anchor-outs have significantly harmed the ecosystem

[JPA Cate]

There's another problem with public moorings in New South Wales. They tend to be abused. They are posted as to displacement permitted, and length of stay. It is common for people to stay longer than the 24 hrs. most commonly allotted. Sometimes, days longer. The pattern we've observed so far is that eventually someone reports the overstayers. Then, the moorings disappear. The rumor is that it costs too much to maintain the moorings annually, and they don't want the liability issues.

So, although apparent solutions may be presented, in actuality, it is not that easy to "fix" the problem; especially when there are other, humanitarian, problems competing for what is already limited funding.

Ann

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Singularity:
...[1] but your [Gord's] inability to appropriately recognize satire caused you to charge others with cognitive dysfunction.
[2]At the same time, there's a lot of "expert" environmentalism indulgent activities here.
An expert is somebody who is more than 50 miles from home, has no responsibility for implementing the advice he gives, and shows slides. Edwin Meese
[3]It has been established argued here that ...

Originally Posted by GordMay

[1] In post #195, the author references municipal sewage spills to (implied) seagrass degradation (or boater sewage discharge); with which the author of post #195 agreed.
These "not as bad as" arguments represent a Logical Fallacy of Relative Privation.
BTW: If the argument is about ranking things from bad to worse, then it's fine.
I don’t believe that presenting a logical fallacy (dismissing an argument or complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world) represents a cognitive dysfunction, which is the loss of intellectual functions such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning of sufficient severity to interfere with daily functioning. Patients with cognitive dysfunction have trouble with verbal recall, basic arithmetic, and concentration.

The problem I see with this sort of reasoning is that it requires the application of rather broad, amorphous concepts to specific fact patterns that make for an awkward and often misleading fit. It's not only vague and seemingly superficial, but encourages a level of subjectivity that is the opposite of the pseudo-scientific objectivity it purports to achieve. What examples did the author of the "Logical Fallacy of Relative Privation" have in mind when he came up with this "concept"? Isn't it just a convoluted, "expert sounding" way of stating a given, depending on particular facts & circumstances?

And isn't this thread an illustrative example? Are posters really "dismissing an argument or complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world," i.e. your logical fallacy? Or are they really saying what you then claim is fine, namely pointing out -- with various degrees of sarcasm in some cases -- higher priorities or, as you say, "ranking things from bad to worse?" Or are the two even distinguishable? From my reading anyway, "dismissing" the degradation of the eelgrass requires rejecting the scientific findings of the study, namely that eelgrass is a foundational and therefore essential element of a much larger ecosystem, and that anchoring has caused some (reversible) degradation. But contrary to the logical fallacy you cite, common sense suggests that few if any of these same posters take that view. Instead, I haven't read much if any challenge to the expert opinion on the basic science. But in light of the relatively small amount of eelgrass adversely affected, balanced against the likely harm that would result from the proposed remedies, they are simply pointing out what appears all too obvious.

[2] I don’t know what you mean.

My guess would be the all too common trend these days to latch onto "expert opinions" merely because they suggest alignment with much broader but often irrelevant political or philosophical views, and doing so without thinking through the costs or adverse consequences. By shrouding your disapproval under the cloak of an "expert" theorem, aren't you really just saying what we hear all too often in a much more crass way? That is, any attempts at responsible cost-benefit analyses when it comes to environmental issues are equivalent to "not caring about the environment?" Must all such discussions bring out such linear thinking?

[3] Fixed that for you.

A better fix might be to point out that an argument has been firmly established against closing the anchorage or installing moorings in its stead. Which begs the question, what is the argument for it? Does it sound to you that the costs & consequences of restoring the health of the affected eelgrass make such remedies worthwhile? You can rest assured that no Logical Fallacies of Relative Privation will be invoked, induced, created, or implicated by a complete & honest answer.

