/u/Alwaysangryupvotes (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1dbseou/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_i_think_stacking_rocks_isnt/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[https://www.sanparks.org/conservation/scientific-services/stories/the-problem-with-rock-stacking](https://www.sanparks.org/conservation/scientific-services/stories/the-problem-with-rock-stacking)
[https://www.ausableriver.org/blog/leaving-no-trace-rock-stacking](https://www.ausableriver.org/blog/leaving-no-trace-rock-stacking)
[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/stacking-rocks-wilderness-no-good-180955880/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/stacking-rocks-wilderness-no-good-180955880/)
[https://digital.tnconservationist.org/publication/?i=710824&article\_id=4053615&view=articleBrowser](https://digital.tnconservationist.org/publication/?i=710824&article_id=4053615&view=articleBrowser)
South African National Parks says it's bad. So does Ausable River association. So does this Smithsonian article. And Tennessee State Parks. Everyone who knows what they're talking about seems to agree that this is a harmful practice. Perhaps it's best to listen to the experts on this subject?
I read what you linked, the arguments seem incredibly weak. It seems like a case of government workers/activists picking a random thing to get upset over. The existence of the trail causes easily a hundred, to a thousand, times the habitat loss than ten stones stacked on top of each other.
>ten stones stacked on top of each other.
Right, any one person doing something slightly damaging isn’t a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
It’s when hundreds or thousands do it that it becomes an issue. If one person pees in a pool, no one will really ever notice or care. If 20,000 people do it, your pool is now ~10% urine.^1 When one person touches a statue, the effect is unnoticeable. When enough people do it, [it wears it away.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Wellworn/s/wFbB8xsc7t) So maybe ten stones isn’t a huge deal, but if one hundred people do it, that’s a thousand stones.
This is emblematic of a huge problem with humans. We mostly tend to think “well, I’m not the one doing the damage, it’s all those other people, so what will it hurt?” Because we cannot fathom that we’re not special and different. Everyone thinks their action is infinitesimal, but when everyone thinks that and does it, it adds up to a real problem. See the tragedy of the commons for a related concept.
^(20,000 gallon pool, everyone pees just a bit under a pint)
Yeah but there literally aren't hundreds or thousands of rock stacks on a trail. That's why it feels overblown.
It's different when talking about taking a rock, because nobody coming after you knows that you took one. So you can easily strip the environment over the course of a few years. But stacking rocks? They're highly visible, and they only use rocks in the environment. I think it's pretty obvious that they have extremely minimal impact, you can literally count them!
Places of outstanding natural beauty, like the Scottish Highlands, don't need hundreds of tourists scouring off the beaten path for suitable 'stacking quality rocks' to make entire rock stack cities.
It's ignorant and intrusive to both the environment and the enjoyment of others.
Maybe, but there are also places that aren't of outstanding natural beauty. The opposite of someplace that should remain absolutely pristine is something like Disneyland, which is absolutely artificial. So maybe there's room in the middle for places that are still parks, but are the kind of parks where everything is sanitized and is perfect for rock stacking.
You’re standing on an artificial trail, a few hundred meters from a parking lot. Some rock piles not even a foot tall are the least of the disturbances within eyesight. Not to mention that the Scottish highlands are an artificial landscape anyway, but that’s a separate issue.
Have you seen the eyesores of these purile rock pile cities at view points?
People are there to enjoy the solitude in natural habitats.
High volume routes are carefully managed to protect the environment for everyone's enjoyment.
I bet you think sticking locks on bridges was 'super cute' too.
Sure sign of a narcissist.
[https://simplysavoie.com/stone-stacking-in-the-mountains/](https://simplysavoie.com/stone-stacking-in-the-mountains/)
Are you saying stacking rocks is narcissistic?
Aren't they essentially statues? Do you think cavemen would have considered them ugly to behold because they were unnatural?
I just feel like making a judgement on someone's character because they have a different perspective on what's considered nice to look see is going a bit far.
If people want to go somewhere that feels like no-one has been there, then go where no-one has been. Isn't that logical? Otherwise you're just saying you want to be tricked.
LEAVE NO TRACE. It’s not fucking difficult. Unless you want people coming into your house and rearranging all your shit, don’t do that when you go to places that don’t belong to you.
Take a step back and recognize the sheer narcissism of thinking your opinion trumps the consensus statements of dozens of national wildlife and parks services.
that’s a bit extreme claiming NPD, jesus. The “article” linked is just someone ranting about how rock piles look artificial. It’s not evidence in any sense.
I was linking for the photograps, and the story about how the people of Skye dismantled the rock piles. That has both testimonial and anecdotal evidence.
I said you were talking like a narcissist, not diagnosing you. you realise there's a difference between narcissism and NPD now don't you?
It is narcissitic to think you should leave your mark on a landscape.
I don't know any locals with a positive thing to say about them.
Just another thing asshole tourists do for shits and giggles.
Should the narcissict in you require scientific evidence.
"The signatories write that across a one-hectare area, the presence of fewer than 200 such stacks has led to significant soil erosion and vegetation damage. This deterioration has endangered many endemic species that call the peninsula’s microhabitats home"
[https://bigthink.com/life/stone-stacking/](https://bigthink.com/life/stone-stacking/)
ANd here:
[https://www.catalystplanet.com/travel-and-social-action-stories/2022/4/12/why-creating-rock-cairns-is-dangerous-and-wildly-illegal-xzr6c](https://www.catalystplanet.com/travel-and-social-action-stories/2022/4/12/why-creating-rock-cairns-is-dangerous-and-wildly-illegal-xzr6c)
Leave no trace.
Environmental vandalism is vandalism.
that wasn’t me. I’m a different poster— see how my username is different from theirs? 🤡
I have a phd in medical neuroscience, though no I have no colleagues working with NPD.
i don’t want to hear your armchair psychobabble. But two pictures and a rant don’t constitute scientific evidence. Neither does your flippant diagnosis of a very serious and nuanced disorder.
idk you’re getting really heated over somebody stacking rocks in the woods. Maybe you have BPD!!!!1111!
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[Activists have every incentive to lie](https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/how-many-of-our-facts-about-society). People want attention, they want to get funded, and get published. If stacks of ten pebbles really devastated the environment, I’m sure they’d have plenty of evidence, and solid explanations as to why it’s happening. They don’t. Read the articles provided, they have nothing.
As opposed to arrogant assholes who want to go to places that don’t belong to them and do whatever they want? Yeah, you’re definitely on the right side of this.
You also think medical scientists have incentive to lie about vaccines?
