The piece is a blog posting, meaning it is opinion. You are not forced to agree with the tone of urgency and imperitive if you don’t care about the topics at hand.
Which is why I asked the question. What is accomplished if such comments resort to such a level of hyperbole to try and get a point across? And rather then just being an opinion, it comes across as a sledge hammer/I know better than anyone else opinion.
And that is perfectly fine that you feel that way. Everyone is entitled to their opinion 🙂
Which leaves me no closer to an answer than before. Should an opinion be nothing more than an angry rant, what is the point–what is accomplished?
Like I said–it is your opinion that it is an angry rant. Other people may actually find information or value in it. There isn’t really an answer to your question, because it is based in your own personal subjective opinion, as is this blog piece itself.
And the matter of “what it accomplishes” is tricky to establish. All we can say for certain that this piece has attempted to spread information. And what it has caused is this discussion. I’m not really sure what you are expecting articles on Greenanswers to accomplish besides provoking discussion…. That is essentially the point of this website.
I never stated anywhere that it was an angry rant, only that if an opinion comes across as such–not a whole lot is accomplished. As to what the purpose of greenanswers happens to be, I would guess that the name of the forum does a pretty good job of answering that question–“answers”. What I have also found in my lead up to being here, objectivity on any particular subject is the first and foremost goal.
Except in blog pieces where users are allowed to write opinion based pieces. Greenanswers “About Us” section states, “With our environmentally-minded community, we aim to be the authoritative resource on the web for environmental issues. The quality of our content is dependent upon this community. All we ask is that you treat your fellow members with respect. There is no need to agree, in fact, disagreements will make the site great, but we do ask that you do so respectfully.”
Read more: http://greenanswers.com/about#ixzz25MtEVG6H
And therein is the hangup. The title of blog was one that implied if not directly stated that oil is a resource that everyone needs but nobody wants. And then cited a couple of rather arbitrary examples as proof that the statement was valid. A thousand protesters at the white house and a host of internet petitions would not, in my view, constitute substantiation of that claim. My whole experience with these types of hot button topics is that subjectivity tends to overshadow the objective discussion of their merits/demerits and the value of any rational discussion gets lost in the process.
Interesting that…Even the “About Us” section sets this forum up to be an “authoritative resource”, a rather clear indication that the subjective should be minimized and the objective maximized. Otherwise it is no longer “to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable: clear, authoritative information”.
I am sorry you have so many problems with the piece. I still maintain that it is an opinion piece. And your opinions are perfectly valid, but still–it’s all just opinions so this argument isn’t really going anywhere. Maybe you should take it up with Greenanswers that they allow for opinion based blog pieces. Thanks for the discussion!
“Going back to a simpler life based on living by sufficiency rather than excess is not a step backward. Rather, returning to a simpler way allows us to regain our dignity, puts us in touch with the land, and makes us value human contact again.”
— Yvon Chouinard
I can also agree with you that with “hot button topics” “subjectivity tends to overshadow the objective discussion of their merits/demerits and the value of any rational discussion gets lost in the process.” But I fail to understand how you can remove the subjective from something like an opinion piece. That is the point of the piece. I think people realize when something is labeled an opinion it holds someone’s views. This piece is not trying to pass itself off as objective. You should also take into your account that it is YOUR OPINION that does not agree with the tone, etc. of the piece. So you too are making a subjectively based argument as well. But I having enjoyed this discussion. Thank you!
Am I now being dismissed? And there is no need to apologize for anything as I have no real problems with the piece, beyond so much of it seems to be so subjective. And then the added quote, just seems to inject an unnecessary level of emotion into a subject that is already overloaded with emotion.
The realities of that “simpler life” is that it is a hindsight that is clouded over with the forgotten complexities that made those times as complex as the current here and now. Another way of looking at it: Today will be the good old days for those living in tomorrow.
I am simply asking a question. And isn’t that the quintessential search for the truth of any one subject? As I pointed out earlier, the title, WE NEED IT BUT WE DON’T WANT IT,seems to have set the tone of the article. The realities are that IT ended up solving a whole host of problems that had plagued mankind for millennia, one facet of the question that tends to get lost in the emotional muddle (subjectivity).
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC