Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
Blood sport (Read 8206 times)
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8945
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #60 - May 22nd, 2009 at 8:12pm
 
oceanz wrote on May 22nd, 2009 at 8:07pm:
locutius wrote on May 19th, 2009 at 1:06pm:
Yes it is going around in circles Mantra. Most of what you have said is just emotional BS. And there are a couple of places in your last few posts where you are nothing but a liar (if it is deliberate exaggeration it is still lying) and others where your ignorance should be an embarrassment to you.
Sorry to be so harsh Mantra but most of what you have written in this topic is just made up crap including your claims to speak with authority and on behalf of "most" people.

you should be embarrased about your little rave about rifles , the "finer points" of loading and shells, when its clear you get all your onfo from the movies Mr Wild Bill..this is an embarrassment Loc, and I didnt say so to make you feel inadequate, I just answered your post without the harsh put downs..be a nicer man. Mantra is doing you the courtesy of conversing with you.. appreciate that.


Haha - I don't think Locutius can help it Oceans - he's a throwback (bow & arrow man).

Sorry to be so harsh Locutius!  Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26314
I like fish
Re: Blood sport
Reply #61 - May 22nd, 2009 at 10:09pm
 
Mantra?????

freediver wrote on May 19th, 2009 at 10:19pm:
OK mantra, let's try a different approach, one idea at a time. First up, you claim that people's motivation is most important, and that stopping people from having fun is more important than reducing animal suffering or helping the environment. This is wrong on so many levels:

1) It is what people do that matters, not whether they enjoy themselves while doing it. This is especially improtant when it comes to legislation.

2) You appear to be using an absurdly simplistic metric to measure the suffering of animals. To you, if there are two legal ways for animals to suffer, there is twice as much suffering. If you remove one legal way, that halve the suffering. At least, that is what you appear to be arguing. Yet in practice you would remove the more ethical option and force people onto the one that causes more animal suffering. You appear to acknowledge that factory farming causes more suffering, but basically say that you don't care because hunters enjoy themselves and that enjoyment must be stopped. This takes us back to point 1. Do you see how your logic is totally flawed in this?

3) You also claim that hunting should be targetted over crueler methods of supplying meat because hunting can be stopped, whereas factory farming cannot. This argument does not make sense either. If your goal is to reduce animal suffering, your proposal must be judged on whether it reduces animal suffering, not whether it can be achieved. If your proposal makes the situation worse, then the fact that it is (or to you appears to be) acheivable from a political perspective is beside the point. You need to first argue that your proposal is first beneficial, before arguing that it should be adopted because it is easy.

4) You claim that factory farming should be allowed because it is necessary. It is not necessary. Regardless of whether it is necesary, this is not a valid argument for banning hunting, if the net effect would be to push people onto crueler options. This would be like saying that coal is necessary to supply our electricity, and that because wind turbines cannot replace coal entirely and have their own (albeit minor) impact on the environment, they should  be banned. I know that sounds stupid, but so does your argument. You implied that for hunting to be justified on the grounds that it is less cruel, it would have to replace factory farming entirely. This is an absurd argument.

5) You claim that it is better for hunters to be motivated by money. This is a rather strange claim to make. If you look at what it did to the farming industry, the profit motive is what created the cruelest farming methods of all. It is nothing short of naive to assume that being motivated by profit is going to make hunters act more ethically.

6) You appear to equate the enjoyment of hunting with the enjoyment of inflicting cruelty to animals. They are not the same thing.

7) You have made a series of arguments that hunting at this time is unnecessary, or does not solve every single problem in the world, or some other BS argument. This boils down to judging it by an unreasonable double standard. It must merely improve the situation for those involved. If it means one person can obtain free range meat more ethically without funding industrialised farming, then this is a good thing. Demanding that it only be done on a needs basis is not a valid argument for banning it, especially as you cannot even show how a ban would be an improvement for animal cruelty. Being able to ban an activity without people starving to death as a result is not a justification for banning it.