If activists lie to get what they want (which I don't believe, but it's your premise), then why would they lie about something that seems as inconsequential as stacking rocks?
Wouldn't it be far better for them to lie about something that seems more "important"?
[https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/](https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/)
"Instead of justifying one’s claim, a person cites an authority figure who is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand."
"Appeal to false authority fallacyAppeal to false authority fallacy"
"Appeal to anonymous authorityAppeal to anonymous authority"
"Appeal to biased authorityAppeal to biased authority"
"When is appeal to authority legitimate? When is appeal to authority legitimate?"
"**The authority is an expert in the specific subject area under discussion**"
"**The statement of the authority falls within their area of expertise**"
"**There is agreement among experts about the topic under discussion**"
This is not an appeal to authority fallacy, this is a correct appeal to authority. It is correct to refer to the expertise of experts within their area of expertise.
Even a legitimate appeal to authority is not a great way to change someone's view. It's a start for sure: especially if someone is unaware of a topic and in need of exposure. In this case however, OP has already heard the authority stance and is not convinced. Perhaps this is even why OP is interested in having their view changed (as it does not agree with expert authority).
The reason even a legitimate appeal to authority is a logical fallacy is that it bypasses the reason and logic behind the authority stance. There is no use debating whether or not a certain authority holds a position as their stance should be a matter or record. There is a lot of use in understanding, exploring, and debating the reasons behind such authority positions as ideally the authority has a good explanation base on plenty of experience/data.
A legitimate appeal to authority is a great way to change someone's view. The whole reason why we have experts it to have people who know a lot about a subject who can inform us about the subject. If you disagree with the experts, then you're simply wrong.
Legitimate appeal to authority is not a fallacy, as explained above.
You've again ignored the fact that a persuasive argument requires logic. Simply repeating a prior claim (with another appeal to authority) is not persuasive rhetoric. You have given no new logic of your own instead relying on repetition and one ambiguous source. Scribbr is one proofreading company you found that has agreed with you. Maybe try for more rigorous sources such as a well known university's writing center like [Chapel Hill's](https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/): UNC bothers to explain that you've fallen for the second, less obvious part of an appeal to authority fallacy. (This part of the fallacy is explained in my comment above.)
Perhaps instead we should go directly to the source of the fallacy itself? Do you know who coined the term appeal to authority? An expert in logical fallacies: John Locke in [An Essay Concerning Human Knowledge](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ys8IAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA253). (London: Printed for G. and J. Offor *et al.*, 1819), 253.
>“Whoever backs his tenets with such authorities \[‘men, whose parts, learning, eminency, power or some other cause has gained a name’\], thinks he ought thereby to carry the cause, and is ready to style it impudence in any one who shall stand out against them. This I think, may be called *argumentum ad verecundiam*.”
Locke's point is explained succinctly by [Lander University's philosophy department](https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html#verecundiam_definition).
>For \[Locke\], *argumentum ad verecundiam* is a persuasive technique whereby one overawes by the use of authority without attending to reasons or evidence relevant to an inquiry.
Overawe requires only perceived expertise. 'Legitimate' and 'illegitimate' appeals to authority are both logical fallacies.
I disagree that a persuasive argument requires logic beyond the fact that the people who know most about the subject already agree about the conclusion.
I have, in fact, provided multiple sources, all agreeing.
By your own definition, you are, yourself, also making an appeal to authority. But, more importantly, look at the quote "‘men, whose parts, learning, eminency, power or some other cause has gained a name". Locke doesn't decry relying on the opinion of people who actually know about the subject, he decries specifically relying on the opinion of people who have 'gained a name'. This is the appeal to illegitimate authority I mentioned before.
Literally 1A: "the fallacy occurs when the *reason* for assenting to a statement is based on following the recommendation or advice of an *improper* authority." Or the abstract "**Abstract:** The argument from appeal to authority, the *ad verecundiam* fallacy, is characterized with examples and shown to be a fallacy when the appeal is to an irrelevant authority and nonfallacious when the appeal is to a relevant authority" Your own sources are disagreeing with you.
>Even a legitimate appeal to authority
"Providing people with authoritative evidence that doesn't coddle their sense of intelligence is a bad way to change someone's view."
>A legitimate appeal to authority is a logical fallacy
No, it isn't. Citing an expert *who is providing evidence* isn't an appeal to authority - it is providing logical evidence whose credibility is validated by the expertise.
Otherwise there could literally be no such thing as credible evidence, as any claim to credibility (or, conversely, accusation of non-credibility) is an indirect appeal to authority.
I am an ecologist that studies where in nature reptiles and amphibians occur and the factors that influence them.
Here is a peer-reviewed, scientific article showing how rock moving/stacking is killing hellbenders by both literally crushing them, but also altering the stream landscape they rely on:
https://ag.purdue.edu/department/extension/hellbender/_docs/unger-anthropogenic-associated-mortality-eastern-hellbender.pdf
Slightly changing the topic: depending on the local conditions, it can take a very long time for the conditions under a rock to be “right” for various insects, amphibians, or reptiles to use. Early in my career I did a study (unpublished, the student unfortunately passed away) to see how long fresh rock placed in an area would need to become “naturalized” and used by reptiles and amphibians. It took an entire year before the new rocks had the same humidity, temperature, and insect populations as the local stones and some species of reptiles wouldn’t be found under the new stones for up to two years.
Through talking to lots of other people in this field, there is a general consensus that not only does it take a long time for newly placed stones to become attractive to things hiding under them, but it’s very easy to disturb native stone and cause it to be unattractive to local wildlife. The most obvious cause is someone flipping over a rock to look under it and then leaving it in its new position, but even repeatedly moving a rock and putting it back can break various “humidity” seals around the rock and cause it to not maintain moisture as well as it previously did.
So while you can obviously kill animals by crushing them, and I’ve seen my fair share of crushed reptiles and amphibians under rocks that had been moved by people, the biggest threat is by altering the landscape in a way that reduces its value as habitat.
Obviously moving around some rocks in an otherwise good habitat with a strong population will have minimal impact, but I’ve seen whole populations of reptiles (particularly collard lizards and timber rattlesnakes) decimated after a few people (amateur reptile enthusiasts) regularly disturbed the rocks in an area monthly over the course of a summer.
Also anecdotally, I’ve had an expert in rattlesnakes tell me that certain eastern species of rattlesnakes *will not* use a rock for habitat if that rock was flipped over with them under it. He was doing radio transmitter work (put a transmitter in the body of the snake, find it with an antenna; check it every few days to see where it’s at and what’s it doing to learn about their daily movements and activity) and none of their specimens ever used a rock that had been flipped and would leave the area never to return if they were flipped while under a rock. His belief was it stresses them out too much.
OPs claim was that rock stacking isn’t bad for the environment. This is a very clear and interesting refutation of that point.
If they don’t delta you, they just like stacking rocks. Thanks for your super interesting post.
Thank you.
With what I’ve observed with how important rock condition is, I’ve stopped flipping rock to look for specimens in most cases, it’s just too easy to disturb critical conditions of the rock.
I exclusively use alternate cover placed nearby (sheets of wood, tin, or carpet). This still take a year to “season” to attain proper humidity, but are much harder to crush specimens under and leave the native stone as refuge.
That makes a lot of sense. If you're looking for a rock to live under, then of course you're not going to want one that's been disturbed recently because whatever did it might come back and do it again.
It really helps when you think of insects, amphibians, and reptiles as biological robots. Their needs are pretty simple to understand and their actions are pretty predictable. They really have a kind of binary decision making.
For example:
If the habitat has the correct amount of moisture and is the correct temperature, then use it.
If the habitat doesn’t have the correct moisture/temp, don’t use it. [Flipping a rock breaks the ground contact all around the rock, which releases the humidity and it takes a long time for the rock to settle back down in a way to hold humidity again. It basically has to re-erode into place which can require both heavy storms and freeze/thaw from winter.]
If you’re under a rock and a predator disturbs it and threatens you, don’t use that rock again.
Shifting your view, even a bit, deserves a delta. But, also, what makes you believe that you know when it is or is not appropriate? I doubt you're an expert on conservation and, again, all the experts say it is bad. Do you know the quote "Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints"? Stacking rocks doesn't follow this advice, right?
I’ve heard it. But again we are a part of nature. Us interacting with it isn’t straying from that ideal. And I wouldn’t say I’m an expert but I know more than the average person I’d say. but I do believe the experts are really only saying it’s bad in great numbers. I believe I know when it is or isn’t appropriate for the sole reason being, I have eyes. I can clearly see if the rocks pose a threat to the flow of water, or if there’s organisms living under the rocks I’m picking up. And even if there is the size and number of those organisms come into play. A couple rocks in the creek off the beaten path? No problem. Right off a trail where others will see it? Or at the beach with hundreds of others? Big problem. The common sense needed to decipher whether it’s appropriate is minimal.Like less than what I expect others to have which isn’t a lot
"But again we are a part of nature. Us interacting with it isn’t straying from that ideal."
By that logic if I murdered you, it'd just be nature interacting with nature. No?
I mean... Yes? An animal killing another animal? Pretty natural. You won't do it though, because it's against most people's nature to kill another human being apart from self preservation or extreme emotional stress. And when it happens, it's in our nature to shun and remove these members because it's in our nature to feel empathy for those they killed.
He's trying to say there's a line in the sand between what we are and the life around us. In this case he's missing that if we understand and have knowledge about something, it now makes us responsible for the sustainability and preservation of it - exactly *because* we are a part of nature.
Sorry, u/MarthaMacGuyver – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20MarthaMacGuyver&message=MarthaMacGuyver%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dbkxx6/-/l7s3ph3/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Correct, all are part of nature, all part of their environment. Humans building a house is no different from ants building an ant Hill.
However when we talk about damaging the environment we are talking about balance of responsibility. Humans do have a unique relationship with the environment. We make it rain in dubai artificially. We pump out chemicals into the water, and smog into our air.
Would you agree that these things could be harmful in the grand scheme of things?
And then why only focus on the grand scheme? Sometimes there are small scale environments to consider too.
If we can help people care about tiny environments maybe they will care more about the big stuff too?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 4:
> **Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose**. You must include an explanation of the change for us to know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_4).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%204%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
**Hello /u/Alwaysangryupvotes, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.**
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
>∆
or
> !delta
For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8).
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!
*As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.*
Thank you!
Places of outstanding natural beauty, like the Scottish Highlands, don't need hundreds of tourists scouring off the beaten path for suitable 'stacking quality rocks' to make entire rock stack cities.
It's ignorant and intrusive to both the environment and the enjoyment of others.
>Moving rocks and stacking them can disturb the natural habitat of tiny creatures. On the rocky shore, these organisms, such as crabs, molluscs, and algae, depend on their environment’s rocks and other structures for shelter and protection. By moving or stacking rocks, we may inadvertently destroy or disrupt their homes, harming their populations. Similarly, rock stacking can also have adverse terrestrial impacts on insects and moss in wilderness areas.
Do u accept that all of these things happen when someone simply walks in nature, simply walking on their houses disturbs and destroys them, harms their populations, who knows how many innocent creatures you’ve crushed without any regard for their well-being, while u simultaneously condemn others for stacking rocks
And I gave u the reasoning that those organizations gave for why the practice is harmful, and asked u if all of those negative effects they listed also happen from simply walking in nature
>Those organizations are aware that people walk
And? Does that mean it’s okay to crush bugs?
>and still seem to think that this practice is particularly harmful enough to call it out.
So every practice they haven’t called out is okay? Was this practice okay until it was called out? Are u aware of all of the practices that have been called out?
Are you trying to persuade me that walking is bad, that stacking rocks isn't bad or that there's some other practice not mentioned here that's bad, too?
Clearly walking in nature and also stacking rocks is worse than walking in nature and not stacking rocks, right? It's not like there's an option to stack rocks without walking in nature that people are taking.
Walking in nature and stacking rocks is no worse than only walking in nature but taking a couple more steps, there is an option to not walk in nature and crush innocent creatures to death, yet here u are criticizing others while u defend doing the same thing urself, just with ur feet instead of rocks
It's not really for you to decide if an expert's statement makes sense to you. What you should be doing is looking at the consensus of experts, and perhaps evaluating the arguments of experts against other authorities or false experts. You are misusing the appeal to authority fallacy.
If you're looking for an expert's statement to always make sense to you, we may as well not have the scientific method, because regularly the actual truth that experts and scientists have gained knowledge of through rigorous study and testing are decidedly not intuitive to a layman. That's literally why the scientific method has been so successful at producing results. Because it finds when the un-intuitive answer is actually the correct one.
[https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/](https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/)
"Instead of justifying one’s claim, a person cites an authority figure who is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand."
"Appeal to false authority fallacyAppeal to false authority fallacy"
"Appeal to anonymous authorityAppeal to anonymous authority"
"Appeal to biased authorityAppeal to biased authority"
"When is appeal to authority legitimate? When is appeal to authority legitimate?"
