A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you continue to mock me Vivisectus? If someone makes a wild assertion, obviously it needs to be tested for validity.

Hey, Peacegirl, I'm worried about this safety book. Makes me shudder to think what's inside.

"To tell a child not to cross the street against the light, is to blame it for its desire to play in traffic."

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right about what?

Woodpeckers.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing about efferent vision that goes against the laws of physics Vivisectus.

So again sez the idiot who has ignored everything that her intellectual betters have tried to teach her.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's quite a nice offer, thank you. However, would you be willing to donate your book to our local public library? My son regularly participates in their excellent children's program, which includes twice weekly read alouds and crafts, puppet shows, musical guests, etc. but the state keeps cutting funding.

The children's librarians would be thrilled to accept an author donation I am sure, and perhaps they can read the book aloud to many kids?

I just copied the address and phone number. I'll email them or call them before the end of the week.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Here's a listing, looks interesting.

http://www.borders.com/online/store/...sku=0965560406

I had no idea it was listed on Borders website. Thanks for letting me know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

lol you do a pretty good job of typing with both hands nailed to the cross like that.

There. Is your martyr desire satisfied?

Where does this martyr thing coming from? I'm not a martyr, never have been, nor do I want to be. Wanting to help mankind does not make me a martyr. I just looked up martyr, and I do not fit the description.

The Martyr Complex

Posted on June 23, 2007 by Krishna

One of the most destructive behaviors in any relationship is the existence of someone with a martyr complex. As the definition from Wikipedia explains, a “person who has a ‘martyr complex’ desires the feeling of being a martyr for its own sake, seeking out suffering or persecution because it feeds a psychological need.” The characteristics of such persons include
■They have the need to be a victim and complain always and relentlessly.
■They take little initiative in trying to fixing any complaint.
■If any problem is solved, but in a different way than what they proposed, the problem still exists, as far as they are concerned.
■If any problem is solved according to their solution, they will find another problem to complain about.
■If any problem is solved, it is because they complained about it.
■They complain about problems that do not concern them in the least.
■They do not appreciate any good things being done.
■They lie and twist facts to prove their point.
■They selectively forget, ignore or avoid any facts that may conflict with their point.
■They resort to name-calling when everything else fails.

Politicians are a master of this behavior. For example, take your classic demagogue who rails against minority religions and cultures (take your pick from any country in the world). Usually, the citizens belonging to the primary religion would be more powerful, wealthy and influential than the minorities. Yet you will hear arguments that minorities are given special treatment and the country will be overrun. This results in horrible crimes like the Holocaust, Apartheid, Rwanda Massacre, etc.

Personal relationships are not immune to this. A standard case is that of the troubled teenager who blames his parents for everything going on in his life. And nothing that the parents can do can change this attitude. It doesn’t matter how hard the parents are working to buy all the things he wants. He blames them for not spending time with him. Now, if the parents listen to him and re-arrange their schedule, he accuses them of wanting something from him. Or tells them that it is already too late and they are wasting their time.

What can the parents do? Most of them desperately crave the same love and affection when the teenager was younger. Nothing they do seems to reduce the anger of the teenager. Anything they do is twisted and thrown back into their faces. I have seen many parents give up at times and get really angry. This does not help, of course, but now the parents start exhibiting irrational behavior. This includes not listening to any complaints and insulting the children whenever they get a chance.

Now, both sides are officially at war! Everyone is miserable, but they are also happy in a way, because now each side can justify what they are doing by pointing to the other. “They did this, so I am doing this.” “I tried my best, but nothing worked.” “He can do what he wants, but I am prepared for anything.” “It is only a matter of time, and then I will be free and happy.”

