Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Ohelemapit

Rhino species extinct

57 posts in this topic

But...its the civil society that demands rhino horns to turn into medicine, or viagra, or whatever nonsense they think it does...

Only if the civil society were a criminal society; that they're using the term poacher means that's not true. It only takes a few bad men to do great wrongdoing, but they can only do that if the good who outnumber them sit and do nothing. Lamenting the extinct after it's too late will never suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not.

.

I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should probably invent a process to grow a simulated rhino horm on the back of a rat or some such.... It is just specialized tissue like a hoof, or fingernail. Maybe the "powered horn" can be simulated?

.

what, and have all the GM idiots bearing down on you with their ''i don't care how many people have to die, or how much suffering we can prevent''

argument.....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another example of humanity failing--or refusing--to accept that our existence (or at least the richness of our existence) is dependent upon multiple, complex and multivalent ecosystems and an environmental depth of species variation.

'Chaos Theory' purports that the vibration of a butterfly's wings 11,000 miles away has, through a complex chain of interactions, intricacies and interstices, an eventual effect upon me (and you, and you and you. . .).

It reminds one of the systematic destruction of the American Bison herds in the late 1800's U.S. That was more of a deliberate act of genocide upon the Plains Native American tribal groupings, given their dependency upon the bison. This rhino situation smacks of a toxic mixture of Asian superstition and pure human greed.

When rhinos roam and poachers perish, I will feel better instead of bitter.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another example of humanity failing--or refusing--to accept that our existence (or at least the richness of our existence) is dependent upon multiple, complex and multivalent ecosystems and an environmental depth of species variation.

.

there are no straight lines.

we're all intertwined.....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if the civil society were a criminal society; that they're using the term poacher means that's not true. It only takes a few bad men to do great wrongdoing, but they can only do that if the good who outnumber them sit and do nothing.

Wait, what?

The poachers aren't demanding rhino horns. They are filling the demand for rhino horns.

The people demanding the rhino horns are the ones who consider themselves to be "good".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, what?

The poachers aren't demanding rhino horns. They are filling the demand for rhino horns.

The people demanding the rhino horns are the ones who consider themselves to be "good".

There's truth in what you've written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, what?

The poachers aren't demanding rhino horns. They are filling the demand for rhino horns.

The people demanding the rhino horns are the ones who consider themselves to be "good".

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

What do you call someone who demands illegal goods? Good criminals? That's a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

What do you call someone who demands illegal goods? Good criminals? That's a good one.

Those extinct rhinos are not the only type of rhinos out there. All rhino horns are coveted on the black market.

Keep up on "greed poachers"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those extinct rhinos are not the only type of rhinos out there. All rhino horns are coveted on the black market.

Keep up on "greed poachers"

The point is, lawful people don't use the black market. Somehow buying poached rhino horn wasn't understood to be bad. I have no idea why. Even in the wake of extinction, some people still can't get the clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

when you consider that rhino horn is just keratin, somebody should start up a website saying that they're selling pre-powdered rhino horn, when in reality all they'd be selling is ground up toenail clippings & nostril hair. i'm sure the chinese wouldn't mind if no-one told them the truth, and it'd be a great way of finding out if placebos had any effect on erectile dysfunction.....

:-)

Edited by shrooma
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

You are seriously suggesting that rhinos are extinct?

What do you call someone who demands illegal goods? Good criminals? That's a good one.

No. I call them normal. I judge based on behaviour, not on artifical (and half-assed) designations of morality.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You are seriously suggesting that rhinos are extinct?

No. I call them normal. I judge based on behaviour, not on artifical (and half-assed) designations of morality.

I am seriously suggesting that the rhino we're discussing is extinct. This display of disagreeing for the sheer purpose of disagreeing is gross.

You call them normal? There is no society we can name where crime is the norm; a preposterous notion.

The supply of ivory from extinct rhinos is zero. 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. It's an amateurish waste of time. Life is too short for fussing and fighting my friend.

You would judge criminals normal and you're the bane of endangered species everywhere. For shame. And don't play the morality card. If we're not even able to respect the laws we live under then it's not morality, it's anarchy.