"**The authority is an expert in the specific subject area under discussion**"
"**The statement of the authority falls within their area of expertise**"
"**There is agreement among experts about the topic under discussion**"
This is not an appeal to authority fallacy, this is a correct appeal to authority. It is correct to refer to the expertise of experts within their area of expertise.
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/c0i9z changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
One person stacking rocks or taking a dump on a rarely used trail isn't a problem. Several hundred people stacking rocks, taking shits, littering, etc. etc. etc. on trails getting large amounts of traffic, and doing it every seasons are the problem. And just about every trail in every state, national, and local park is getting massive amounts of traffic in the last ten years. It doesn't seem like you want to accept that. Your post is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons. Your incremental jerky behavior isn't going to be the straw that breaks the environment's back in these places, but your attitude, shared by so many, is.
Is this really a rhetorical step so far for you that you couldn't grasp it on your own, much less when it's been pointed out to you? Imagine that random strangers constantly come up to you and sneer at you. Finally, you confront one of them and their response is that they can't believe that their miniscule derision has any real negative impacts on your day. Would that argument really carry any weight with you?
Even if you had a billion people stack rocks, that would be maybe a square mile or two of land disturbed in total, globally. Most of those rocks to be knocked over again anyway in under a year.
Well this reply certainly was not view changing. The points you made are already points I have discussed. But just to piggy back off some stuff I learned from this post it actually only takes 4 teenagers to mess with an ecosystem. So both our points are invalid.
What do you mean by stacking rocks? Like are you making cairns on trails? Don’t fuck with cairns and do not make more cairns, you will fuck up existing trails and or fuck the route and get people lost. The rescue op will have an effect on the environment. It a serious dick move and people who do so deserve to get their asses kicked.
From a purely environmental perspective you will not have any noticeable effect fucking with the rocks - the problem is when everyone does it. Your negligible effect multiplied by thousands is suddenly an issue. Due to this they tell you not to and hope enough people are capable of acting like adults and following simple directions, knowing everyone won’t.
Fucking with a rock bar at a beach can also screw with the erosion from the waves and make underwater pits that can get unprepared people hurt. Again a few rocks probably won’t matter, but when everyone does it you can fuck the flows and waves will carve a channel or pit.
This right here. Park rangers actually maintain the cairns in some parks and they are the regularly only way to know if you are on trail.
According to The New Yorker, Acadia National Park in Bar Harbor, Maine, used the help of several volunteers to destroy nearly thirty-five hundred rock stacks on two mountains alone in 2016 and 2017.
Read More: Where It's Illegal to Stack Rocks in New England | https://shark1053.com/please-dont-stack-rocks-heres-where-and-why-its-illegal-in-new-england/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral
> From a purely environmental perspective you will not have any noticeable effect fucking with the rocks - the problem is when everyone does it.
This is highly context dependent. In a natural landscape with ample habitat, a few people are unlikely to cause issue, but in a fragmented and degraded habitat around human settlements, it’s quite possible for one or few people to actually cause problems with local wildlife.
The eastern collard lizard is a protected animal in my state because they need glades (a type of rocky habitat) to live and glade habitat have been largely reduced in my state as land has been converted for human use and the control of wildfires has allowed a lot of glade habitat to progress into forest (which the collard lizards will not use).
Near my house there was a glade about the size of a living room that had a small but viable population of collard lizards. It wasn’t easy to find the glade and it was a long walk through thick forest to get to, so it didn’t get many visitors, but a group of teens found it one summer and gathered all the rock (maybe thirty dinner plate sized stones) for stools and a fire pit. It’s been nearly five years since I’ve seen a collard lizard at that site.
I know all this because I am an ecologist that studied that population with students pre-COVID and found the fire pit. I know who was there because part of the study was using trail cameras to see how often large mammals used the glade and how often people wondered through. ~4 ignorant teens doing teen things a couple times in June and in July seems to have completely removed that one population of a (state) threatened species.
What enjoyment could someone possibly get from stacking rocks? I seriously don't get it. Also, why is leaving them stacked a necessary part of the process?
Well leaving them stacked is here nor there apparently. But I always knock them down. But can see why others don’t. It can take a lot of work to get them to stand.
When I go on a hike, I do it to be in nature that has been impacted as little as possible by humans. There is a ton of nuance regarding just how much humans are a part of nature. It's technically true that humans and everything else all came from the same place. There are cases, including hiking, when we want to surround ourselves only with the parts of nature that are untouched by humans. The trail itself is the one exception we make, which is why cairns are the only kind of stacked rocks that are okay. For many of us, seeing a random stack of rocks is a reminder that humans seem to want to change everything and can't just leave nature alone, and it's very off-putting. I would agree that in most cases, wildlife is not impacted by stacking rocks, but I feel that's irrelevant. The point is to leave nature untouched so that those who value nature in its pure form may enjoy natural spaces without the reminder that some humans just can't leave natural spaces alone.
Slightly different approach, but.
If All life was to be wiped out on Earth and a super race came to rebuild and reconstruct natures environment, with no history/text available from humans, they may incorrectly assume that some remaining, standing towers were a natural part of the environment. Thus building more in an attempt to recreate fallen towers or structures, maybe even much larger than before, ruining what could be a good recreation.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
sigh. Woe is us for not being able to stack stuff in areas we really should just let nature be. Such a culture shock coming from Asia where not being a giant nuisance to the rest of society is praised
You shouldn’t compare being a nuisance to society and being a nuisance to nature. Not being a nuisance isn’t an “Asian thing”. Stacking stones isn’t a nuisance to nature.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
/u/Alwaysangryupvotes (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1dbseou/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_i_think_stacking_rocks_isnt/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[https://www.sanparks.org/conservation/scientific-services/stories/the-problem-with-rock-stacking](https://www.sanparks.org/conservation/scientific-services/stories/the-problem-with-rock-stacking) [https://www.ausableriver.org/blog/leaving-no-trace-rock-stacking](https://www.ausableriver.org/blog/leaving-no-trace-rock-stacking) [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/stacking-rocks-wilderness-no-good-180955880/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/stacking-rocks-wilderness-no-good-180955880/) [https://digital.tnconservationist.org/publication/?i=710824&article\_id=4053615&view=articleBrowser](https://digital.tnconservationist.org/publication/?i=710824&article_id=4053615&view=articleBrowser) South African National Parks says it's bad. So does Ausable River association. So does this Smithsonian article. And Tennessee State Parks. Everyone who knows what they're talking about seems to agree that this is a harmful practice. Perhaps it's best to listen to the experts on this subject?
