Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

Rhino species extinct


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#46    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 June 2013 - 12:19 AM

View PostYamato, on 15 June 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

The supply of ivory from an extinct species goes to zero.  Reminding me there are alternate sources of ivory is no correction, it's just rhetoric that betrays your true attitude about this issue

And if we were talking about ivory, that would be relevant.

When multiple people correct you on something, chances are the problem is not with the multiple people, but with the one person those people are correcting.

And, again, I will repeat what I said in the Sea Shepherd argument:  "I am not pro-whaling.  I am anti-stupidity."

Quote

What the poachers must do in response isn't to find their ivory elsewhere, it's to stop poaching ivory.

Could you...stop saying ivory?  It's hard enough to give you any credit as a thinker as it is.

Quote

There are many possibilities we should be discussing to stop the poachers hard in their tracks to prevent the next extinction.   Know any?

Sure.  Shoot them.  Pay them off.  Put them all in jail.  There are tons of ways to stop poachers.

Problem is, none of those ways prevent new poachers from taking their place.

Quote

I didn't "admit" I didn't know why ivory was in demand (where?)

Right here:

"I don't know if this ivory was more demanded than other ivory for cultural, geographical, religious or magical reasons or not.  I'm not going to assume that it isn't just to make up fake rhetorical arguments with other posters on an anonymous message board.  I referred to some reasons why it is."

Again, when multiple people can't tell what you are saying, the problem isn't with multiple people, it is with the person saying it.

Quote

Telling me what "poachers are going to have to do" shows you're concerned about the poachers' perspective and not the rhinos'.

That wasn't me.  That was you.  More accurately, it was the logical extension to what you said.

"What rhino horns?   The rhinos are extinct now.   Demand needs supply.   Supply's gone to zero.   Keep up."

Three people pointed this out, Yamato.  The problem isn't on this end.  It isn't that people aren't keeping up with you; It's that they don't want to follow you in there first place because you say wrong things and then pretend you didn't.

Quote

The poachers are going to have to be stopped before more rhinos go extinct.  I would suggest figuring out what can be done about the threat from poachers to other large animals instead of m********ing about me.

First thing to do is to stop the character assasination that makes the movement to stop poaching look like it is manned by a bunch of idiots who can't string together a coherent argument to save their lives (ref. "Sea Shepherd")

Quote

Poachers are supplying the demand not creating it, and civil society always needs to pick up where government fails to stop the culling.   Two different statements, your not even addressing mine.

Sure I am.  The difference is that while you are focused on the symptoms, I say we should target the disease.  Focusing on the symptoms won't get rid of the problem.  And it wasn't an answer to a question.  It was a correction of an incorrect assumption.  This one:

View PostYamato, on 13 June 2013 - 02:08 AM, said:

Only if the civil society were a criminal society; that they're using the term poacher means that's not true.  Civil society, not government, is the mechanism through which all great social change has come about through history. What you don't seem to understand is people who produce illegal goods and people who buy them both have a guilty hand in this.

I don't understand it?

I'm the one that called it normal.  That implicitly requires that I consider the two to be intertwined.  You, on the other hand, continue to refer to your precious and non-existent "civil society" as if they were humanity's last hope.  That is what implies a refusal to accept their part in this crime.

If people break the law, regardless of whether they admit to being criminals or if they consider themselves to be part of "civil society", they have still broken the law and are still criminals.  If people have refused to demand and support a change in their government to achieve given goal, or a government has a goal and has failed to achieve it, the people are still a part of the government and the government is still a part of the people, until such time as one demands seperation from the other.

Quote

Cutting off the supply is an answer so long as it isn't accomplished through extinction of species.   Ivory can be made so prohibitively expensive (because poaching it will likely lead to a sniper's bullet in your head) that the demand at those market prices evaporates.

Please stop saying ivory.

Quote

Asians and Africans can surely do without their magic medicines and religious relics all the same.   The reasons people have for buying these illegal goods are ridiculous.  Kowtowing to the poachers is a livelong dream for some people though no matter how ridiculous the reasons get for poaching endangered animals.

:huh:

Who kowtows to poachers?