8) You also claim that hunters have to breed the animals to hunt them. This is wrong. Wild animals breed all by themselves. If breeding and releasing feral animals is a problem, then ban that practice, not hunting. I think you will find that it is not hunters, but farmers (who you see as the solution) that are doing this.

9) You claim that overhunting or past mismanagement of hunting is a valid reason to ban it. This is also a double standard. Farming and just about everything else we do has caused problems. This is a valid argument for better management, not a ban. As someone who admits to being ignorant of the finer details of modern natural resource management, you are in no position to judge what the appropriate response is, which is perhaps why all you can come up with is 'ban it'.

I hope that by simplifying my criticisms of your argument you will be able to address them. So far all you seem to do is repeat your argument, sometimes just switching between them. For example, you post argument 3, I post the corresponding criticism. Instead of addressing that criticism, you simply post argument 4. And round and round in circles we go. Hoepfully this will make it easier for you. I apologise if this comes across as condescending, but this argument has been going for 4 pages and so far we have not moved beyond you posting a flawed argument, me posting a criticism of it, then you moving on to another flawed argument, or simply reposting the same one. If you could address the actual criticisms I posted, rather than simply changing the topic, I would appreciate it. Use the numbers if it helps. Remember, these are logical flaws that do not hinge on evidence. I will leave the issue of evidence until after you have adressed the logical flaws in your argument.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26314
I like fish
Re: Blood sport
Reply #62 - May 22nd, 2009 at 10:14pm
 
Mantra, I notice that the closer I get to a simple question for you, the harder you try to ignore it and change the topic. Why could you not directly respond to a single one of those points? What's going on?

Quote:
Most legislation hasn’t got anything to do with pleasure FD


But your argument does. It all boils down to whether hunters enjoy themselves. You can't offer any rational justification for your absurd position apart from stopping them from having fun.

Quote:
There are two sorts of animal production, factory and free range. We would all prefer free range


Now you have come full circle. You would actually prefer the methods that are so obviously more ethical, but you still appear to be promoting the idea that we give in to corporate greed. But wait there's more. We should not merely give into corporate greed, we should roll over for them and actually ban their more ethical competitors. They are so good at doing the wrong thing, you think we should help them out. Can you explain Mantra? I have asked you countless times to. We will not suddenly understand your position just because you keep repeating it over and over.

Quote:
Most developed countries are far ahead of us in regard to hunting. How do you think the english aristocracy felt when fox hunting with hounds was banned? That was not only their pleasure, but a tradition.


Mantra, none of the arguments we have presented in favour of hunting hinge on either tradition or pleasure. You seem completely oblivious to this.

Quote:
the banning of culling of baby harp seals under a year


Sounds like minimum sizes for fisheries mantra.

Quote:
How does banning hunting in our National Parks increase the suffering of animals?


Mantra, this has been explained countless times already, but I'll humour you. There are a couple of obvious ways. When you ban the hunting of introduced pests like goats and dear, you force people onto more unethical sources of meat, which involve more animal suffering. Ytou even admitted to this above. "We would all prefer free range". Now you ask me to explain your own statements to you? Also, the ecological damage these animals cause results in further suffering.

Quote:
You’ve already seen the examples of hunting by our indigenous people and even their leaders are beginning to say enough is enough as there aren’t enough animals and marine life to sustain this traditional way of life. Animals are becoming endangered and some on the border of extinction because indigenous hunters demand their rights to continue to hunt, although it's no longer necessary, apart from those living in remote areas.


You really should check your facts Mantra. The biggest threats to biodiversity in Australia are introduced pests and habitat destruction for farming. You would increase both of these. Again, you are pointing out a problem, yet can only give a solution that would make things worse. You have to think wholistically about this mantra. You cannot take a narrow minded approach of only considering one problem and one solution at a time. You have to consider all the impacts of your proposal. Otherwise you are just part of the problem that got us here in the first place.

Quote:
I'll say this again FD - you are not living out in the great wilderness where there is an abundance of wild animals and even saying you only kill feral animals doesn't make sense because in the next breath you say you do it for food.