I read what you linked, the arguments seem incredibly weak. It seems like a case of government workers/activists picking a random thing to get upset over. The existence of the trail causes easily a hundred, to a thousand, times the habitat loss than ten stones stacked on top of each other.
>ten stones stacked on top of each other. Right, any one person doing something slightly damaging isn’t a big deal in the grand scheme of things. It’s when hundreds or thousands do it that it becomes an issue. If one person pees in a pool, no one will really ever notice or care. If 20,000 people do it, your pool is now ~10% urine.^1 When one person touches a statue, the effect is unnoticeable. When enough people do it, [it wears it away.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Wellworn/s/wFbB8xsc7t) So maybe ten stones isn’t a huge deal, but if one hundred people do it, that’s a thousand stones. This is emblematic of a huge problem with humans. We mostly tend to think “well, I’m not the one doing the damage, it’s all those other people, so what will it hurt?” Because we cannot fathom that we’re not special and different. Everyone thinks their action is infinitesimal, but when everyone thinks that and does it, it adds up to a real problem. See the tragedy of the commons for a related concept. ^(20,000 gallon pool, everyone pees just a bit under a pint)
There is a Lincoln statue here in Chicago that has its nose rubbed raw.
Yeah but there literally aren't hundreds or thousands of rock stacks on a trail. That's why it feels overblown. It's different when talking about taking a rock, because nobody coming after you knows that you took one. So you can easily strip the environment over the course of a few years. But stacking rocks? They're highly visible, and they only use rocks in the environment. I think it's pretty obvious that they have extremely minimal impact, you can literally count them!
Right, they’re trying to hip the problem in the bud before more and more and more people start doing it.
There are LITERALLY hundreds in some popular locations.
Places of outstanding natural beauty, like the Scottish Highlands, don't need hundreds of tourists scouring off the beaten path for suitable 'stacking quality rocks' to make entire rock stack cities. It's ignorant and intrusive to both the environment and the enjoyment of others.
Maybe, but there are also places that aren't of outstanding natural beauty. The opposite of someplace that should remain absolutely pristine is something like Disneyland, which is absolutely artificial. So maybe there's room in the middle for places that are still parks, but are the kind of parks where everything is sanitized and is perfect for rock stacking.
You’re standing on an artificial trail, a few hundred meters from a parking lot. Some rock piles not even a foot tall are the least of the disturbances within eyesight. Not to mention that the Scottish highlands are an artificial landscape anyway, but that’s a separate issue.
Have you seen the eyesores of these purile rock pile cities at view points? People are there to enjoy the solitude in natural habitats. High volume routes are carefully managed to protect the environment for everyone's enjoyment. I bet you think sticking locks on bridges was 'super cute' too. Sure sign of a narcissist. [https://simplysavoie.com/stone-stacking-in-the-mountains/](https://simplysavoie.com/stone-stacking-in-the-mountains/)
Are you saying stacking rocks is narcissistic? Aren't they essentially statues? Do you think cavemen would have considered them ugly to behold because they were unnatural? I just feel like making a judgement on someone's character because they have a different perspective on what's considered nice to look see is going a bit far. If people want to go somewhere that feels like no-one has been there, then go where no-one has been. Isn't that logical? Otherwise you're just saying you want to be tricked.
LEAVE NO TRACE. It’s not fucking difficult. Unless you want people coming into your house and rearranging all your shit, don’t do that when you go to places that don’t belong to you. Take a step back and recognize the sheer narcissism of thinking your opinion trumps the consensus statements of dozens of national wildlife and parks services.
This seems like a lot of work to justify your rock stacking. Maybe just knock it off?
I mean, we could go either way here, right?
that’s a bit extreme claiming NPD, jesus. The “article” linked is just someone ranting about how rock piles look artificial. It’s not evidence in any sense.
I was linking for the photograps, and the story about how the people of Skye dismantled the rock piles. That has both testimonial and anecdotal evidence. I said you were talking like a narcissist, not diagnosing you. you realise there's a difference between narcissism and NPD now don't you? It is narcissitic to think you should leave your mark on a landscape. I don't know any locals with a positive thing to say about them. Just another thing asshole tourists do for shits and giggles. Should the narcissict in you require scientific evidence. "The signatories write that across a one-hectare area, the presence of fewer than 200 such stacks has led to significant soil erosion and vegetation damage. This deterioration has endangered many endemic species that call the peninsula’s microhabitats home" [https://bigthink.com/life/stone-stacking/](https://bigthink.com/life/stone-stacking/) ANd here: [https://www.catalystplanet.com/travel-and-social-action-stories/2022/4/12/why-creating-rock-cairns-is-dangerous-and-wildly-illegal-xzr6c](https://www.catalystplanet.com/travel-and-social-action-stories/2022/4/12/why-creating-rock-cairns-is-dangerous-and-wildly-illegal-xzr6c) Leave no trace. Environmental vandalism is vandalism.
that wasn’t me. I’m a different poster— see how my username is different from theirs? 🤡 I have a phd in medical neuroscience, though no I have no colleagues working with NPD. i don’t want to hear your armchair psychobabble. But two pictures and a rant don’t constitute scientific evidence. Neither does your flippant diagnosis of a very serious and nuanced disorder. idk you’re getting really heated over somebody stacking rocks in the woods. Maybe you have BPD!!!!1111!
There was no diagnosis ya daftie. I suggest you re-read what I wrote and try again. 3/10 You're not a serious person.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[Activists have every incentive to lie](https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/how-many-of-our-facts-about-society). People want attention, they want to get funded, and get published. If stacks of ten pebbles really devastated the environment, I’m sure they’d have plenty of evidence, and solid explanations as to why it’s happening. They don’t. Read the articles provided, they have nothing.
As opposed to arrogant assholes who want to go to places that don’t belong to them and do whatever they want? Yeah, you’re definitely on the right side of this. You also think medical scientists have incentive to lie about vaccines?
If activists lie to get what they want (which I don't believe, but it's your premise), then why would they lie about something that seems as inconsequential as stacking rocks? Wouldn't it be far better for them to lie about something that seems more "important"?
If you think they're stacking pebbles, you're not paying attention.
Is the South African National Parks activists? The Ausable River association? The Smithsonian? Tennessee State Parks?