To generalize, here are the dysfunctional dynamics that happen when someone starts developing the martyr complex:
1.Other people take time to recognize this, but they do in time. They treat the person as “the Boy Who Cried Wolf“. The person loses all credibility. People start ignoring all their concerns, even if some are actually important, because they cannot make out what is truly legitimate.
2.Other people can behave just as irrational. Since a martyr usually boasts that he was responsible for any change, people avoid doing anything that can be used by the martyr for feeding his ego. Sometimes the very fact that the idea came from a martyr is cause enough to abandon the idea. A martyr creates many enemies directly and indirectly.
3.Since the martyr picks fights with anyone who disagrees with her, her friends have learnt to nod their heads at whatever she says, reinforcing her opinions. However, friends realize that too much close association with that person can be harmful. They behave like double agents by slandering the martyr in private and further lowering her image. Communicating any issue starts with, “Don’t think I am complaining like John Smith, but…”
4.A martyr can spoil the well for others by flaunting rules and opposing authority, not for any good reason, but just because of their perceived issues. When this happens, other people start putting up new rules or exhibit behaviors to prevent such incidents in the future. Flexible policies can become inflexible, negatively affecting everyone.
5.The martyr demands attention, but the opposite can happen with people leaving them alone and ignoring them. Take the example of some elderly people who crib all the time. They may actually be suffering from pain or disease. But, their relatives and caregivers cannot take their complaining any longer and abandon them.

Over time, the relationship can plumb the depths of hell. Resolve the situation as best as you can. In a future post, I will discuss strategies for handling martyrs, especially the need to differentiate between levels of martyrdom.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Why wouldn't I care if we could save the rain forests by eating more woodpecker? I would, though! I would eat woodpecker at least once a day. Woodpecker sausages in the morning, woodpecker salad sandwiches for lunch, and a woodpecker stew for dinner. Even if it is a little gamey.

That makes two of us, even though the thought makes me cringe. But for the sake of the rainforests I would eat my fair share.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Editor

Which they have and, as has been explained to you repeatedly despite your conscious attempts to ignore the information, they have been proven false.

--Ed.

NO THEY HAVEN'T!! THEY HAVEN'T COME CLOSE!!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

??

I'm game. Let's get the party going!!!

[Doctor X]

There is nothing about my flapping my arms and flying that goes against the laws of physics.

--J.D.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where does this martyr thing coming from? I'm not a martyr, never have been, nor do I want to be. Wanting to help mankind does not make me a martyr. I just looked up martyr, and I do not fit the description.

The Martyr Complex

Posted on June 23, 2007 by Krishna

One of the most destructive behaviors in any relationship is the existence of someone with a martyr complex. As the definition from Wikipedia explains, a “person who has a ‘martyr complex’ desires the feeling of being a martyr for its own sake, seeking out suffering or persecution because it feeds a psychological need.” The characteristics of such persons include
■They have the need to be a victim and complain always and relentlessly.
■They take little initiative in trying to fixing any complaint.
■If any problem is solved, but in a different way than what they proposed, the problem still exists, as far as they are concerned.
■If any problem is solved according to their solution, they will find another problem to complain about.
■If any problem is solved, it is because they complained about it.
■They complain about problems that do not concern them in the least.
■They do not appreciate any good things being done.
■They lie and twist facts to prove their point.
■They selectively forget, ignore or avoid any facts that may conflict with their point.
■They resort to name-calling when everything else fails.

Politicians are a master of this behavior. For example, take your classic demagogue who rails against minority religions and cultures (take your pick from any country in the world). Usually, the citizens belonging to the primary religion would be more powerful, wealthy and influential than the minorities. Yet you will hear arguments that minorities are given special treatment and the country will be overrun. This results in horrible crimes like the Holocaust, Apartheid, Rwanda Massacre, etc.

Personal relationships are not immune to this. A standard case is that of the troubled teenager who blames his parents for everything going on in his life. And nothing that the parents can do can change this attitude. It doesn’t matter how hard the parents are working to buy all the things he wants. He blames them for not spending time with him. Now, if the parents listen to him and re-arrange their schedule, he accuses them of wanting something from him. Or tells them that it is already too late and they are wasting their time.

What can the parents do? Most of them desperately crave the same love and affection when the teenager was younger. Nothing they do seems to reduce the anger of the teenager. Anything they do is twisted and thrown back into their faces. I have seen many parents give up at times and get really angry. This does not help, of course, but now the parents start exhibiting irrational behavior. This includes not listening to any complaints and insulting the children whenever they get a chance.

Now, both sides are officially at war! Everyone is miserable, but they are also happy in a way, because now each side can justify what they are doing by pointing to the other. “They did this, so I am doing this.” “I tried my best, but nothing worked.” “He can do what he wants, but I am prepared for anything.” “It is only a matter of time, and then I will be free and happy.”

To generalize, here are the dysfunctional dynamics that happen when someone starts developing the martyr complex:
1.Other people take time to recognize this, but they do in time. They treat the person as “the Boy Who Cried Wolf“. The person loses all credibility. People start ignoring all their concerns, even if some are actually important, because they cannot make out what is truly legitimate.
2.Other people can behave just as irrational. Since a martyr usually boasts that he was responsible for any change, people avoid doing anything that can be used by the martyr for feeding his ego. Sometimes the very fact that the idea came from a martyr is cause enough to abandon the idea. A martyr creates many enemies directly and indirectly.
3.Since the martyr picks fights with anyone who disagrees with her, her friends have learnt to nod their heads at whatever she says, reinforcing her opinions. However, friends realize that too much close association with that person can be harmful. They behave like double agents by slandering the martyr in private and further lowering her image. Communicating any issue starts with, “Don’t think I am complaining like John Smith, but…”
4.A martyr can spoil the well for others by flaunting rules and opposing authority, not for any good reason, but just because of their perceived issues. When this happens, other people start putting up new rules or exhibit behaviors to prevent such incidents in the future. Flexible policies can become inflexible, negatively affecting everyone.
5.The martyr demands attention, but the opposite can happen with people leaving them alone and ignoring them. Take the example of some elderly people who crib all the time. They may actually be suffering from pain or disease. But, their relatives and caregivers cannot take their complaining any longer and abandon them.

Over time, the relationship can plumb the depths of hell. Resolve the situation as best as you can. In a future post, I will discuss strategies for handling martyrs, especially the need to differentiate between levels of martyrdom.

lol where did you even find that stupid copypasta?

I do kind of like the second sentence of the wikipedia article that your copypasta cites.

In some cases, this results from the belief that the martyr has been singled out for persecution due to exceptional ability or integrity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure someone will use my honesty and integrity against me.

In some cases, this results from the belief that the martyr has been singled out for persecution due to exceptional ability or integrity.

...

[Doctor X]

Lessan's pretty much met all of the criteria for "martyr complex." His frivolous lawsuits provided some wonderful confirmation of the pathology.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Lessans and Conscience

At the basis of Lessans reasoning we find the classic mistake that many people make when they think about determinism. They confuse deterministic with determined. Just because we can consider all the causes of something as knowable does not mean that all the causes are known.

Consider a road. You are walking down a footpath beside it. Your destination is about 100 meters down the road, on the opposite side.

At one stage you will have to cross the road. Where you will do so is determined by your mood, what you are thinking about, by traffic, and at what stage you remember you have to be on the other side.

Many people consider that a random decision – but that is only true if we do not understand everything about that particular brain as it is at that particular time. If we could completely understand that brain, we could predict where it would decide to cross the road.

As a matter of fact we do not know enough about the brain to work this out exactly. It may not even be possible to get a sufficiently detailed understanding to make a completely accurate prediction even about a single brain– some people are arguing that the universe does not seem to be deterministic at the quantum level. Be that as it may, we can confidently state that while the decision may or may not be deterministic in nature, it is definitely not determined.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Lessans considers the world both deterministic and determined – he believes he has an understanding that is both expansive and detailed enough to accurately predict all human reactions.

Where did you get this idea Vivisectus? This knowledge has nothing to do with knowing all of the factors that go into someone's decisions.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He believes that based on simple principles, he can accurately predict how we would develop and behave in the areas of love, war, crime, economics – you name it. I consider that to be a very extravagant claim, and one that would require some extremely convincing evidence to back it up. This evidence certainly is not to be found in his book – there is no logical or observational evidence offered anywhere.

There is observational evidence in the book, but you're not following it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The system itself rests on the assumption that blame is what allows us to justify unprovoked bad acts to ourselves, which is assumed to be necessary for us to carry said bad deed out. If we realized that our will is not free, yet that no-one can force us to do anything we do not want to do, and that we would not be blamed for anything we do as it would be understood we simply follow the necessary direction of greater satisfaction, we would all be perfectly conscientious.

It's not as simple as that. Punishment is a condition of the environment (and the very foundation of our justice system) that allows the consideration of striking a first blow because it is the price someone is willing to pay, if he gets caught. This advance justification is one of the factors that allows him the opportunity to carry through with his bad deeds.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why this should be so is not explained. When reading, you almost wonder if the writer is trying to imply that since you see blame wherever there are bad deeds, the former must cause the latter, but he does not do so outright.

It doesn't cause the latter, but it lessens responsibility. Conscience cannot reach the temperature necessary to prevent one from acting out on his desires when he knows, in advance, that he would be blamed and punished if they knew what he was doing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I get the impression he was aware of the flimsiness of his case at this point. It seems to me that while he was unable to address it he still did not want to abandon the idea. He dances around the subject with some particularly awkward attempts at distraction and then just forges ahead, apparently considering his point made beyond question.

Where does he dance around the subject? Where are there awkward attempts at distraction?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I remind the reader that this man compared his style of persuasion to a game of chess, where the opponent is left checkmated in the end and must concede that Lessans is right. This is a particularly unfortunate expression, I feel. In chess, you hide the weakness of your position and fool the opponent into thinking the best place to attack you is elsewhere. Chess is based on deception and distraction.

Yes, you're right in that sense, but chess is also very strategic which involves the ability to think ahead. It's not just about deception.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There are a few problems with Lessans ideas about the end of evil even if we assume that in “the new environment” we will strive to be perfectly conscientious. Firstly, Lessans assumes that we can work out every possible outcome of every possible action. In the new world, there is no more room for simple short-sightedness. A man who builds an irrigation network, thus improving his farm, will always know that this action will not in fact drain the wetlands that have been acting as a natural water-filtering system for the water that sustains a whole town, and will not do harm to many more than he aids out of honest ignorance of the wider consequences of his actions.

That's not true. We all make honest mistakes, and we correct them. This discovery will prevent people from taking risks that could lead to carelessly hurting others, but we're all human and we all make mistakes.

Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is
free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding
this issue for although it is true man has to make choices, he must
always prefer that which he considers good not evil for himself when
the former is offered as an alternative.

The words cause and compel
are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in
order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary
that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives
meaning to short. Nothing causes man to build cities, develop
scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue
and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are
mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as
children were sacrificed at an earlier stage.

These activities or motions
are the natural entelechy of man who is always developing, correcting
his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by
better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal
compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.
Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and
make corrections when necessary since he is always learning from
previous experience.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Lessans also assumes that every action is either good or bad and that morally ambiguous situations cannot give rise to fresh harm. Apparently morally ambiguous situations will no longer exist – and yet it is not difficult to come up with some interesting thought-experiments that remain highly ambiguous even in a perfectly conscientious world. We can consider the example of the fat man on the bridge – if you push him off, this will kill him, but it will also stop the train that is hurtling by below you, about to crush 3 people to death. There is no time to explain to the fat man to get his consent.

He never said that there wouldn't be morally ambiguous situations such as the example you just gave. In a situation like that, there is no right or wrong. It's ambiguous, and it would be up to the person to decide what to do. I can think of a terrible situation during the 2005 tsunami, where a mother had to let go of one of her children and hold onto the younger one. I believe they both lived, but can you imagine having to make a decision like that?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Both of these situations allow unprovoked harm to occur even in a perfectly conscientious world, and by Lessans own reasoning would give rise to fresh retaliations. The cycle of evil that he claimed was dealt with seems to me to be still alive and well in the new environment. So not only is there a lack of evidence, on closer inspection it is also is not as all-encompassing as Lessans claims it is.