Again mantra, it is people's actions that count, not their motivation. To suggest that people who hunt goats, pigs, dear etc can only be motivated by one or the other is absurd. To suggest that a benefit is not an actual benefit because it is not the sole motivation is absurd. They are still feral animals, even when you eat them mantra. It seems every single argument you make is logically flawed. If I didn't know your style so well I would say you are actually trying to come up with flawed arguments. Pure chance should at least let you be correct occasionally.

Quote:
but he contradicts himself in every sentence


LOL, nice try mantra. Interestingly, the only example you tried to give is not actually a self contradiction.

Quote:
There are only two sides to this hunting argument and I have yet to see any information that sounds convincing from the pro-hunting advocates.


Mantra, if you can't grasp the basic logic, no amount of evidence will change your mind, because you won't understand what it means.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
The Warrigal
Junior Member
**
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 84
Re: Blood sport
Reply #63 - May 23rd, 2009 at 10:48am
 

Mantra.

You say that you are disappointed in my reference to David Bellamy.

I am most disappointed in you since NOTHING in my last reply to you could possibly have justified the waspish tone of your last reply to me.

You write:

Quote.

"To do this Warrigal - I have to discredit some of your sources and this looks as though it will be easier than I first thought. I'll start on Dr. Bellamy first and go onto your other points a bit later, but I have to say I’m very disappointed in your reference to him."

End Quote.

Before making a complete twit of yourself Mantra kindly wait until you know the full extent of my sources.

Bellamy was mentioned by me since he is a starting point and one of the most readily accessable on the net.

As for being a discredited authority, I have yet to hear ANY member of the environmental lobby distance themselves from Bellamy when his utterances supported their pet hobby horse.

Next you write:

Quote.

"Bellamy doesn’t know whether he’s Arthur or Martha. Not only did he change his whole outlook on climate change, like a few other professors and scientists, who have experienced the lure of some multinational and a pocketful of gold, but he contradicts himself in every sentence."

End Quote.

So Bellamy is a sell-out?

err....To whom?

Once again I ask, - (although not in much hope of an answer), - that you furnish proof of this assertion.

You further add:

Quote.

" He is an ecologist – yet this is what he says.... I think all good ecologists have always understood that there just aren’t a lot of good ecologists around.

Meaning that the views of his peers are lacking or that he's not a good ecologist.....? "

End Quote.

Your own scientific accomplishments and peer reviewed papers are WHAT....exactly?

You write:

"The dozen or so articles I accessed were all by advocates for hunters, hunting magazines & isolated articles and they all refer to  Dr. Bellamy and quote exactly the same thing “No hunting, no shooting, no countryside”.?????????

Again - meaning what?"

End Quote.

I'm not sure what you mean here Mantra.

If an anti-hunting magazine quoted Bellamy or anyone like him it would be fine with you?

You next assert:

"Am I missing something here? He is being quoted as the big guru of the hunting world but a few of his associates have inferred he lacks credibility. Strange!"

End Quote.

A few of his associates "have inferred he lacks credibility. Strange!"

Nothing strange about it all.

Inferrences are NOT facts Mantra.

Nor is there anything unusual about scientists disagreeing on matters of specific detail.

Not that it's my duty to defend David Bellamy from his peers, much less his ill informed lay critics. - He seems more than adequately qualified to do that himself.

However, I do find it very odd that someone such as yourself would attack Bellamy when he has been a target for so much vitriol from those political business interests who oppose conservationist policies.

You continue:

Quote.

"There are only two sides to this hunting argument and I have yet to see any information that sounds convincing from the pro-hunting advocates. I will keep looking though. There might be a teensy little reference somewhere from a credible source."

End Quote.

There are TWO sides to every debate Mantra. - However, when you say that have yet to hear anything that "sounds," credible from pro-hunting sources, I have to question wether ANY source of information which does not mindlessly march in a convict lock-step with your ideology would have credibility in your eyes.

Again you assert:

Quote.

"Although I did come across this little snippet – the only reference of more than a few words in regard to his opinion and they were quoted by someone else. I can see Bellamy is the founding father of the hunter’s slogan – “hunting is good for the environment” - yet he offers no back up or proof of this."

End Quote.

Your word against Bellamy's.

His and thousands of other scientists. - Going back many, many years.

Think you are up to debating them Mantra?

You write:

Quote.

"If this is the best International Fieldsports and Conservation magazine can come up with - they must be desperate and who are they to compare shooting pheasants in the UK to hunting in Australia's National Parks?"

End Quote.

Mantra. - You are at best a very lazy researcher and at worst an idealogical zealot who cannot see a tree for the twigs much less a forrest for the trees.

It has been explained to you here and it is in the written reports of NSW authorities that only feral game may be taken in National Parks subject to strict conditions.

In your critique of Bellamy you conclude:

Quote.

"Is this bloke serious??????"

End Quote.

Yes. - He is perfectly serious.

As are a great many others.

Mantra, do you consume meat, fish and other animal products?

Just curious.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
The Warrigal
Junior Member
**
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 84
Re: Blood sport
Reply #64 - May 23rd, 2009 at 11:18am
 

I would just like to address this little jewel:

Quote.

"Throwbacks prefer stalking living animals with a bow and arrow for pleasure, as their Neanderthal ancestors did from necessity"

End Quote.

Cute headline. Roll Eyes

(You do seem much besotted by media rhetoric Mantra).

errr...."Throwbacks"?

Bows have been in daily use as standard hunting arms for millenia.

It took centuries after the gunpowder revolution before firearms came anywhere close to outperforming the longbow in terms of accuracy and range.

Modern target and hunting bows and arrows are very advanced arms which utilise the very finest of space-age design principles and materials.

Now as to the photographs which accompany your post Mantra, the picture of the poor kangaroo with an arrow through it's jaw does not reveal the tip of the arrow nor the exit wound, so I am unable to say what kind of arrow head was used.

The media reports I saw in relation to this animal cruelty case stated that two kangaroos had been wounded by arrow shot and left to die.

The same reports said that one animal had been shot through the jaw and the other in the rump.

This is hardly indicative of a practiced archer much less a bowhunter.

It is however, fully consistent with the conduct of a vandal and a sadist.

At last report police had made an arrest and the law shall now take it's course.

Now as to the mortuary photo of a human arrow shot victim, I have no knowledge of this case and as there is no text included with the picture it is unclear as to wether this was an accidental shooting or an act of murder.

However, the x-ray clearly shows thar the arrow is a target point.

Well not that that would be any less fatal with a brain shot, but nobody with the first clue of archery is going to use anything other than a broadhead arrow to take live game.

Bows have never been popular with the criminal element, so murder by arrow shot is rare enough to be "exotic."

Bows and cross-bows do not lend themselves to concealement and are rather slow to operate, so it's hardly surprising that they feature so rarely in violent crimes as to be barely worthy of notice.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8945
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #65 - May 24th, 2009 at 8:37am
 
Quote:
I am most disappointed in you since NOTHING in my last reply to you could possibly have justified the waspish tone of your last reply to me.


Waspish! Does that mean my language stung you?  Please forgive me Warrigal – I had no idea. It was obviously an unconscious aberration on my part but I have changed my mind about you being civil and restrained when I look at the insults you've resorted to in your last post.

Quote:
As for Bellamy being a discredited authority, I have yet to hear ANY member of the environmental lobby distance themselves from Bellamy when his utterances supported their pet hobby horse.


Why did he change his mind on such an important issue? Didn’t he research his work thoroughly first? It looks like you haven't researched him thoroughly Warrigal.

Quote:
Your own scientific accomplishments and peer reviewed papers are WHAT....exactly?


I wasn’t aware that I boasted about any scientific accomplishments – and you haven’t either – so perhaps we’re at the same starting point. This subject isn’t as complex as you infer.