[JohnHutchins]

Originally Posted by GordMay

[1] In post #195, the author references municipal sewage spills to (implied) seagrass degradation (or boater sewage discharge); with which the author of post #195 agreed.
These "not as bad as" arguments represent a Logical Fallacy of Relative Privation.
BTW: If the argument is about ranking things from bad to worse, then it's fine.
I don’t believe that presenting a logical fallacy (dismissing an argument or complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world) represents a cognitive dysfunction, which is the loss of intellectual functions such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning of sufficient severity to interfere with daily functioning. Patients with cognitive dysfunction have trouble with verbal recall, basic arithmetic, and concentration.

[2] I don’t know what you mean.

[3] Fixed that for you.

FWIW:
“An expert is someone who has succeeded in making decisions and judgements simpler through knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore. “
“Most of the mistakes in thinking are inadequacies of perception rather than mistakes of logic.”
“If you never change your mind, why have one?”
“Humor is by far the most significant activity of the human brain.”
~ All by Edward de Bono The de Bono Group - Edward Debono

I don't think the thrust of these arguments really is "nothing matters if it's not the worst thing happening."

It seems to me more these people have to live somewhere in some way and notwithstanding damage to eelgrass, anchored out in Richardson Bay is far less destructive, ecologically, than the ways almost everyone else in the bay area shelters themselves and survives and therefore less destructive ecologically than almost every other way they could live were they not anchored in Richardson Bay. Which strikes me as neither fallacious nor an especially easy argument to dismiss.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by JohnHutchins

I don't think the thrust of these arguments really is "nothing matters if it's not the worst thing happening."

It seems to me more these people have to live somewhere in some way and notwithstanding damage to eelgrass, anchored out in Richardson Bay is far less destructive, ecologically, than the ways almost everyone else in the bay area shelters themselves and survives and therefore less destructive ecologically than almost every other way they could live were they not anchored in Richardson Bay. Which strikes me as neither fallacious nor an especially easy argument to dismiss.

The two quotes, I was referring to were:
“They fail to mention the millions of gallons of raw sewage that is accidentally spilled into Richardson Bay by the municipal Sewage treatment plant. This has happened more than once... “
“The city of San Francisco’s filth has harmed more to our eco system! Clean it up...”

Otherwise, I think I generally agree with your position.
The (simple) solution to homelessness is homes.

I wish I hadn’t (gratuitously) mentioned the logical fallacy. It only cheapens my welcome message, and may have scared off a couple of new members. I apologise to those members, and hope you’ll give the forum (& me) another chance.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by JohnHutchins

I don't think the thrust of these arguments really is "nothing matters if it's not the worst thing happening."

It seems to me more these people have to live somewhere in some way and notwithstanding damage to eelgrass, anchored out in Richardson Bay is far less destructive, ecologically, than the ways almost everyone else in the bay area shelters themselves and survives and therefore less destructive ecologically than almost every other way they could live were they not anchored in Richardson Bay. Which strikes me as neither fallacious nor an especially easy argument to dismiss.

These arguments never seem to get dismissed, only ignored. Or responded to angrily with personal accusations of "anti-environmentalism." It would be hard to think of many environmental regulations that, whatever their positives, do not involve a downside. The issues to be considered are rarely if ever one-sided, so it does a disservice to both sides to not consider both. Indeed, I think this is why the environmentalist movement has lost credibility. Proposed regs don't get thoroughly vetted and unintended consequences ensue, sometimes at the expense of the environment.

In the present case, the cost-benefit analysis could easily change if, for example, the affected eelgrass was the only remaining patch left in the Bay. Or sensitive coral was a factor, etc. Or maybe if there was no way to remedy the problems associated with derelict boats and illegal sewage dumping. This seems to be exactly the way this particular thread has gone (for a change), and I cannot see any logical fallacy to any of it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The two quotes, I was referring to were:
“They fail to mention the millions of gallons of raw sewage that is accidentally spilled into Richardson Bay by the municipal Sewage treatment plant. This has happened more than once... “
“The city of San Francisco’s filth has harmed more to our eco system! Clean it up...”

How are these posts a logical fallacy? Is this not simply a way of ranking the severity of different sources of pollution into the Bay? You've already acknowledged that this was "fine." How is this different? Or more importantly, what's the point? To try and dismiss a valid argument with what appears to be sophistry? What about the merits or demerits of the various proposed courses of action?