In all cases, the reasons for poaching make perfect sense.  Poach animal, make profit.  The reasons for the demand are definitely ridiculous and should be directly addressed.  As hard as some people make it to believe, ignorance can be cured, whereas greed...well, that's going to remain part of the human condition for quite some time.

Quote

Crime is never the norm of any society.  So what's normal to you isn't normal anywhere in reality.

Go ahead and think that.

My personal philosophy is:  "What is normal to me isn't necessarily normal to anyone else, especially other societies, nor is it abnormal by default.  It depends on what people do, not what they believe."

Let me guess:  To you, the above philosophy is a confession that I don't care about nature, or that I support criminals, or that I am pro-whaling, or any of the other abusive accusations you have made against me.

Oh, speaking of which...

Quote

If crime pays, then there's a lack of enforcement.   If I buy illegal goods and get caught doing it, I can't use these abusive tirades with the police you're using on me to get anywhere with them either.

Sure you can.  

And they will be just as effective.

Or do you think you are the first to suggest violence as a solution to society's problems?

Quote

If you want to be taken seriously in any discussion about conservation of species in the future, you'll need to provide some alternatives instead of engaging in buttsore obfuscation.

The use of big boy word to garner respect for one's intellect tends to be defeated when the word immediately preceeding it indicates a grade school playground mentality.

In all cases, my solution has already been presented.  Take care of the actual problem, meaning the demand, through the use of deception if necessary.

After all, the non-thinkers on the other side of the argument deserve no more respect than the non-thinkers on this side of the argument.


#47    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,381 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 June 2013 - 02:30 AM

Ivory, aquatus.  Ivory.   The differences in the composition between rhino horns would reject your blabber that the supply of this particular material didn't go to zero.   But it did.   You're never going to get another horn from a western black rhino again and the other rhinos don't have the same horns.   If you're going to have this much of a problem with the word I use then I have to have a problem with your lack of understanding of the end of the supply of this horn forever.

Thinking is asking for ideas.   What are yours?   All that word count and not a single alternative?   Now we're down to "Tons of options", and "none of them work"?

I suggest violence to stop violence including poaching endangered species, which is hardly a controversial position.  When a poor black guy in a rusty pickup truck gets a bullet in his head for his trouble, nobody cries the crocodile tears that some do for Japanese government whale poachers for getting their poaching vessels nudged out of the way.  I'm open to any and all ideas including a bullet in the head until other alternatives prove themselves effective.    Right now there is a poaching boom estimated to be a $17 billion industry.  Extinctions like this prove current efforts to stop it aren't nearly enough.

"Through the use of deception if necessary".  The western black rhino is extinct.  It's "necessary" already!  Therefore, yes, keep up.   I won't reject "deception" either whatever that means.  Selling fake products illegally perhaps?   I know you're not going to understand that question either, forgetting again that buying something illegally is a part of the problem.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#48    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 June 2013 - 04:41 AM

View PostYamato, on 16 June 2013 - 02:30 AM, said:

Ivory, aquatus.  Ivory.   The differences in the composition between rhino horns would reject your blabber that the supply of this particular material didn't go to zero.   But it did.   You're never going to get another horn from a western black rhino again and the other rhinos don't have the same horns.   If you're going to have this much of a problem with the word I use then I have to have a problem with your lack of understanding of the end of the supply of this horn forever.

Are you so blindly loyal to your own inerrancy that you refuse to even make the most cursory check prior to posting?  How many times do you have to make yourself look foolish before you learn to think first and speak later?

Double-check your claims--you know what, at this point, I would be ecstatic if you just single-checked them.  Take the 30 seconds a google search would take to figure out why you become a laughing stock when you talk about "ivory" and about how the horns are different from species to species.

In other words, stop making s*** up.  You have no credibility left to bluff with.

Quote

Thinking is asking for ideas.   What are yours?   All that word count and not a single alternative?   Now we're down to "Tons of options", and "none of them work"?

No, thinking is using intelligence, also known as rational judgement.  For instance, if someone is indicating to you that you are wrong about something you are proclaiming in public, an intelligent person would double-check their information prior to continuing to insisting on it.

And I already supported an idea.  I supported the one about the simulated rhino horn powder (and I even made a funny).  Unfortunately, buyers would want the actual horn (a perverse form of quality control, I suppose), so deception at a higher level will be required.  But the primary solution is education (which, ironically, is somewhat controversial).

Quote

I suggest violence to stop violence including poaching endangered species, which is hardly a controversial position.

Of course it isn't.  Heck, it's all but a tradition among we humans.  We've been doing it for millenia.

You'd think all that violence would have solved our problems by now.

Quote

When a poor black guy in a rusty pickup truck gets a bullet in his head for his trouble, nobody cries the crocodile tears that some do for Japanese government whale poachers for getting their poaching vessels nudged out of the way.

What the hell?

Quote

I'm open to any and all ideas including a bullet in the head until other alternatives prove themselves effective. Right now there is a poaching boom estimated to be a $17 billion industry.  Extinctions like this prove current efforts to stop it aren't nearly enough.

Quite a few people will be more than happy to risk a bullet in the head for a piece of that $17 billion.  Quite a few people would be willing to risk their lives for less than a $100 per horn, when it comes to that.  Chances are you are going to run out of bullets long before your run out of poachers.

Alternatively, through education, through exposure of the quackery that creates the demand in the first place, not only do you get rid of the poachers, you also improve the lives of those cultures which haven't heard that modern medicine blows traditional medicines out of the water.

Quote

"Through the use of deception if necessary".  The western black rhino is extinct.  It's "necessary" already!  Therefore, yes, keep up.   I won't reject "deception" either whatever that means.

Glad to know your ignorance on a given subject won't prevent you from supporting it full-heartedly, as long as you get what you want out of the deal.

This does explain how you have no problem with the Sea Shepherd risking a fuel spill in the very environment it claims it is trying to protect, though, so there is that.

Quote

Selling fake products illegally perhaps?   I know you're not going to understand that question either, forgetting again that buying something illegally is a part of the problem.

You are correct, I don't understand the question.

Selling fake rhino horns isn't illegal (which is my position until I am made aware of a law that states otherwise).  Selling real ones is.  Buying fake rhino horns is also not illegal (in most countries.  Some do have laws about buying horns if the buyer thinks they are the genuine article).

But whether that approach works or not is another question.  The trouble with traditional medicine is that since it rarely actually does anything beyond acting as a placebo, it doesn't really matter whether the medicine is genuine or not; people will still demand it.  My plan would be to mold false rhino horns horns and flood the market with them.  The market would have to be monitored, though.  If flooding the market increases consumer demand (a marketing phenomena that involves the human tendency to believe that anything popular must be worth trying), then action would have to be taken (most likely, destructive pricing).  Again, the problem is that when you deal with people who don't behave rationally, there is no such thing as a silver bullet.  Every solution has to be monitored for success.  People who believe rhino horn will cure anything from cancer to erectile dysfunction can't be counted on to act in a wholly predictable manner (which is not to say that they are not predictable, on a certain level).

The poachers, being the only rational ones on the opposing team, I am not all that concerned with.  They don't poach because they enjoy killing animals (generally speaking).  They poach because they can make a ton of money for relatively little risk.  Take away the ton of money, and they will find something else besides poaching to make money on.


#49    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,381 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 June 2013 - 08:25 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 16 June 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:

Are you so blindly loyal to your own inerrancy that you refuse to even make the most cursory check prior to posting?  How many times do you have to make yourself look foolish before you learn to think first and speak later?

Double-check your claims--you know what, at this point, I would be ecstatic if you just single-checked them.  Take the 30 seconds a google search would take to figure out why you become a laughing stock when you talk about "ivory" and about how the horns are different from species to species.

In other words, stop making s*** up.  You have no credibility left to bluff with.



No, thinking is using intelligence, also known as rational judgement.  For instance, if someone is indicating to you that you are wrong about something you are proclaiming in public, an intelligent person would double-check their information prior to continuing to insisting on it.

And I already supported an idea.  I supported the one about the simulated rhino horn powder (and I even made a funny).  Unfortunately, buyers would want the actual horn (a perverse form of quality control, I suppose), so deception at a higher level will be required.  But the primary solution is education (which, ironically, is somewhat controversial).



Of course it isn't.  Heck, it's all but a tradition among we humans.  We've been doing it for millenia.

You'd think all that violence would have solved our problems by now.



What the hell?



Quite a few people will be more than happy to risk a bullet in the head for a piece of that $17 billion.  Quite a few people would be willing to risk their lives for less than a $100 per horn, when it comes to that.  Chances are you are going to run out of bullets long before your run out of poachers.

Alternatively, through education, through exposure of the quackery that creates the demand in the first place, not only do you get rid of the poachers, you also improve the lives of those cultures which haven't heard that modern medicine blows traditional medicines out of the water.



Glad to know your ignorance on a given subject won't prevent you from supporting it full-heartedly, as long as you get what you want out of the deal.

This does explain how you have no problem with the Sea Shepherd risking a fuel spill in the very environment it claims it is trying to protect, though, so there is that.



You are correct, I don't understand the question.

Selling fake rhino horns isn't illegal (which is my position until I am made aware of a law that states otherwise).  Selling real ones is.  Buying fake rhino horns is also not illegal (in most countries.  Some do have laws about buying horns if the buyer thinks they are the genuine article).

But whether that approach works or not is another question.  The trouble with traditional medicine is that since it rarely actually does anything beyond acting as a placebo, it doesn't really matter whether the medicine is genuine or not; people will still demand it.  My plan would be to mold false rhino horns horns and flood the market with them.  The market would have to be monitored, though.  If flooding the market increases consumer demand (a marketing phenomena that involves the human tendency to believe that anything popular must be worth trying), then action would have to be taken (most likely, destructive pricing).  Again, the problem is that when you deal with people who don't behave rationally, there is no such thing as a silver bullet.  Every solution has to be monitored for success.  People who believe rhino horn will cure anything from cancer to erectile dysfunction can't be counted on to act in a wholly predictable manner (which is not to say that they are not predictable, on a certain level).

The poachers, being the only rational ones on the opposing team, I am not all that concerned with.  They don't poach because they enjoy killing animals (generally speaking).  They poach because they can make a ton of money for relatively little risk.  Take away the ton of money, and they will find something else besides poaching to make money on.
How can I say this any more simply and get your stubborn ignorant brain to understand once and for all?    Not all rhino horns are alike.  The supply of this rhino has gone to zero.  A 30-second search would teach you that fact and stop you from denying it and dribbling nonsense about me in reply.   No, you can't go to other animals to get more supply because the composition of those horns is different.   Your initial point you tried so hard complaining about is moot and I give you no chance of acknowledging that because you're too full of yourself.

But you are finally dragged to agreement of my initial point which is that buying illegal goods is illegal.  But you only seem to acknowledge simple concepts when you talk yourself into it.

Please cite your sources on making generalized claims of legality in unnamed countries and unnamed laws.  You can't just start with what you think is common sense and then assert that it's the law.  

So I correctly defined your vague reference to "deception" which is selling fake rhino horns.  Again, I'm all for any and all solutions.  I don't just assume that your idea is automatically the most effective one when there's no evidence to think so.

Of course I don't have a problem with Sea Shepherd "risking oil spill".  Life is a game of risk management.  If you don't take risks, you're dead.   It's all about what you're taking risks for.   Saving whales in a whale sanctuary is something that far more people than Sea Shepherd should be doing.  The logic follows for a rhino sanctuary and any other sanctuary where species are protected.

Quote

Quite a few people will be more than happy to risk a bullet in the head for a piece of that $17 billion.  Quite a few people would be willing to risk their lives for less than a $100 per horn, when it comes to that.  Chances are you are going to run out of bullets long before your run out of poachers.

No, it depends on the risk.  Risk can be increased dramatically.  Right now, there isn't nearly enough enforcement of poaching to discourage it from happening and shooting to kill is rarely the punishment exacted.  Educating people that their beliefs are false can take hundreds of years if ever at all.  A  bullet in the head takes a few seconds.   We can educate Japanese people about how toxic whale meat is, but they'd to be living under a rock not to know that already.   Sometimes people just refuse to acknowledge facts and talking to you here is yet another example.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#50    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 June 2013 - 10:15 AM

View PostYamato, on 16 June 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

How can I say this any more simply and get your stubborn ignorant brain to understand once and for all? Not all rhino horns are alike.  The supply of this rhino has gone to zero.  A 30-second search would teach you that fact and stop you from denying it and dribbling nonsense about me in reply.   No, you can't go to other animals to get more supply because the composition of those horns is different.   Your initial point you tried so hard complaining about is moot and I give you no chance of acknowledging that because you're too full of yourself.

Stop making up s***.

Rhino horns are all made of the same material.

That material isn't ivory.

There is no difference (asides from visual) between one rhino horn and another.

Educate yourself.

Quote

But you are finally dragged to agreement of my initial point which is that buying illegal goods is illegal.  But you only seem to acknowledge simple concepts when you talk yourself into it.

I never said it wasn't illegal.  I said it was normal.

Quote

Please cite your sources on making generalized claims of legality in unnamed countries and unnamed laws.  You can't just start with what you think is common sense and then assert that it's the law.

Hmm, let me think about how that went the last time...

*Cited UN law, article, paragraph when challenged.  Followed up with specific Rules of the Sea violations.--no response*
*Showed how a resolution you did not cite (nor even knew was a resolution), but from which you made a generalized claim that it was both law and it authorized physical law enforcement did not, in specific fact and quotation from the resolution, authorize anything of the kind.--You continued to insist it did, but were unable to point out the actual words stating this.*
*Cited head of committee introducing the above resolution to UN World Members explaining what you repeatedly stated as a law was not a law, but a "moral code"--you referred to his address as an "op-ed piece".*
*Showed exactly what actions the resolution did recommend, as written on the resolution itself, in direct reference to the section you continued to insist was referring to physical law enforcement--no response.*
*Showed you an example of what authorization actually looks like, using the UN Charter articles for the peacekeeping force, bolding the specific words to make it as easy as possible for you--you were unable to see any difference between a charter article specifically saying "law enforcement", specifically saying which group was going to be in charge, and specifically saying which group was responsible for making the rules and regulations...and your resolution, in which the closest it comes to even referring to conservation action is to call on volunteers to enable and enact (and it specifically mentions educational programs and other "normal activities") the actions that were written on the resolution itself (but were utterly ignored by you)*

I keep producing citation after citation of my claims.  Remember the whole Dictionary fiasco?  Where you kept insisting that we look in the dictionary for a definition that you insisted was correct?  And how I kept telling you to actually look in the dictionary, which you utterly refused to do, in the same way you refuse to educate yourself above there, and you kept insisting your definition was correct until I finally had to post three seperate dictionary definitions showing how your definition was not correct?

This is the exact same thing.  Exactly the same.  The only difference is that I now have to decide whether you are truly incapable of recognizing when you are wrong about something, or whether you are being intentionally dishonest.  Either way, I'm done providing citations for you.  You never acknowledge them, and on occassion, completely ignore them.

Quote

So I correctly defined your vague reference to "deception" which is selling fake rhino horns.

Actually, no.  I didn't decide on the fake rhino horns till I was about half-way through the post talking about them, mostly because I recalled that buyers wouldn't just buy bags full of keratin dust; they wanted the actual horns themselves.  The "deception" was indeed a vague reference to nothing in particular at that time, other than a general feel that the use of intelligence would always be superior to the use of violence.

Quote

Again, I'm all for any and all solutions.  I don't just assume that your idea is automatically the most effective one when there's no evidence to think so.

Why not?  You have no problem assuming anything else with no evidence.  Heck, you have no problem assuming things when evidence directly contradicting you is presented.

Quote

Of course I don't have a problem with Sea Shepherd "risking oil spill".  Life is a game of risk management.  If you don't take risks, you're dead.   It's all about what you're taking risks for.   Saving whales in a whale sanctuary is something that far more people than Sea Shepherd should be doing.  The logic follows for a rhino sanctuary and any other sanctuary where species are protected.

