Moderator: Greg Downing

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Topic Locked  
 First unread post  | 35 posts | 
by pleverington on Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:25 pm
pleverington
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Thanks for deleting the two repeats that obviously were mess ups whoever. Things were not working as they usually do. Using color is always dicey too. sometimes the delete button is not to be found. Anyways hope all can read past my f***ups with the system..
Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

by Mark Picard on Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:41 pm
User avatar
Mark Picard
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Location: Northern Maine
Scott Fairbairn wrote:Well said Paul. I call it Trolling when multiple posts are made about a controversial subject with the sole purpose of watching what happens with the stated objective of not engaging in the debate. If that isn't nonsense then I'm not sure what is.


+1
Mark Picard
Website:  http://www.markpicard.com
Maine Photography Workshops

by Gary Briney on Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:34 pm
User avatar
Gary Briney
Lifetime Member
Posts: 18291
Joined: 25 Jul 2004
Location: USA
Member #:00336
pleverington wrote: ...Well look Gary, what's wrong with some debate??  I know what the website is about, been here over ten years now. I also know what the end reason is for our photography and that would be to benefit the nature and wildlife itself, enhance our experience of it and so on. There's no serious adversarial stuff going on that's just overeating to think so I believe. I get your hint, but that was not at all made point of before. What was made issue was that if it doesn't directly pertain to photography then it's a no go. But the guidelines specifically say "Nature and Nature photography".  Clearly no one has broken the guidelines. If it's something else, then say that and address that, instead of insisting the premise is only the does it pertain to photography aspect . I think I just want to know for sure are we ok going forward discussing and bringing up subjects if they pertain mostly to just Nature things?
It comes down to this: If you value this forum, and want it to continue, do your best to follow Royce's request in the original post. If you don't care if the forum survives, continue doing what you've always done. ;)
G. Briney

by Scott Fairbairn on Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:13 pm
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5131
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437
Gary Briney wrote:
pleverington wrote: ...Well look Gary, what's wrong with some debate??  I know what the website is about, been here over ten years now. I also know what the end reason is for our photography and that would be to benefit the nature and wildlife itself, enhance our experience of it and so on. There's no serious adversarial stuff going on that's just overeating to think so I believe. I get your hint, but that was not at all made point of before. What was made issue was that if it doesn't directly pertain to photography then it's a no go. But the guidelines specifically say "Nature and Nature photography".  Clearly no one has broken the guidelines. If it's something else, then say that and address that, instead of insisting the premise is only the does it pertain to photography aspect . I think I just want to know for sure are we ok going forward discussing and bringing up subjects if they pertain mostly to just Nature things?
It comes down to this: If you value this forum, and want it to continue, do your best to follow Royce's request in the original post. If you don't care if the forum survives, continue doing what you've always done. ;)
Gary, I fail to see what Paul has done that is so grievous as to bring about the loss of this forum as you hint.

by pleverington on Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:07 pm
pleverington
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Gary Briney wrote:
pleverington wrote: ...Well look Gary, what's wrong with some debate??  I know what the website is about, been here over ten years now. I also know what the end reason is for our photography and that would be to benefit the nature and wildlife itself, enhance our experience of it and so on. There's no serious adversarial stuff going on that's just overeating to think so I believe. I get your hint, but that was not at all made point of before. What was made issue was that if it doesn't directly pertain to photography then it's a no go. But the guidelines specifically say "Nature and Nature photography".  Clearly no one has broken the guidelines. If it's something else, then say that and address that, instead of insisting the premise is only the does it pertain to photography aspect . I think I just want to know for sure are we ok going forward discussing and bringing up subjects if they pertain mostly to just Nature things?
It comes down to this: If you value this forum, and want it to continue, do your best to follow Royce's request in the original post. If you don't care if the forum survives, continue doing what you've always done. ;)
I get it your trying to be a help here Gary. Thanks. But you know its rather a put off when people talk at you instead of with you. Especially if one has been a member for over ten years and in so many words is told shut up or get out.

So what is this...."Always done". I've not always done anything in particular. Please don't you now bring out the coloring crayons..

In any case lets shake hands and move on. You guys figure it out and get back to us.