Quote:
If an anti-hunting magazine quoted Bellamy or anyone like him it would be fine with you?


It wouldn’t matter who quoted him – in my opinion he is playing lip service only to a greater power. There are a few opponents to hunting in NSW although I haven’t looked Federally yet – but there is the Invasive Species Council which has reviewed evidence globally and found that recreational hunting is generally ineffective in feral animal control; the other - NPWS who are the greater authority being actively in the parks state that:

• There is no evidence it has a strategic approach to feral animal control;
• Professional hunters will achieve effective feral control outcomes, not sporting hunters;
• Areas of bushland used for recreation become unsafe;
• Recreational hunters have a history of deliberately introducing feral animals.


There is also Gun Control Australia (GCA) which says...

Our special concern with this Bill is the extraordinary power it gives to one of the most poorly behaved segments of our community, gratuitous hunters. In short this Bill takes away the responsibility of the parliament for shooter misbehaviour and greatly reduces the accountability of parliamentarians to the public. As such it is a deplorably irresponsible piece of potential legislation.

GCA spokesperson Mr Randy Marshall said "The Bill's political supporters do not seem to realise that the hunting fraternity acknowledge that their real reason for killing with a gun is precisely that - they love killing with bullets. There is no honour or good public purpose in gratuitous hunting yet this Bill, with its creation of a shooter dominated Game Council, seeks to give them a degree of legitimacy that rivals the most educated and sensitive of animal welfare experts".


http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=16

Quote:
However, when you say that have yet to hear anything that "sounds," credible from pro-hunting sources, I have to question wether ANY source of information which does not mindlessly march in a convict lock-step with your ideology would have credibility in your eyes.
Your word against Bellamy's. His and thousands of other scientists. - Going back many, many years. Think you are up to debating them Mantra?


Hmmmm. Convict lock-step – interesting. Two hundred years ago – there was no opposition to hunting because of necessity and ignorance. As far as debating – I’m giving it a go I assumed.

Could you please supply a few names of those THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS ?

Quote:
Mantra. - You are at best a very lazy researcher and at worst an idealogical zealot who cannot see a tree for the twigs much less a forrest for the trees.It has been explained to you here and it is in the written reports of NSW authorities that only feral game may be taken in National Parks subject to strict conditions.


Yes on paper there are strict conditions - in reality there are no conditions and no – Warrigal – I’m not a lazy researcher. You say that because you are comparing me to someone who researches for a living or a thesis, but you & the other hunters on this forum have offered very little of credibility to counteract my argument apart from insults and absolutely no research.  You, FD & Locutius are like programmed robots in the trivial questions you throw at me. Don't pretend there are only feral animals you are allowed to shoot.

The NSW Act says - Game animals for the purposes of the Bill are deer, hare, duck, quail, pheasant, partridge, peafowl and turkey and certain pest animals (namely, feral pigs, feral dogs, feral cats, feral goats, rabbits and foxes).

continued....
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8945
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #66 - May 24th, 2009 at 8:44am
 
The following is an extract from the Blue Mountains Conservation society and there are many such societies. Those who are against hunting are in the majority – yet they have no voice thanks to this corrupt state government, amongst others and the Shooters Party.


The Society (comprising ~860 members), together with ~100 members of the Lithgow, Capertee Valley and Rylstone Environment Groups, remains opposed to hunting in State Forests in principle, and to State Forests in the Blue Mountains in particular.

Brian Boyle (op. cit.) states: “Game Council NSW has strong representation from the hunting fraternity along with representation from wildlife management scientists, Rural Lands Protection Boards, the Australian Veterinary Association and public land managers. This mix ensures all issues are properly identified and managed, from safe and humane hunting practices through to conservation and land access arrangements.”

Despite this, 7 of the 14 members of the Game Council must be nominees of hunting organisations and must include the Chair. The Chair has a deliberative vote and, should the votes be tied, he also exercises a casting vote. And only 8 of the 14 members comprise a quorum. The Society inevitably wonders how much influence is really exercised by the ‘non-hunting’ members of the Council.


