That's pathos. You're doing well, keep working at it.

But that's after the fact isn't it? Do you tell people everything you've thought of? It takes another decision (and consequently more reasoning) to communicate something. Reasoning does not require communication.

What you are referring to is "ethos" or character. It also refers to "experts" and how we are more accepting of the opinions of those who are considered "experts" in their field. For some reason you may think that I have a less valid opinion because you do not know what type or number of degrees I hold. You could be right - my opinion may not have any validity - but using ethos and a socially-constructed definition of the education level required for an "expert" is a questionable basis for decision-making, as Rhetoric is not a replacement for Reason. Which is again why the article falls flat.

And FWIW, Rhetoric and Critical Analysis is my field.

Rhetoric is the faculty of observing in any given situation all available means of persuasion. (Aristotle)

This theory (and you) seem to be suffering from a failure to understand what rhetoric is vs what reason is. Reason is the application of knowledge/experience to current or future actions or thoughts - it's cause->effect relationship awareness. You don't reach into the oven and grab a pot because you know it's hot - that's reasoning. Higher-level reasoning would be the use of a pot-holder or other tool to grab the aforementioned pot to prevent burning yourself. (The failure to be aware of and properly apply knowledge/experience and cause->effect is stupidity)

Reason is not related to communication, nor does reason require any type of social construction (except when reason deals with a social construction - such as religion) to exist - burning your hand in fire did not take a committee. They are independent and separate. That's why this "Argumentative Theory of Reasoning" falls flat on its face.

Or maybe there's no connection at all and the author is overreaching for the benefit of sales. Seriously, Just because we as a people are stupid when it comes to where/how we build (places prone to flooding, wildfire, mudslides, hurricanes, severe storms/tornados) doesn't mean there is somehow a connection to what is essentially "the beginning of the end" in the author's mind.

How is a statistic that takes the entire time period from '81-'05 relevant? Give me something that shows just the last decade please, you know the decade where California ended up owing 78 Billion (at last count) http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/bonds/debt/201008/authorized.pdf (Prior to 2003 California only owed ~23 Bil)

When you eat whatever it is you eat, you're killing something. Just because it's not warm and fuzzy and doesn't have eyeballs doesn't make a damn bit of difference. How do you know if plants feel pain? Cut off a branch of a tree - see that sap that comes weeping out? Are those tears? It's obviously a physiological response to damage. If you're over-emotional and internalize the death of something, that's your ethical problem. As for me I like steak, I like lobster, I like green beans, and I can look all three in the eyes (leaves?) and say "yum."

Now if you want to make cases about treating the animals with at least some semblance of respect, OK. I'm not gonna argue that Japanese harvest of whales is pointless because most of the meat is wasted. Or that the grisly death of male chicks is disturbing. Maybe instead of beating the anti-meat drum and going against the vast majority of the population, instead you suggest that people eat roosters too and find something else for the Japanese fisherman to do with their time.

Complaining about massive drains on resources is illogical when you waste your own resources espousing an ideology which will most likely never ever be accepted by the rest of the world. How 'bout getting off your soapbox and spending time trying to find a "happy medium" that people can embrace instead?

I flew AA to Japan and back earlier this year. The in-flight entertainment systems were spotty and from what I could tell, at least 10% of them didn't work well if at all - including 2 of the 5 nearest me. Touchscreens didn't work, sound plugs didn't work, random resets in the middle of movies (with no recourse but to watch the whole movie over again) or devices that would do nothing but show static. The systems were so unbelievably crappy that it made me wonder how well the rest of the aircraft was serviced.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/asia/new-zealand-police-sickened-at-looting-in-quake-hit-city/425038

You mean a few people got arrested for stealing generators, sneaking into the the cordoned area, and a guy with Asbergers got the hell beat out of him for breaking into a house to steal lightbulbs and an antique light fixture. People with fake ID's were trying to get into people's homes as well.

Definitely not the majority, but not the absence of issues you claim.

There are millions actually, most states are experiencing overpop problems. Not to mention the domesticated animals (cows, chickens) roving around the countryside. And since their food supplies will be less affected than ours, the wildlife will likely be better off than the humans are.

And there really wouldn't be a horde of people would there? On the scale of event you seem to be talking about, the city-dwellers likely wouldn't make it out of the concrete jungle, and they wouldn't know where to start in terms of hunting strategy, food prep and storage. The only people who think hunting is "easy" are people who haven't done it. Guns are tools used for more than just self-defense.

Considering there was looting, rape, and murder in Haiti as well as numerous reports of looting and other issues in New Zealand, maybe it's not so silly.

Sometimes it's not the disaster you have to prepare for, it's the aftermath.

Declaring you have the answer; "Atlantis was a story Plato made up in the course of a philosophical discussion." and then backing away from your unfounded argument by trying to spin your opponent's word against himself in order to lay claim to the very argument that called your own into question?

You really are a classics Ph.D candidate. Useless knob.

So did ya find that secret out in his new tell-all book?

Plato used real people in his writings and there's no way to tell at which times is he using their own words and meanings and at which times he's inventing them. The discussion has long gone on and the simple answer is we don't and won't ever know. This is why the words of Socrates are more often credited to Plato - Socrates didn't write anything, so we're taking Plato at his word. Likewise there is no way to tell for certain if references to "lore" such as Atlantis were based on local gossip or were made out of whole cloth.

Your attempt at ethos fails too. Give back your Ph.D.

The author was Robert Forward. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon's_Egg
Very clever book. I miss "hard science" fiction like his.