FWIW if the site continues and actually would embrace the idea of a forum dedicated to Nature subjects alone, chances are those who want such a thing will provide an ample amount of self policing. seems people follow what the see. They see others clawing at each other thats what they'll probably do. But if everyone is cool and providing useful info that then sets the tone. I thought that's how it was actually. What skirmishes there were seem to work themselves out in short order.

And consider the points I made of how it brings variety and diversity and that promotes greater interest in the site. And many photographers find value in conservation without the camera being there.

Paul
Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

by Royce Howland on Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:41 pm
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
Wow. :)
Royce Howland

by Scott Fairbairn on Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:57 pm
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5131
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437
Royce Howland wrote:Wow. :)


Well said.  :?:

by OntPhoto on Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:25 pm
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7039
Joined: 9 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
Gary Briney wrote:
Mike in O wrote:Royse, always good to be reminded of proper decorum...I do have a comment on giving opinions.  They naturally inflame persons of a different persuasions, you can not have it both ways.  Many of the links being provided try to side step this problem by not giving opponents a reason to attack and to just spread knowledge.  If you would rather the participants really state their views, then I am sure we can accommodate you.
It's true that opinion can inflame passions, and I agree that stating positions simply and briefly is highly desirable. However Royce's request for commentary summarizing the content in the link was misinterpreted. What's needed is a brief factual statement about the subject of the link, not more opinion. For example, "Here's a link about X,Y,Z," not "Here's another source that proves you're a schmuck." In fact, the moment the pronoun "you" creeps into a response, the line has been crossed. Responsible discussion should show respect for the opposing view so that deliberate insults are avoided. That's not been the case in some recent threads. Rather than limiting discussion to the merits of varying points of view, contributors have attacked each other on a personal level.

You summed it up.  This forum has seen its share of controversial topics over the years and has done well regardless.  But once you step over the line as you indicated in the last line, that's when it becomes a free-for-all :D  Argue the topic and stay on topic and all will be just fine.

by Blck-shouldered Kite on Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:28 pm
Blck-shouldered Kite
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2669
Joined: 31 Dec 2010
Location: Maine
Without nature, there is no nature photography.


1.  I purposely DO post my opinion along with the link I may post.  

2.  In the time I have left on the planet, one of my most important purposes is to educate others to EXACTLY what is happening to nature.  That task is very difficult at times. But another very important task for me is to try to deepen people's appreciation for nature.   And I am very, very busy with this :).

3.  Nature needs all the allies "she" can get.  Lord knows there are countless millions who do not care at all about nature, and millions who destroy it for their own selfish gains.  When a natural area is "developed" to the extent that it is tar and concrete...the ballgame is over.

4. Yes, when I post something, I am very, very interested in other's opinions.   But in the vast majority of my postings, there are no responses.  I would rather to hear from them and learn their opinions.  And so I can only hope that these folks learn something.

5.  My entire life has evolved around nature....right from the very beginning.  And I am 66 years of age now.  I have worked in the field professionally, as a wildlife biologist, and I started at the very bottom.  I am a field person and always was. I do have a lot to say about the subject of nature.  I have a lot of knowledge about it that others just may not see....YET.

6. If we are to have nature, we are going to have to fight for her at times.  There is no way around this.  And all along the way we must "convince" others or clearly explain the facts to them and let them decide for themselves.  

7. Nature is free, but will not always be here for us unless we stand up for her.

8.  I appreciate people like Paul Leverington who stick their necks out with their opinions for nature.  These people are clearly on the side of nature...always.  And sadly, that is a tiny minority of the people who inhabit Earth.  If the majority of Earthlings had Paul's convictions regarding nature.....there would likely be much more opportunities for all nature photographers. :wink:

9.  With all that said, I promise to make constant efforts on staying within the NSN policies for this forum.  And thanks for this forum, because it is one more tool I am able to use to help her.


Without nature there is no nature photography.  