And this is precisely why I am happy that I don't live in a pure democracy.

Quote

No, it depends on the risk.  Risk can be increased dramatically.  Right now, there isn't nearly enough enforcement of poaching to discourage it from happening and shooting to kill is rarely the punishment exacted.

Are you...no, never mind, of course you aren't kidding, you just assumed you knew and didn't bother checking before talking.

In India, not only is shooting poachers not prosecutable, Kaziringa even offers cash bonuses for successfully doing so.  South Africa is the same, although it doesn't offer bonuses.  Tanzania recently (a few years ago) repealed their "shoot on sight" standing orders, although they were, at the time, mostly focusing on the elephants (the big grey things that actually do have ivory).  Last time I was there, the law was still in the books, but not enforced.  Kenya remains the worst in terms of directly addressing the poaching issue, although there has been a recent political rise in support, mostly because of how successful Tanzania has been in taking their tourist trade thanks to their conservation efforts.  Zimbabwe, Congo, and Malawi still have shoot-to-kill (in fact, they also extend this to private enforcement agencies, a.k.a mercenaries).  It helps that more than a few rangers have been killed by poachers (life is cheap in some of these places.  If shooting a ranger is all that stands between you and an easy couple of hundred bucks, then it just became a bad day for the rangers).  Unfortunately, there is also outcry whenever civilians get shot as they are passing through a protected territory.  It is pretty difficult to tell if someone is poaching or just passing through.

Africa is a beautiful place, but don't kid yourself in thinking you are proposing anything new when you talk about a bullet to the head.  That's a day in the office for the poachers.

Quote

Educating people that their beliefs are false can take hundreds of years if ever at all.  A bullet in the head takes a few seconds.   We can educate Japanese people about how toxic whale meat is, but they'd to be living under a rock not to know that already.

Dear Lord, please stop talking...

Edited by aquatus1, 16 June 2013 - 10:20 AM.


#51    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,381 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 June 2013 - 10:31 PM

Quote

Why not?  
Because I have no evidence not to.

Quote

You have no problem assuming anything else with no evidence.  Heck, you have no problem assuming things when evidence directly contradicting you is presented
Like?

Quote

Are you...no, never mind, of course you aren't kidding, you just assumed you knew and didn't bother checking before talking.

Checking the OP article would be the hint necessary to observe I'm not assuming.   Extinction would be the greatest evidence that enforcement of the law is inadequate.

Quote

Tanzania recently (a few years ago) repealed their "shoot on sight" standing orders
Conferring with what I'm saying.

Quote

the law was still in the books, but not enforced.
Conferring with what I'm saying.

Quote

Kenya remains the worst in terms of directly addressing the poaching issue
Conferring with what I'm saying.  There's great room for improvement in anti-poaching law enforcement.

Quote

I keep producing citation after citation of my claims.  Remember the whole Dictionary fiasco?  Where you kept insisting that we look in the dictionary for a definition that you insisted was correct?  And how I kept telling you to actually look in the dictionary, which you utterly refused to do, in the same way you refuse to educate yourself above there, and you kept insisting your definition was correct until I finally had to post three seperate dictionary definitions showing how your definition was not correct?
Where I cited the dictionary definition of violence before you did, yes I remember.   According to you, you can commit "violence" against inanimate objects when I already used the word "destroy" which was adequate enough already.  Violence is defined well enough.  I've never heard of "injuring" objects, but if you prefer "commit violence against equipment" instead of "destroy equipment" then it still provided no reason to change my mind using weaker words that nobody else uses to try to make a point.
http://www.merriam-w...ionary/violence
Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence

By these definitions, Sea Shepherd is non-violent.


Quote

This is the exact same thing.  Exactly the same.  The only difference is that I now have to decide whether you are truly incapable of recognizing when you are wrong about something, or whether you are being intentionally dishonest.  Either way, I'm done providing citations for you.  You never acknowledge them, and on occassion, completely ignore them.

I have no idea what citations you're talking about.  The only citations posted show me that you're the one assigning your own errors in meaning to me.

