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