Robert King
http://itsaboutnature.net/

by pleverington on Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:55 pm
pleverington
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
OntPhoto wrote:
Gary Briney wrote:
Mike in O wrote:Royse, always good to be reminded of proper decorum...I do have a comment on giving opinions.  They naturally inflame persons of a different persuasions, you can not have it both ways.  Many of the links being provided try to side step this problem by not giving opponents a reason to attack and to just spread knowledge.  If you would rather the participants really state their views, then I am sure we can accommodate you.
It's true that opinion can inflame passions, and I agree that stating positions simply and briefly is highly desirable. However Royce's request for commentary summarizing the content in the link was misinterpreted. What's needed is a brief factual statement about the subject of the link, not more opinion. For example, "Here's a link about X,Y,Z," not "Here's another source that proves you're a schmuck." In fact, the moment the pronoun "you" creeps into a response, the line has been crossed. Responsible discussion should show respect for the opposing view so that deliberate insults are avoided. That's not been the case in some recent threads. Rather than limiting discussion to the merits of varying points of view, contributors have attacked each other on a personal level.

You summed it up.  This forum has seen its share of controversial topics over the years and has done well regardless.  But once you step over the line as you indicated in the last line, that's when it becomes a free-for-all :D  Argue the topic and stay on topic and all will be just fine.
It's called avoid the Red Herrings:

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.[sup][58][/sup][sup][59][/sup][sup][60][/sup]
Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.
  • Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
    • Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.[sup][61][/sup]
    • Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.[sup][62][/sup]
  • Vacuous truth
  • Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.[sup][63][/sup][sup][64][/sup]
  • Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.[sup][66][/sup]
  • Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning. [sup][67][/sup]
    • Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side[sup][68][/sup][sup][69][/sup]
    • Appeal to flattery – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support.[sup][70][/sup]
    • Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – an argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents.[sup][71][/sup]
    • Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.[sup][72][/sup][sup][73][/sup]
    • Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party.[sup][74][/sup]
    • Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.[sup][75][/sup]
  • Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality.[sup][76][/sup]
  • Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer.
  • Appeal to nature – wherein judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'.[sup][77][/sup]
  • Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis/antiquitatis) – where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.[sup][78][/sup]
  • Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)[sup][79][/sup]
  • Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.[sup][80][/sup]
  • Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).[sup][81][/sup] (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
  • Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.
  • Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.[sup][82][/sup]
  • Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.[sup][83][/sup]
  • Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same.[sup][84][/sup]
  • Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood.[sup][41][/sup]
  • Chronological snobbery – where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.[sup][85][/sup][sup][86][/sup]
  • Fallacy of relative privation – dismissing an argument due to the existence of more important, but unrelated, problems in the world.
  • Genetic fallacy – where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.[sup][87][/sup]
  • Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment.
  • Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy,[sup][88][/sup] naturalistic fallacy[sup][89][/sup]) – claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.
  • Reductio ad Hitlerum (playing the Nazi card) – comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled. (See also – Godwin's law)
  • Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[sup][90][/sup]
  • Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data.[sup][91][/sup]
  • Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy, I'm rubber and you're glue) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.[sup][92][/sup]
  • Two wrongs make a right – occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out

Paul
Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

by Gary Briney on Fri Apr 03, 2015 4:28 am
User avatar
Gary Briney
Lifetime Member
Posts: 18291
Joined: 25 Jul 2004
Location: USA
Member #:00336
Thanks for the exhaustive list of fallacious arguments. In the expectation that everyone will continue to maintain a friendly and respectful atmosphere as discussed in this thread, no changes to the EC&E forum are anticipated at this time.
G. Briney

by pleverington on Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:40 am
pleverington
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Gary Briney wrote:Thanks for the exhaustive list of fallacious arguments. In the expectation that everyone will continue to maintain a friendly and respectful atmosphere as discussed in this thread, no changes to the EC&E forum are anticipated at this time.
Yeah the list surprised me. And at one time or another I think I have witnessed all of them. I used to think a red herring was just a red herring and that was it. I think being more aware of how one can get off  the topic using debating and arguing tools that qualify as some of these fallacys can detract from anything really being accomplished in a discussion.


Paul
Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

by Primus on Fri Apr 03, 2015 12:17 pm
Primus
Lifetime Member
Posts: 905
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: New York
Member #:02003
I too have been on the net forums since 1993 (UseNet) and have seen my share of flame wars, ad-hominem attacks on people with dissenting views and what not.