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by JohnHutchins

I don't think the thrust of these arguments really is "nothing matters if it's not the worst thing happening."

It seems to me more these people have to live somewhere in some way and notwithstanding damage to eelgrass, anchored out in Richardson Bay is far less destructive, ecologically, than the ways almost everyone else in the bay area shelters themselves and survives and therefore less destructive ecologically than almost every other way they could live were they not anchored in Richardson Bay. Which strikes me as neither fallacious nor an especially easy argument to dismiss.

Yep, nothing buggers up an ecology worse than digging it up and building there or paving an area of land over to build a street, parking lot or highway.

[double u]

...haven't read everything, but the thought that comes to my mind is:
"Don't breathe! Breathing releases CO2, a greenhouse-gas, & so accelerates climate change!"

[comesatime]

2.5 years later:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...richardson-bay

[SV THIRD DAY]

Studies show Computers, Internet Form and FakeBook use is having catastrophe impact on the Environment. The plastics, devices and power usage to feed the never ending hunger for more content, more posts, more likes and more shares is destroying mother Gia.

The Solution:
Post more, Surf more and Complain more online about SOMEONE ELSE.


There....now after that virtue signal....excuse me...I need to make a quick run to Costco and Walmart to buy more stuff.

[boatpoker]

We live on 300 gallons of fresh water per month. 630watts of solar generated electricity and use about 400 gallons of diesel per year.

We are a fraction of the carbon footprint of ANY city dweller.

I don't feel too bad if I hurt the eel grass a little as we're doing a miniscule fraction of the damage done by urbanites or suburbanites.

[Sandy Frank]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

We live on 300 gallons of fresh water per month. 630watts of solar generated electricity and use about 400 gallons of diesel per year.

We are a fraction of the carbon footprint of ANY city dweller.

I don't feel too bad if I hurt the eel grass a little as we're doing a miniscule fraction of the damage done by urbanites or suburbanites.

Some minutia.

You and your partner produce about 2 metric tons of C02 per year.

A NYC resident would produce about 6 metric tons a year.

The typical American produces 20metric tons per year.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Sandy Frank

Some minutia.

You and your partner produce about 2 metric tons of C02 per year.

A NYC resident would produce about 6 metric tons a year.

The typical American produces 20metric tons per year.

And I don't feel the least guilty about it.
I readily concede that I am minutia in the eyes of the world.

[Bycrick]

This battle has been going on since before I bought my first boat in 1975. I kept it in Sausalito, so I saw this first hand. It’s largely a huge game. The anchor outs, which have been everything from tiny boats to a big concrete houseboat, all claim to be poverty stricken or the last vestige of the hippies and art community. The people on shore, whether they just don’t like the view obstruction, or people coming ashore to use various facilities and services for free, or destroying the environment keep desperately hunting for reasons to throw them out. It obviously hasn’t happened yet.

As for the Audubon Society, you should distrust them to the same extent you’d distrust anybody who makes a living finding causes that they can use to extract donations. That doesn’t imply that they’re crooked, just that they have an axe to grind.

[northbeach]

The greedy land grabbing developers are destroying the environment, not a few sailors and veterans living quietly on their boats. The people funding this smear campaign against sailors are now (July 13, 2022) conducting a massive real estate swindle and land grab on the Sausalito waterfront as they try to steal all the Marinship Waterfront Property that is protected through ZONING LAWS for use by Mariners and Fine Artists, and has been for decades. You had better act fast to stop the rezoning of the Marinship in Sausalito because these developers are pushing their REZONE plan. They have already posted their massive building plans along the protected portion of the waterfront. The locals are complacent because they believe this is like all the previous attempts to steal their land, but this time is different. These developers have spent a decade on their smear campaign, and are planning to get the land rezoned now. Today the laws are on your side, act now. Good luck Sausalito! Stop the Rezone Now.

Originally Posted by comesatime

New study by Audubon California:

https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/...y-13857108.php