Posted on 08/11/2002 7:19:03 AM PDT by Skooz
I haven't seen anyone argue that. They have simply pointed out that DDT might retain benefits (such as repelling insects) even after they become resistant.
So far, you haven't made a logical argument yet. The above argument is a straw man fallacy, your bird shells/other species damage argument is both ignoring the opposing arguments and data, and your main premise is an ad hominem that those of us who support DDT are doing so from "bad motives" (ie. agricultural uses) combined with a straw dog fallacy.
Until you stumble across a logical argument by accident ('cause I doubt you could generate one on purpose), you're not worth debating...
In other words, you have no proof for your irrational fear of DDT. It's bad beacuse it's bad.
Post 61 nailed it.
ONE TEXTBOOK!? That's it? And I gave numerous studies, not texts, which aren't peer-reviewed, that show little or no correlation between DDT and shell thinning.
Amazing, you present no evidence and then look at mine and, with a wave of your hand, make it go away. Sorry, there's too much there to ignore.
DDT cultists are a discredit to conservatives.
Environmentalist wackos who swallow any junkscience thrown at them are a discredit to conservatives.
Do you support Sen. Joe Lieberman's attempt to have the United Nations oversee a worldwide ban on the use of DDT?
Until you brought up the conspiracy aspect of the DDT issue, its not something I had considered. On further reflection, I have come to the conclusion that those who support a ban of DDT are racists who want to kill off the people in less developed parts of the world.
Thank you for opening my eyes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.