I have found in NSN the only place where you CAN discuss something other than gear and technique.There are way too many sites out there, most are a pretty useless rehash of the same stuff. At NSN there is a different atmosphere, flavor, kinship almost, and an understanding that you will receive help when you need it without the condescension that accompanies it elsewhere.

The EC&E forum is unique to this site and there is no other photography related venue that even comes close to discussing the environment, much less the ethics of living on this planet and preserving the very nature that we are so fond of photographing. I truly believe the admins here should be appreciated for having such an outlet in place, and yet should be thankful that there are people like Paul who spend an enormous amount of time and energy in keeping it going. One cannot survive without the other, it is, like many things in nature, a symbiosis of purpose and intent.

Yes, a forum does evoke passions, especially if it is about a topic that people are already devoted to or passionate about. No matter how 'seasoned' we are, we sometimes do get carried away and say something we may not have said in hindsight. I believe one should be allowed the leeway to make amends and offer and apology if it was truly egregious. In my experience saying 'I am sorry' does work wonders.

However, we should also not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

For the record, I for one have really appreciated Paul's posts on this forum. He is truly passionate about nature and our small planet and it is evident in his writings. That is a rare thing and must be nurtured.

We can all agree to disagree.

Pradeep

by pleverington on Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:34 pm
pleverington
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Primus wrote:
For the record, I for one have really appreciated Paul's posts on this forum. He is truly passionate about nature and our small planet and it is evident in his writings. That is a rare thing and must be nurtured.

We can all agree to disagree.

Pradeep
Thank you very much Pradeep for such kind words. I'm rather struck with yours and others comments that have given in the way of positive support for my words and efforts. I frankly believed I was way out on the very end of some limb of a great tree. Alone.

I've been the way I am since birth as far as my attitude to the natural world. It is me. I never have felt that wildlife are inferior, subservient, less than, sub dominate,  to be controlled, slaughtered without abandon, used without pity or thought, exploited for pleasure, harvested as grains in the field, discarded as so much refuse......

I have always believed they were equal but in different ways......much as individual people are...but in different ways...


Humans dominate but they are not superior...

Human intelligence is NOT a mark of superiority... It is merely our way...much as a pair of wings are to a bird....or a song is to a whale...

And human dominance is merely an echo of a lost self. We are not individuals at all anymore. We survive and thrive because of and in spite of our abilities to build upon what the last generation accomplished. Like bees in a hive we are, alone without the colony, any animal could have its way with our marshmallow bodies and our simplistic sensory capabilities. There is no you or I without them. All of them...the millions and now billions of them that have made it possible for me and you.....

If we are to save the planet we all need to understand our true natures and place here on Earth. Not the BS so promoted by arrogant factions...


Paul
Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

by Greg Downing on Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:34 pm
User avatar
Greg Downing
Publisher
Posts: 19318
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Maryland
Member #:00001
This thread itself is a good indication of the amount of passion some have with the topics in this forum and the forum itself. There are a few folks that seem to contribute who regularly butt heads and it seems that every time we attempt to real them in we get big time push back.

At the end of the day I stand behind the initial intention and purpose for the forum and despite some heated debates we have, at the very least, had some meaningful discussions from which many have taken away value and new knowledge.

The forum will stay but as Royce wrote we encourage your posts to be civil and at least offer something related to photography other than just simply posting a link. Other than that we are pretty open to anything that effects us as photographers.

I agree that conservation issues are directly related to our craft which is why we have been open to those discussions but let's try not to make this site a place to dump political statements, make political or religious pleas nor post protests and the like.

The most important point I think we are trying to get across is to keep in mind that this is a discussion forum for PHOTOGRAPHERS not a political blog. Photographers are like-minded in the activity of photography but there are all sorts of political stances, religious beliefs etc. among us, all of which are discussions that can be partaken elsewhere.

Thread Closed
Greg Downing
Publisher, NatureScapes.Net
[url=http://www.gdphotography.com/]Visit my website for images, workshops and newsletters![/url]

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
35 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group