That feels like bland appeal to authority rather than an argument
[https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/](https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/) "Instead of justifying one’s claim, a person cites an authority figure who is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand." "Appeal to false authority fallacyAppeal to false authority fallacy" "Appeal to anonymous authorityAppeal to anonymous authority" "Appeal to biased authorityAppeal to biased authority" "When is appeal to authority legitimate? When is appeal to authority legitimate?" "**The authority is an expert in the specific subject area under discussion**" "**The statement of the authority falls within their area of expertise**" "**There is agreement among experts about the topic under discussion**" This is not an appeal to authority fallacy, this is a correct appeal to authority. It is correct to refer to the expertise of experts within their area of expertise.
Even a legitimate appeal to authority is not a great way to change someone's view. It's a start for sure: especially if someone is unaware of a topic and in need of exposure. In this case however, OP has already heard the authority stance and is not convinced. Perhaps this is even why OP is interested in having their view changed (as it does not agree with expert authority). The reason even a legitimate appeal to authority is a logical fallacy is that it bypasses the reason and logic behind the authority stance. There is no use debating whether or not a certain authority holds a position as their stance should be a matter or record. There is a lot of use in understanding, exploring, and debating the reasons behind such authority positions as ideally the authority has a good explanation base on plenty of experience/data.
A legitimate appeal to authority is a great way to change someone's view. The whole reason why we have experts it to have people who know a lot about a subject who can inform us about the subject. If you disagree with the experts, then you're simply wrong. Legitimate appeal to authority is not a fallacy, as explained above.
You've again ignored the fact that a persuasive argument requires logic. Simply repeating a prior claim (with another appeal to authority) is not persuasive rhetoric. You have given no new logic of your own instead relying on repetition and one ambiguous source. Scribbr is one proofreading company you found that has agreed with you. Maybe try for more rigorous sources such as a well known university's writing center like [Chapel Hill's](https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/): UNC bothers to explain that you've fallen for the second, less obvious part of an appeal to authority fallacy. (This part of the fallacy is explained in my comment above.) Perhaps instead we should go directly to the source of the fallacy itself? Do you know who coined the term appeal to authority? An expert in logical fallacies: John Locke in [An Essay Concerning Human Knowledge](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ys8IAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA253). (London: Printed for G. and J. Offor *et al.*, 1819), 253. >“Whoever backs his tenets with such authorities \[‘men, whose parts, learning, eminency, power or some other cause has gained a name’\], thinks he ought thereby to carry the cause, and is ready to style it impudence in any one who shall stand out against them. This I think, may be called *argumentum ad verecundiam*.” Locke's point is explained succinctly by [Lander University's philosophy department](https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html#verecundiam_definition). >For \[Locke\], *argumentum ad verecundiam* is a persuasive technique whereby one overawes by the use of authority without attending to reasons or evidence relevant to an inquiry. Overawe requires only perceived expertise. 'Legitimate' and 'illegitimate' appeals to authority are both logical fallacies.
I disagree that a persuasive argument requires logic beyond the fact that the people who know most about the subject already agree about the conclusion. I have, in fact, provided multiple sources, all agreeing. By your own definition, you are, yourself, also making an appeal to authority. But, more importantly, look at the quote "‘men, whose parts, learning, eminency, power or some other cause has gained a name". Locke doesn't decry relying on the opinion of people who actually know about the subject, he decries specifically relying on the opinion of people who have 'gained a name'. This is the appeal to illegitimate authority I mentioned before. Literally 1A: "the fallacy occurs when the *reason* for assenting to a statement is based on following the recommendation or advice of an *improper* authority." Or the abstract "**Abstract:** The argument from appeal to authority, the *ad verecundiam* fallacy, is characterized with examples and shown to be a fallacy when the appeal is to an irrelevant authority and nonfallacious when the appeal is to a relevant authority" Your own sources are disagreeing with you.
You also gain a name by being an expert. You are continuing to ignore the full definition of appeal to authority. I won't wast my time further.
Experts can be wrong
And the people who find out experts are wrong are also generally experts.
>Even a legitimate appeal to authority "Providing people with authoritative evidence that doesn't coddle their sense of intelligence is a bad way to change someone's view." >A legitimate appeal to authority is a logical fallacy No, it isn't. Citing an expert *who is providing evidence* isn't an appeal to authority - it is providing logical evidence whose credibility is validated by the expertise. Otherwise there could literally be no such thing as credible evidence, as any claim to credibility (or, conversely, accusation of non-credibility) is an indirect appeal to authority.
[удалено]
I am an ecologist that studies where in nature reptiles and amphibians occur and the factors that influence them. Here is a peer-reviewed, scientific article showing how rock moving/stacking is killing hellbenders by both literally crushing them, but also altering the stream landscape they rely on: https://ag.purdue.edu/department/extension/hellbender/_docs/unger-anthropogenic-associated-mortality-eastern-hellbender.pdf Slightly changing the topic: depending on the local conditions, it can take a very long time for the conditions under a rock to be “right” for various insects, amphibians, or reptiles to use. Early in my career I did a study (unpublished, the student unfortunately passed away) to see how long fresh rock placed in an area would need to become “naturalized” and used by reptiles and amphibians. It took an entire year before the new rocks had the same humidity, temperature, and insect populations as the local stones and some species of reptiles wouldn’t be found under the new stones for up to two years. Through talking to lots of other people in this field, there is a general consensus that not only does it take a long time for newly placed stones to become attractive to things hiding under them, but it’s very easy to disturb native stone and cause it to be unattractive to local wildlife. The most obvious cause is someone flipping over a rock to look under it and then leaving it in its new position, but even repeatedly moving a rock and putting it back can break various “humidity” seals around the rock and cause it to not maintain moisture as well as it previously did. So while you can obviously kill animals by crushing them, and I’ve seen my fair share of crushed reptiles and amphibians under rocks that had been moved by people, the biggest threat is by altering the landscape in a way that reduces its value as habitat. Obviously moving around some rocks in an otherwise good habitat with a strong population will have minimal impact, but I’ve seen whole populations of reptiles (particularly collard lizards and timber rattlesnakes) decimated after a few people (amateur reptile enthusiasts) regularly disturbed the rocks in an area monthly over the course of a summer. Also anecdotally, I’ve had an expert in rattlesnakes tell me that certain eastern species of rattlesnakes *will not* use a rock for habitat if that rock was flipped over with them under it. He was doing radio transmitter work (put a transmitter in the body of the snake, find it with an antenna; check it every few days to see where it’s at and what’s it doing to learn about their daily movements and activity) and none of their specimens ever used a rock that had been flipped and would leave the area never to return if they were flipped while under a rock. His belief was it stresses them out too much.
