Our Oceans:

[leo-rcc]

G-Mark. You throw out a remark like "Did you know there is 10 times more plastic in the ocean than there is sealife?" without anything to back it up and you expect us to take that at face value?

Of course the others aren't saing there is no pollution in the oceans, of course there is. It's the 10 times more plastic than all of the living creatures in the ocean part.

[g-mark]

Leo. Tell me why that is so hard to believe?

[leo-rcc]

You are missing the point. It's not that it is hard to believe such a claim or many other claims for that matter, but believing such claims without any data to back it up is not the right thing to do.

[Eilonnwy]

Are you serious. You need evidence that we are polluting the World/Oceans to an extreme level. Where have you had your head. Any logical person would already know this info, understand it, and agree with it.
But what do I see, scepticism, like it's not happening or isn't possible. It not like what I said was beyond reasonable doubt or even a little doubt. The FACT is we are polluting the Ocean and the planet as a whole. Wake up and smell the smog.
You can carry on about evidence all you want, but what you need to do is take a look outside. Better yet, go outside and have a look around the place. Go to the beach, park, lake, river, take a look. Next time you drive somewhere take a look at the side of the road. Where do you think all that rubbish ends up when it rains. I'll give youy one guess.

Is it the Ocean? Bingo......! Hello....1 + 1 = 11.

I sometimes think alot of you spend way to much time in front of your computers and have no idea what the real world is all about, let alone the creatures that inhabit it.
Wait a moment, do you need evidence that other animals exist. I've got your evidence. Walk over to your window, open it, and have a listen. Can your hear anything? Unless, ofcourse, you live in a massive city, then I pitty you and your lungs.

Grow, consume, plunder, destroy, faster, faster. Scepticism, evidence, denial.

You say you have knowledge. Show me your evidence that you have knowledge. You saying so is just hearsay!

So why should I take you seriously?

You really have a comprehension problem don't you?

The reason why I would doubt your statement that "The ocean has 10 times more plastic than sea life" is because the ocean is vast and we have yet to even discover all the life in the sea. It stands to reason that there should be more sea life then one specific pollution type, in this case plastic. Polluting the ocean is known, of course. And yes, it's being polluted to an extreme degree, but that statement alone is suspicious and needs backing up. It's not the pollution that is the issue, it's the SPECIFIC STATEMENT of what kind of pollution and how much. Especially when the statement is not explained. The impression you gave was that chunks of plastic outnumber sea life, and when I think of plastic I think of plastic bottles, and chunks of it which floats. You failed to SPECIFY that the plastic being referred to was tiny bits of plastic that was saturating the sea and was even found in the digestive tract of the sea life. I still reserve judgment on the statement, but I find that HIGHLY more plausible than the impression you gave in your general unverified statement.

You obviously have no idea what hearsay is. Me saying I have general knowledge is not hearsay because I said it myself. Hearsay is when you hear something and you say it without any verification or first hand verification. Hear. Say. It's in the goddamn spelling of the word. Me saying something about myself is not hearsay. Learn your vocabulary.

You are also creating a logical fallacy when you insist that because we are skeptical of a specific statement that we don't think pollution exists. That's a strawman.

And even IF you make a statement which does seem plausible, it is logical to always request verification. This is how you make the best judgment calls in believing what is most true, and disbelieving what is most likely to be untrue.

Rejecting a claim because it doesn't have any facts to back it up, DOES NOT mean you claim the opposite. I never claimed the opposite of what you said, I simply rejected the premise till proof was provided. Because you made the claim, you have the burden of proving it.

I am perfectly happy accepting a claim that would normally seem implausible if there is good research and science to back it up, of which you provided NONE when you made the statement.

[g-mark]

But I have now.

[Rockthatpiano06]

Hahaha, george carlin talks about in one of his sketches that we only evolved because the earth wanted plastic

As for your claim, it depends on what you are categorizing as sealife. Because if you include every little piece of algae, coral, ect then I find it hard to believe. If you are just talking about fish and sea mammals then it isnt so hard to believe.

[Eilonnwy]

But I have now.

Yes, and then you couldn't resist implying people were dumb for being skeptical. Hence the argument. Provide proof with your statements from the beginning and people here will be more receptive the argument you're making.

[g-mark]

Yes madam, what ever you say. That's your take on things. I'm sticking to my judgement of your understanding of the subject.

Implied meaning has no substance as a view point.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Implied meaning has no substance as a view point.

Yeah but being an arse does

Kyu