Quote

It helps that more than a few rangers have been killed by poachers (life is cheap in some of these places.
No, it hurts that life is cheap in some of these places, that's why extinction is a real possibility.

Quote

Rhino horns are all made of the same material.
No,

Unlike the horns of most animals, which have a bony core covered by a relatively thin layer of keratin, rhino horns are keratin all the way through — although the precise chemical composition of the keratin will vary depending on a rhino’s diet and geographic location. This fact has allowed ecologist Raj Amin of the Zoological Society of London and his colleagues to take “fingerprints” of horn samples and determine the animal populations they came from, which has helped law enforcement officials target and crack down on poaching.

http://www.pbs.org/w...s-fiction/1178/

Quote

Dear Lord, please stop talking...
You're not entitled to interfere with free speech on a discussion forum.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#52    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 June 2013 - 11:03 PM

And that's the end of the ball game.

On the bright side, I don't consider you to be willfully ignorant.


#53    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,381 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 June 2013 - 11:16 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 16 June 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

And that's the end of the ball game.

On the bright side, I don't consider you to be willfully ignorant.
I willfully ignore your opinion of me.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#54    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 June 2013 - 12:53 AM

Fine with me.  Just like everything else you ignore, it doesn't go away, nor is it shown to be incorrect.


#55    Lobotomy

Lobotomy

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 27 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Durham, England

Posted 25 June 2013 - 07:39 PM

View PostMJNYC, on 11 June 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:



and agree with Red, stop buying Chinese and all Asian products!  You can find Made in the USA now, just look on Etsy and in stores.  :)

Yes and that's just a racist comment because what have Japan done with regards to this issue? Ziltch!
Also it's so easy to criticise developing countries for the destruction of their natural habitat when it's the very 'globalization' that the West has imposed and promotes that is the main perpetrator, besides the fact that here in the UK for instance we had already obliterated the native wolves, boars (which had to be reintroduced from Eastern Europe), bears and others. Instead of complaining we should be doing something about it as we are part of the problem.


#56    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 25 June 2013 - 08:18 PM

View PostLobotomy, on 25 June 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

Yes and that's just a racist comment because what have Japan done with regards to this issue? Ziltch!

My comments are not to be construed as racist. My take on this is problem is one of superstition. Yup, Europeans and Americans are superstitious too, just witness the prevalence of astrology and other pseudo-sciences. They even exploit animals for it, I'm sure "lucky" rabbit feet key chains are still a popular commercial item. But these Westerners are not causing the extinction of species because of superstition, that's my point.

Quote

Also it's so easy to criticise developing countries for the destruction of their natural habitat when it's the very 'globalization' that the West has imposed and promotes that is the main perpetrator, besides the fact that here in the UK for instance we had already obliterated the native wolves, boars (which had to be reintroduced from Eastern Europe), bears and others.

I don't think globalization has been imposed so much as embraced, greed cuts across all ethnicities.

Quote

Instead of complaining we should be doing something about it as we are part of the problem.

What do you propose?


#57    Mindscanner

Mindscanner

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 43 posts
  • Joined:17 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New Zealand

  • '' The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding ''
    - Leonardo da Vinci

Posted 28 June 2013 - 07:07 AM

I think human should start finding some other options to cure certain ailments, surely there would be lot of botanical compositions they could use to replace substance coming from poor animals. As I know Medicine is not always the best option to cure the ailments. There should be much heavier penalty for using and distributing the items. Beside who ever could afford that price, certainly are not poor people, above them there is always on higher position to collect large profitable income with much less tax to pay in their operation. The greed behind all of this that gets me the most. IF I see from the  poachers point of view, there is always a matter of financial aspect that lacking to feed their family, and they got to do what they got to do, even though if there are greedy poachers, they wouldn't get as much as profit as in the higher place. The people in the higher place could get away with it because they can afford it and they have power over them. They should be sentenced for life and seize all their possession in exchange to feed the hungers and money should also go back to conservation operation, hopefully they will use the money in order to create tougher system and regulations.

Edited by Mindscanner, 28 June 2013 - 07:25 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users