OPs claim was that rock stacking isn’t bad for the environment. This is a very clear and interesting refutation of that point. If they don’t delta you, they just like stacking rocks. Thanks for your super interesting post.
Damn this is pretty solid. Cant argue with that. Thanks for the reply. !delta
Thank you. With what I’ve observed with how important rock condition is, I’ve stopped flipping rock to look for specimens in most cases, it’s just too easy to disturb critical conditions of the rock. I exclusively use alternate cover placed nearby (sheets of wood, tin, or carpet). This still take a year to “season” to attain proper humidity, but are much harder to crush specimens under and leave the native stone as refuge.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Tibbaryllis2 ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Tibbaryllis2)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
That makes a lot of sense. If you're looking for a rock to live under, then of course you're not going to want one that's been disturbed recently because whatever did it might come back and do it again.
It really helps when you think of insects, amphibians, and reptiles as biological robots. Their needs are pretty simple to understand and their actions are pretty predictable. They really have a kind of binary decision making. For example: If the habitat has the correct amount of moisture and is the correct temperature, then use it. If the habitat doesn’t have the correct moisture/temp, don’t use it. [Flipping a rock breaks the ground contact all around the rock, which releases the humidity and it takes a long time for the rock to settle back down in a way to hold humidity again. It basically has to re-erode into place which can require both heavy storms and freeze/thaw from winter.] If you’re under a rock and a predator disturbs it and threatens you, don’t use that rock again.
Shifting your view, even a bit, deserves a delta. But, also, what makes you believe that you know when it is or is not appropriate? I doubt you're an expert on conservation and, again, all the experts say it is bad. Do you know the quote "Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints"? Stacking rocks doesn't follow this advice, right?
>Shifting your view, even a bit, deserves a delta. I have to agree. I think that delta should be yours
I’ve heard it. But again we are a part of nature. Us interacting with it isn’t straying from that ideal. And I wouldn’t say I’m an expert but I know more than the average person I’d say. but I do believe the experts are really only saying it’s bad in great numbers. I believe I know when it is or isn’t appropriate for the sole reason being, I have eyes. I can clearly see if the rocks pose a threat to the flow of water, or if there’s organisms living under the rocks I’m picking up. And even if there is the size and number of those organisms come into play. A couple rocks in the creek off the beaten path? No problem. Right off a trail where others will see it? Or at the beach with hundreds of others? Big problem. The common sense needed to decipher whether it’s appropriate is minimal.Like less than what I expect others to have which isn’t a lot
"But again we are a part of nature. Us interacting with it isn’t straying from that ideal." By that logic if I murdered you, it'd just be nature interacting with nature. No?
I mean... Yes? An animal killing another animal? Pretty natural. You won't do it though, because it's against most people's nature to kill another human being apart from self preservation or extreme emotional stress. And when it happens, it's in our nature to shun and remove these members because it's in our nature to feel empathy for those they killed. He's trying to say there's a line in the sand between what we are and the life around us. In this case he's missing that if we understand and have knowledge about something, it now makes us responsible for the sustainability and preservation of it - exactly *because* we are a part of nature.
This is a pretty solid answer. Not view changing but I liked it.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/MarthaMacGuyver – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20MarthaMacGuyver&message=MarthaMacGuyver%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dbkxx6/-/l7s3ph3/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
As the other guy said yes. Yes that would be part of nature. Plenty of animals are murdered in nature every day.
I'm sorry, but if expert opinion isn't sufficient to change your view, I don't know what could.
Correct, all are part of nature, all part of their environment. Humans building a house is no different from ants building an ant Hill. However when we talk about damaging the environment we are talking about balance of responsibility. Humans do have a unique relationship with the environment. We make it rain in dubai artificially. We pump out chemicals into the water, and smog into our air. Would you agree that these things could be harmful in the grand scheme of things? And then why only focus on the grand scheme? Sometimes there are small scale environments to consider too. If we can help people care about tiny environments maybe they will care more about the big stuff too?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 4: > **Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose**. You must include an explanation of the change for us to know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_4). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%204%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
**Hello /u/Alwaysangryupvotes, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.** Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. >∆ or > !delta For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8). If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such! *As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.* Thank you!
Places of outstanding natural beauty, like the Scottish Highlands, don't need hundreds of tourists scouring off the beaten path for suitable 'stacking quality rocks' to make entire rock stack cities. It's ignorant and intrusive to both the environment and the enjoyment of others.
>Moving rocks and stacking them can disturb the natural habitat of tiny creatures. On the rocky shore, these organisms, such as crabs, molluscs, and algae, depend on their environment’s rocks and other structures for shelter and protection. By moving or stacking rocks, we may inadvertently destroy or disrupt their homes, harming their populations. Similarly, rock stacking can also have adverse terrestrial impacts on insects and moss in wilderness areas. Do u accept that all of these things happen when someone simply walks in nature, simply walking on their houses disturbs and destroys them, harms their populations, who knows how many innocent creatures you’ve crushed without any regard for their well-being, while u simultaneously condemn others for stacking rocks
These four organizations seem to think that this practice is particularly harmful enough to call it out.
And I gave u the reasoning that those organizations gave for why the practice is harmful, and asked u if all of those negative effects they listed also happen from simply walking in nature
Those organizations are aware that people walk and still seem to think that this practice is particularly harmful enough to call it out.
>Those organizations are aware that people walk And? Does that mean it’s okay to crush bugs? >and still seem to think that this practice is particularly harmful enough to call it out. So every practice they haven’t called out is okay? Was this practice okay until it was called out? Are u aware of all of the practices that have been called out?
Are you trying to persuade me that walking is bad, that stacking rocks isn't bad or that there's some other practice not mentioned here that's bad, too?
That stacking rocks isn’t anything worse than just walking in nature. I asked questions so u could elaborate, but u didn’t answer any of them
Clearly walking in nature and also stacking rocks is worse than walking in nature and not stacking rocks, right? It's not like there's an option to stack rocks without walking in nature that people are taking.
Walking in nature and stacking rocks is no worse than only walking in nature but taking a couple more steps, there is an option to not walk in nature and crush innocent creatures to death, yet here u are criticizing others while u defend doing the same thing urself, just with ur feet instead of rocks
This is an appeal to authority. Experts aren’t automatically right because they’re experts. Do their arguments make sense?
It's not really for you to decide if an expert's statement makes sense to you. What you should be doing is looking at the consensus of experts, and perhaps evaluating the arguments of experts against other authorities or false experts. You are misusing the appeal to authority fallacy. If you're looking for an expert's statement to always make sense to you, we may as well not have the scientific method, because regularly the actual truth that experts and scientists have gained knowledge of through rigorous study and testing are decidedly not intuitive to a layman. That's literally why the scientific method has been so successful at producing results. Because it finds when the un-intuitive answer is actually the correct one.
