Not sure I agree with protecting the trees over preventing brain damage in babies, but that's just me.
Humans depend on the biosphere for survival.
I agree that protecting babies from brain damage is very important, but certainly not at any cost.
An undertaking so MASSIVE to "kill all the trees" is absolutely hyperbolic nonsense. The parent never suggested that. At worst, if your claims above are true, more logging may occur. This is a far, far, far, far cry from killing all the trees (even when limiting the context to the rainforest).
When you're arguing with someone don't derive meaning from someone's rebuttal that doesn't exist in order to help your position; it makes it appear that you only want to deal with extremes without evidence which paints your views in a nonrealistic way.
The rebuttal was all about sacrificing trees to prevent brain damage to babies which is a false dichotomy. Seems like you don't have a problem with 'extremes' of meaning that don't exist when they support your position.
While I thought the parent's comment was in snark / sarcastic it was still contextual and not as extreme (it was regarding the issue you brought up).
As for me? What did I say that was hyperbolic?
> The rebuttal was all about sacrificing trees to prevent brain damage to babies which is a false dichotomy.
Yes what krschultz wrote was a false dichotomy. Sarcasm tends to be just that. Though you, on the other hand, took his / her comments to an extreme that didn't make sense because of exactly what I said: you creative a narrative that didn't exist out of someone else's comment only to be hyperbolic to try and bolster your position.
"Not sure I agree with protecting the trees over preventing brain damage in babies" - krschultz
"If you kill all the trees[...]" - zepto (in reply to krschultz)
Do you understand now? Surely you can see the ridiculousness of your response to krschultz, regardless of his / her own snark / saracasm, right?
If it's sarcasm, then it doesn't stand as an argument and my original point goes unrefuted. You can't have it both ways.
This is digressing into utter nonsense. Go back to reddit if you want to troll.
You have chosen to label it as sarcasm to make your attack on the style rather than the substance of my point look reasonable - that's what I mean by it 'suiting you'.
I don't actually believe that the point about brain damaging babies was sarcasm. I think the poster was being serious because that is one of the harms caused by malaria. I don't at all see how this could be construed as a sarcastic comment.
If sarcasm was irrelevant, why did you base you use it to account for the false dichotomy?
Go back to reddit and have run arguing with yourself.
[0] http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_forest_management
Around the 88% of logging in Indonesia and 80% of logging in Brazil and Bolivia could be illegal in fact.