Why would there be fresh retaliations? How could a person be blamed for what we know he was compelled to do?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Lessan's pretty much met all of the criteria for "martyr complex." His frivolous lawsuits provided some wonderful confirmation of the pathology.

--J.D.

Maybe I shouldn't have included those letters in the book. I had no idea people would come up with the most idiotic ideas about who my father was. So much for clarity.

[ChuckF]

Yeah that lawsuit makes him look mentally ill.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

A hunch?

Are you saying that it's not undeniably true that there is a very strong correlation between the presence of woodpeckers and deforestation? In fact, not only is it undeniably true, it is a conclusion based upon many, many years of astute observation.

peacegirl does not understand the feathered-deforested equation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said anyone was stupid or deluded. He was just frustrated and this was his way of trying to preclude anybody from forming any preconceived ideas, although unfortunately it had a reverse effect.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Everyone has preconceived ideas. That is, everyone has ideas and everyone brings the ideas that they have (however they were arrived at) to everything they hear, see, read or experience. While it is possible to read charitably, it is not possible to read without bias. Asking a reader to read without bias is asking the impossible.

You're right, but we do the best we can to eliminate bias in order to be as objective as possible.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know that people will be upset with me, but yes, he was positive that he was correct.

You might also mention that aspects of Einstein's work are as testable as Edison's light bulb.

Eclipse that Changed the Universe

Some things are easily tested empirically. Unfortunately, this discovery didn't lend itself to this type of testing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

peacegirl does not understand the feathered-deforested equation.

If you can't beat um, join um.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I shouldn't have included those letters in the book.

You realize that the Carter thing wasn't just a letter, don't you?

[Vivisectus]

As we can now all see, the validity of this perfectly geographical idea is being denied by people whose bias does not allow them to see that eating more woodpecker is the only thing standing between us and extinction from climate change. Despite having been shown the evidence in the form of a penetrating discernment, delivered by someone who is a confirmed smartypants and who has spent an amount of time thinking about it, this knowledge is still being labelled as patent nonsense, despite the fact that the empirical tests that would totally confirm it have not yet been done. Clearly no-one is giving me the chance to explain that I am way smerter than they are before dismissing this wonderful new knowledge out of hand.

But this is only to be expected, as I have not yet shown the third wonderful discovery that can be found in the dark and crusty crevice clumsily marked “woodpeckers are not birds” in large smears of crayon.

The third revelation, which came to me in a flash after trying to manage one of those particularly challenging bowel-movements that make you wish you had installed handholds on the side of your toilet, in that moment of enlightenment and bliss that is inevitably and rudely marred by the sobering backsplash of toilet-water hitting one’s backside, is one that so far has remained hidden from mankind. It is hidden behind the door that says: Humans are not individuals.

You may say: what do you mean humans are not individuals? I am indeed an individual; I have many traits which are not shared by my fellow man! I am a unique person, and there is in fact no-one like me!

Indeed it may seem so, but as a matter of fact you are a cog in a machine, a part of a larger system, and what is worse and more worrying to many people is this: a larger amount of you is part of the machine than the amount of you that is you. You share more traits with the rest of the cogs than you have traits that are unique. Humans are not individuals.

Imagine a cogwheel that can think. If you saw it, would you consider it a cogwheel, or a random shape that has many of it’s own characteristics? Naturally you would see a toothed wheel, of a certain size, fitting into a number of similarly shaped wheels. You would not notice its many interesting notches, misshapen teeth, and other idiosyncratic features that make it different from all the other ones. In fact, you would just see a cogwheel. The wheel itself would probably feel differently, as it is taught to consider its many differences of paramount importance, as it has been taught to think of itself as an individual. However, this is mere illusion, as the parts of any person that DO match the greater system are of infinitely more importance than the ones that do not.