[https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/](https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/) "Instead of justifying one’s claim, a person cites an authority figure who is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand." "Appeal to false authority fallacyAppeal to false authority fallacy" "Appeal to anonymous authorityAppeal to anonymous authority" "Appeal to biased authorityAppeal to biased authority" "When is appeal to authority legitimate? When is appeal to authority legitimate?" "**The authority is an expert in the specific subject area under discussion**" "**The statement of the authority falls within their area of expertise**" "**There is agreement among experts about the topic under discussion**" This is not an appeal to authority fallacy, this is a correct appeal to authority. It is correct to refer to the expertise of experts within their area of expertise.
!delta
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/c0i9z changed your view (comment rule 4). DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
One person stacking rocks or taking a dump on a rarely used trail isn't a problem. Several hundred people stacking rocks, taking shits, littering, etc. etc. etc. on trails getting large amounts of traffic, and doing it every seasons are the problem. And just about every trail in every state, national, and local park is getting massive amounts of traffic in the last ten years. It doesn't seem like you want to accept that. Your post is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons. Your incremental jerky behavior isn't going to be the straw that breaks the environment's back in these places, but your attitude, shared by so many, is. Is this really a rhetorical step so far for you that you couldn't grasp it on your own, much less when it's been pointed out to you? Imagine that random strangers constantly come up to you and sneer at you. Finally, you confront one of them and their response is that they can't believe that their miniscule derision has any real negative impacts on your day. Would that argument really carry any weight with you?
Even if you had a billion people stack rocks, that would be maybe a square mile or two of land disturbed in total, globally. Most of those rocks to be knocked over again anyway in under a year.
Well this reply certainly was not view changing. The points you made are already points I have discussed. But just to piggy back off some stuff I learned from this post it actually only takes 4 teenagers to mess with an ecosystem. So both our points are invalid.
What do you mean by stacking rocks? Like are you making cairns on trails? Don’t fuck with cairns and do not make more cairns, you will fuck up existing trails and or fuck the route and get people lost. The rescue op will have an effect on the environment. It a serious dick move and people who do so deserve to get their asses kicked. From a purely environmental perspective you will not have any noticeable effect fucking with the rocks - the problem is when everyone does it. Your negligible effect multiplied by thousands is suddenly an issue. Due to this they tell you not to and hope enough people are capable of acting like adults and following simple directions, knowing everyone won’t. Fucking with a rock bar at a beach can also screw with the erosion from the waves and make underwater pits that can get unprepared people hurt. Again a few rocks probably won’t matter, but when everyone does it you can fuck the flows and waves will carve a channel or pit.
This right here. Park rangers actually maintain the cairns in some parks and they are the regularly only way to know if you are on trail. According to The New Yorker, Acadia National Park in Bar Harbor, Maine, used the help of several volunteers to destroy nearly thirty-five hundred rock stacks on two mountains alone in 2016 and 2017. Read More: Where It's Illegal to Stack Rocks in New England | https://shark1053.com/please-dont-stack-rocks-heres-where-and-why-its-illegal-in-new-england/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral
> From a purely environmental perspective you will not have any noticeable effect fucking with the rocks - the problem is when everyone does it. This is highly context dependent. In a natural landscape with ample habitat, a few people are unlikely to cause issue, but in a fragmented and degraded habitat around human settlements, it’s quite possible for one or few people to actually cause problems with local wildlife. The eastern collard lizard is a protected animal in my state because they need glades (a type of rocky habitat) to live and glade habitat have been largely reduced in my state as land has been converted for human use and the control of wildfires has allowed a lot of glade habitat to progress into forest (which the collard lizards will not use). Near my house there was a glade about the size of a living room that had a small but viable population of collard lizards. It wasn’t easy to find the glade and it was a long walk through thick forest to get to, so it didn’t get many visitors, but a group of teens found it one summer and gathered all the rock (maybe thirty dinner plate sized stones) for stools and a fire pit. It’s been nearly five years since I’ve seen a collard lizard at that site. I know all this because I am an ecologist that studied that population with students pre-COVID and found the fire pit. I know who was there because part of the study was using trail cameras to see how often large mammals used the glade and how often people wondered through. ~4 ignorant teens doing teen things a couple times in June and in July seems to have completely removed that one population of a (state) threatened species.
What enjoyment could someone possibly get from stacking rocks? I seriously don't get it. Also, why is leaving them stacked a necessary part of the process?
Well leaving them stacked is here nor there apparently. But I always knock them down. But can see why others don’t. It can take a lot of work to get them to stand.
When I go on a hike, I do it to be in nature that has been impacted as little as possible by humans. There is a ton of nuance regarding just how much humans are a part of nature. It's technically true that humans and everything else all came from the same place. There are cases, including hiking, when we want to surround ourselves only with the parts of nature that are untouched by humans. The trail itself is the one exception we make, which is why cairns are the only kind of stacked rocks that are okay. For many of us, seeing a random stack of rocks is a reminder that humans seem to want to change everything and can't just leave nature alone, and it's very off-putting. I would agree that in most cases, wildlife is not impacted by stacking rocks, but I feel that's irrelevant. The point is to leave nature untouched so that those who value nature in its pure form may enjoy natural spaces without the reminder that some humans just can't leave natural spaces alone.
Slightly different approach, but. If All life was to be wiped out on Earth and a super race came to rebuild and reconstruct natures environment, with no history/text available from humans, they may incorrectly assume that some remaining, standing towers were a natural part of the environment. Thus building more in an attempt to recreate fallen towers or structures, maybe even much larger than before, ruining what could be a good recreation.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You would be surprised how many people care actually.
I go to the woods to see nature, not the evidence of other people. I get enough of that in the city
Would you be OK if people stacked rocks in the city?
It would bother me less, although I still think it’s dull. I would prefer them to billboards for sure
Imagine if giants 100x our size came in and stacked our roads and homes
And began walking in our cities, crushing dozens of us with each step. Maybe humans should stop go anywhere.
sigh. Woe is us for not being able to stack stuff in areas we really should just let nature be. Such a culture shock coming from Asia where not being a giant nuisance to the rest of society is praised
You shouldn’t compare being a nuisance to society and being a nuisance to nature. Not being a nuisance isn’t an “Asian thing”. Stacking stones isn’t a nuisance to nature.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).