
Re: Fallacies in a recent Dakota Student article and its comments
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2007, 12:54:19 am »
Look ma, someone with a sense of scale!

Quote from: Really? (article comments)
It's so good to see a student body reacting to such a great cause ...because a columnist at a college paper is really going to change the atmosphere of hunting in the Midwest.

When I went home to hunt over opening weekend in Minnesota I noticed that in the Friday edition of the Duluth News Tribune, a more well written and rational view on why deer hunting was wrong in their opinion section and I reacted the same way as when I read this ...I decided to walk away from it as it had no impact whatsoever on my life.

I didn't hear of any response like this (to Zapf's coliumn) with the Tribune's letter to the editor, as I am assuming it has to do with the maturity of the readership, and in the Tribune's case the readership handled it properly- if you didn't agree just let it be.

But in this case the fact that the article was poorly written seems to add reason for reaction, but again, this is not true. It is all the more reason to ignore it and just let it be. Is it going to spark an anti-hunting movement in the Midwest? absolutely not. But apparently just disagreeing is enough to draw the ire of a student body that has habitually united under absolutely absurd causes.

In the DS on November 16, Cory Hann wrote about talking to a representative from another school in a similar situation as UND, with the move to Division I, and the rep had this to say: "English also noted the high cost of making such a move, saying, "It's been a challenge, we've pretty much tripled or quadrupled our student fee."

Past the fact that student fees will rise due to the move to Division I the school is dealing with a declining enrollment (less students is really going to help paying for that Division I move), a logo issue (another cost effective issue), and other dilemma's due to construction on campus ...but I guess a column that no one will care about in a week is more important than a hit to the pocket book.

My advice to any student at UND enraged, sickened, or whatever term you chose to use by this column is to walk away from the gut reaction that you have been following and realize how irrelevant this column is to your life and focus on the issues that are going to face you in the coming years as far as student costs, athletic competition and your logo are concerned.

I have a feeling all of those issues might be a little more relevant to you and whoever is responsible for paying for your "education" at UND.



Yeah great sense of scale.  If I don't like something I should just walk away.  Fuck voting, politicians suck, screw the law, I don't like people who break it anyway, to hell with defending the country, I don't agree with terrorist, and forget taxes, I don't really need a paved road.  And they are here for the Jews, not me.

Since this moron has such a great since of scale I would like to know what we are to do about combating rising tuition, our beloved school logo, and our move to division 1?  Oh yeah, he said some stuff, and then didnít back it up, just like Renee.  Furthermore, if this guy would take his own advice, then he would have never written this garbage.  Does paying an extra 7 grand over 4-5 years really affect me 15 years down the road?  Does moving to division one have any bearing on my vacation 10 years from now?  Does declining enrolment really bother me?  I could give two shits if this school burns to the ground once I leave.  All those more important issues that REALLY wrote about are the short term inconsequential issues that nobody really cares about.  I am not going to be a student my whole life, but I will always be a hunter.


*as for the profanity, it is not my style, but I felt it was warranted*
100 percent of everything is attitude

 

realistic
anything