To prove this point to yourself, imagine an amazingly wise and fatherly person who you would totally accept vaguely smug and self-satisfied advice from having the following conversation with you:

“Ah Megalonarcis, you say that Humans are not Individuals, but I do not believe this can be so. Surely I am different from all my fellow men!”

“I know it is hard to believe, Oligorchis, but let me ask you this: Do you like bad things?”

“Truly, Megalonarcis, I do not! What a strange but compelling question. Do tell me more!”

“Now, Oligorchis, tell me this: Do you like bad things?”

“How masterfully you are manoeuvring me into the narrow corner of truth, o Megalonarcis! Verily I must confess that I do not!”
“Then how can you say you are an individual? All humans dislike bad things, and like good things”

“Ah, Megalonarcis, you set a cunning snare, but you have made an oversight: I do like things that are a little bad, like watching the goils in the Gymnasium that are too young for me!”

“Surely you do, Oligorchis – but your dislike of big bad things is ten times greater than your like of small bad things, and so from the point of view of the system as a whole, you are just another human being, predictable in any system as long as you keep it simple enough.”

“I am amazed and must confess you totally right, and also, awesome!”

So you see – while we think of ourselves as individuals, this is really only true when you consider that individual by itself. When seen as part of a largely uniform group, more traits will match those of the group than will be purely individual. This means that on the whole, man is not an individual – he is part of a system. If we can create a simple system that does Good Things, we will have solved all of our problems.

How does this follow from Woodpeckers are not Birds? Simple. Just as we are taught to think that woodpeckers are birds, we are taught that we are individuals. We are taught, against all reason, that we have unique traits and features that cannot be defined, that cannot be caught in mere simplistic definitions, that transcend the simple pattern-seeking properties of our brains and make us just a little more than mere cogwheels in a huge system that will roll on whether we are here or not. That we are just a little more than mere animals following simple desires and satisfactions. That, just maybe, we can create, if only for ourselves, just a little bit more than mere mechanical existence and strive to be in that magical place where instinct meets imagination.

This, as we have just shown, is nonsense. We are cogwheels in a system that needs ironing out so that from now on, we will all just be able to run along predictable lines for all eternity. So why don’t we? This will be the subject of the next wonderful revelation.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that people will be upset with me, but yes, he was positive that he was correct.

That is a non-responsive reply. That Lessans was positive that he was correct is not in question. That he was positive he was correct is undeniable. That he was actually correct is not undeniable. Are you prepared to admit the possibility that, even though he was positive that he was correct, he may have, in fact, been in error? Or, is it your claim that because he was positive that he was correct it is therefore impossible for him to have been in error?

[Angakuk]

Does peacegirl's behavior in this thread meet the criteria for a diagnosis of having a martyr complex?

■They have the need to be a victim and complain always and relentlessly.
Check
■They take little initiative in trying to fixing any complaint.
?
■If any problem is solved, but in a different way than what they proposed, the problem still exists, as far as they are concerned.
Check
■If any problem is solved according to their solution, they will find another problem to complain about.
Check
■If any problem is solved, it is because they complained about it.
?
■They complain about problems that do not concern them in the least.
?
■They do not appreciate any good things being done.
?
■They lie and twist facts to prove their point.
Double Check
■They selectively forget, ignore or avoid any facts that may conflict with their point.
Triple Check
■They resort to name-calling when everything else fails.
Check


Six out of ten criteria are clearly present. I am not absolutely certain about the remaining four.

Based on the available evidence (peacegirl's posts in this thread) it is more than likely that peacegirl does suffer from a martyr complex, at least with regard to her defense of Lessans' work.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You were the only one that I believe read the first two chapters. I never called anyone dimwitted or lazy, and even if that were true, I was called a lot worse.

Tu quoque.

[thedoc]

Thankyou Vivisectus, this thread is now a lot more interesting and plausible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

A hunch?

Are you saying that it's not undeniably true that there is a very strong correlation between the presence of woodpeckers and deforestation? In fact, not only is it undeniably true, it is a conclusion based upon many, many years of astute observation.

Hmmm, you're beginning to sound like a chip off the old block. But seriously, this is not a fair comparison.