These poachers need to be contronted out on the field and either arrested and jailed or shot and killed by the authorities that are charged with their protection, their assets seized and/or destroyed, or otherwise stopped by civil society who are obviously needed to pick up the slack of governments who for whatever the reason refuse to do the jobs they're tasked with.

Edited by Yamato
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I am seriously suggesting that the rhino we're discussing is extinct. This display of disagreeing for the sheer purpose of disagreeing is gross.

What's worse is the habit of saying anything in defense of a point and then pretending what you said didn't matter as long as you felt it was correct.

You call them normal? There is no society we can name where crime is the norm; a preposterous notion.

Sure there is. As long as the crime isn't being done in their backyard, people are surprisingly tolerant of crime.

Or do you think you aren't wearing anything made using slave labor?

The supply of ivory from extinct rhinos is zero. You would judge criminals normal and you're the bane of endangered species everywhere. For shame. And don't play the morality card. If we're not even able to respect the laws we live under then it's not morality, it's anarchy.

Oh, look, it's someone calling a morality judgement on someone else because of an assumption they made...how unexpected.

These poachers need to be contronted out on the field and either arrested and jailed or shot and killed by the authorities that are charged with their protection, their assets seized and/or destroyed, or otherwise stopped by civil society who are obviously needed to pick up the slack of governments who for whatever the reason refuse to do the jobs they're tasked with.

Yeah, failure of nature conservation is always due to people refusing to do their jobs.

Jeez, Yamato...

You claim that society needs to stop the culling of horns, and I point out that poachers are supplying the demand, not creating it.

You jump to rhino's being extinct, all horns are gone, that demand needs a supply, and supply has gone to zero. You demand I "Keep up", but I am still trying to figure out the very clearly stated claim that the poachers are going to have to find a new source of income since the culling of horns is no longer an option. I am apparently not the only person who interpreted it that way, but you just handwaved away your own claims, stating that the important thing is that "lawful people" don't use the black market.

Your personal naivete notwithstanding (did you just kind of assume that there is an entire, seperate, hidden society of "civilian" criminals buying all the goods the active criminals procured for them?), I did ask for the same clarification that was asked of you previously, and I did clarify your request as to what I called people who bought illegal goods.

Your conclusion: The interpretation of your claim as made by two seperate people cannot be lack of clarity on your part; it must be "disagreeing for the sheer purpose of disagreeing". Also, lack of knowledge on your part lack of knowledge on anyone else's part.

You openly admit that you don't know why the ivory is in demand (which indicates that not only did you not read the article, you didn't even bother to read the snippet actually posted in the OP itself), but you are perfectly okay with assuming that any opinion other than yours is wrong, and on top of that, nothing more than a "rhetorical" argument.

A "rhetorical" argument would be pointing out that rhinos don't have ivory, but I didn't do that because I knew what you meant, even if you said it wrong.

But the worst part is where you pass morality judgement on me, claiming that I would judge criminals to be normal, and that I am a danger to endangered species everywhere. I can only assume this is drawn from your earlier conclusion in another thread that because I oppose the Sea Shepherd, I must be pro-whaling (as opposed to anti-stupidity). You then have the gall to say "For shame", after demanding that I not play the morality card.

There is a fellow in the CT crowd that I refuse to engage with because he became so enamoured with playing coy with words he never saw himself falling away from wit and into intellectual dishonesty. Now, unfortunately, it is a habit of his he can no longer control (he is rather notorious for through the internet, actual)y. You are rapidly sliding down that same slope.

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. It's an amateurish waste of time. Life is too short for fussing and fighting my friend.

Me, I'll do that thing where you read the article and see what it says, or even where you google a bit of you don't know enough about the topic. Life is to short be assuming sh!t about others. You can assume all you want. We all know what happens when you do that.

Or better yet, stop assuming s*** and basing your conclusions around it.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, don't cut off their horns, you need to mount offensive operations against the poachers, like in South Africa.

"So far this year 13 poachers have been killed and 28 arrested in Kruger, according to information from the park. Eight more were arrested near the park yesterday, National Parks said."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

when you consider that rhino horn is just keratin, somebody should start up a website saying that they're selling pre-powdered rhino horn, when in reality all they'd be selling is ground up toenail clippings & nostril hair. i'm sure the chinese wouldn't mind if no-one told them the truth, and it'd be a great way of finding out if placebos had any effect on erectile dysfunction.....

:-)

If that would help those suffering from erectile dysfunction, then no one will ever dare to bite his fingernails in public again, LOL !

It wouldn't be, "Jeesh, that guy really is nervous, look at him biting his fingernails", but "Hah, another sufferer from LDS (Limp D--- Syndrome)".

.

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never did trust that Streisand woman,

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's worse is the habit of saying anything in defense of a point and then pretending what you said didn't matter as long as you felt it was correct.

Sure there is. As long as the crime isn't being done in their backyard, people are surprisingly tolerant of crime.

Or do you think you aren't wearing anything made using slave labor?

Oh, look, it's someone calling a morality judgement on someone else because of an assumption they made...how unexpected.

Yeah, failure of nature conservation is always due to people refusing to do their jobs.

Jeez, Yamato...

You claim that society needs to stop the culling of horns, and I point out that poachers are supplying the demand, not creating it.

You jump to rhino's being extinct, all horns are gone, that demand needs a supply, and supply has gone to zero. You demand I "Keep up", but I am still trying to figure out the very clearly stated claim that the poachers are going to have to find a new source of income since the culling of horns is no longer an option. I am apparently not the only person who interpreted it that way, but you just handwaved away your own claims, stating that the important thing is that "lawful people" don't use the black market.

Your personal naivete notwithstanding (did you just kind of assume that there is an entire, seperate, hidden society of "civilian" criminals buying all the goods the active criminals procured for them?), I did ask for the same clarification that was asked of you previously, and I did clarify your request as to what I called people who bought illegal goods.

Your conclusion: The interpretation of your claim as made by two seperate people cannot be lack of clarity on your part; it must be "disagreeing for the sheer purpose of disagreeing". Also, lack of knowledge on your part lack of knowledge on anyone else's part.

You openly admit that you don't know why the ivory is in demand (which indicates that not only did you not read the article, you didn't even bother to read the snippet actually posted in the OP itself), but you are perfectly okay with assuming that any opinion other than yours is wrong, and on top of that, nothing more than a "rhetorical" argument.

A "rhetorical" argument would be pointing out that rhinos don't have ivory, but I didn't do that because I knew what you meant, even if you said it wrong.

But the worst part is where you pass morality judgement on me, claiming that I would judge criminals to be normal, and that I am a danger to endangered species everywhere. I can only assume this is drawn from your earlier conclusion in another thread that because I oppose the Sea Shepherd, I must be pro-whaling (as opposed to anti-stupidity). You then have the gall to say "For shame", after demanding that I not play the morality card.

There is a fellow in the CT crowd that I refuse to engage with because he became so enamoured with playing coy with words he never saw himself falling away from wit and into intellectual dishonesty. Now, unfortunately, it is a habit of his he can no longer control (he is rather notorious for through the internet, actual)y. You are rapidly sliding down that same slope.

Me, I'll do that thing where you read the article and see what it says, or even where you google a bit of you don't know enough about the topic. Life is to short be assuming sh!t about others. You can assume all you want. We all know what happens when you do that.

Or better yet, stop assuming s*** and basing your conclusions around it.

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 What the poachers must do in response isn't to find their ivory elsewhere, it's to stop poaching ivory. There are many possibilities we should be discussing to stop the poachers hard in their tracks to prevent the next extinction. Know any?

I didn't "admit" I didn't know why ivory was in demand (where?), I referred to some reasons why it is.

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

You claim that society needs to stop the culling of horns, and I point out that poachers are supplying the demand, not creating it.

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. Those are not mutually exclusive and there's nothing I said that your statement was answering to. 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. 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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it matters who is supplying the demand or creating the demand. The only issue at play here for me is how you stop the extinction of a species - and in this regard you aim for the real problem, the poacher.

I say that because I see this as being no different from any other issue whereby the demands of some are exploited by others. Whether it's for medicine or through superstition you are just playing on people's fears, and just as the dealer is worse then the addict, the loan shark worse then the person in debt, the people trafficker worse then the illegal immigrant etc....the poacher is worse then the demand it's supplying, it's just playing on people's fears/superstition for profit, and where as the other examples have a detrimental affect on society, this has a detrimental affect on a species - therefore the buck stops with the poacher, and all sights should be set on them. imo.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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")

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:

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.