How can anyone believe the effectiveness of risk-aversion measures in the context of the following statements by the Game Council?

The land will not be closed, “However signage will be placed at entry points to ensure the public is aware of hunting on declared public areas. Areas will also be posted on government agency websites.”

Hunters will be subject to “Exclusion zones and constraints … in forests where there are high concentrations of other users, for example in camping areas.”

Hunters will know where the boundaries to public lands are because they “…will be given information on boundaries with their booking where appropriate. This many include a map or, in some cases, conditions of the written permission may require the hunter to obtain topographical maps.”


None of this inspires confidence. Knowing that hunting is scheduled does not deflect stray bullets. Excluding hunting from heavily used portions of a State Forest does not necessarily exclude the hunter’s bullet; and those in less heavily used portions remain vulnerable. Finally, is it really believed that hunters will consult maps (even if they have maps/air photos of appropriate scale) when pursuing game, and will the bullet stop at the boundary? Were it not so serious, these ‘safety’ measures would be laughable.


http://www.bluemountains.org.au/Submissions/HuntingSFsMacDonaldLett060616.doc

AND

·      The Game Council has failed to properly consult the public who use the forests
·      The Game Council is biased, being governed by a majority of hunters (see list below)
·      Its methods undermine a strategic approach to feral animal control
·      Hunters have been proven to deliberately release ferals into areas they hunt

·http://www.npansw.org.au/web/news/media/060310_Labor_Hands_State_Forests_to_Hunt...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8945
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #67 - May 24th, 2009 at 9:07am
 
Quote:
Mantra, I notice that the closer I get to a simple question for you, the harder you try to ignore it and change the topic. Why could you not directly respond to a single one of those points?


Yes I am FD - you are just not bothering to read them because you are so one-eyed on this subject.

Quote:
But wait there's more. We should not merely give into corporate greed, we should roll over for them and actually ban their more ethical competitors.


How are you an ethical competitor FD? You are only hunting for yourself - no-one else.

Quote:
Mantra, none of the arguments we have presented in favour of hunting hinge on either tradition or pleasure. You seem completely oblivious to this.


That is such an untruth and this is where you contradict yourself again. All you talk about is me and likeminded people trying to stop your pleasure. Why do indigenous people hunt – because it is their “tradition” – useless as it is in 2009. So there are your arguments – tradition and pleasure.

You are not hunting for any ultruistic reasons - so don't pretend you are.

Quote:
The banning of culling of baby harp seals under a year Sounds like minimum sizes for fisheries mantra.


Yes – but we are talking about Russia – a starving country, not Australia with their well fed and wealthy hunters in comparison.

Quote:
How does banning hunting in our National Parks increase the suffering of animals? There are a couple of obvious ways. When you ban the hunting of introduced pests like goats and dear, you force people onto more unethical sources of meat, which involve more animal suffering. Ytou even admitted to this above. "We would all prefer free range". Now you ask me to explain your own statements to you? Also, the ecological damage these animals cause results in further suffering.


FD - there is no-one monitoring the hunters' activities. Who's to say what animals are shot or wounded? The hunters are a law unto themselves. Yes – I agree with you – introduced pests do cause habitat destruction, but why can’t amateur hunters who only do it for pleasure be monitored by some law enforcement agency? Why are they allowed to take their great dirty 4WD’s, weapons & dogs into our parks, while visitors and tourists can’t?

If the hunters went out at night with spotlights under strict supervision there might be a little merit in your argument.

Quote:
Quote:
Animals are becoming endangered and some on the border of extinction because indigenous hunters demand their rights to continue to hunt, although it's no longer necessary, apart from those living in remote areas.
You really should check your facts Mantra.


I have FD - otherwise I wouldn't have made the statement.

Quote:
Again mantra, it is people's actions that count, not their motivation. To suggest that people who hunt goats, pigs, dear etc can only be motivated by one or the other is absurd. To suggest that a benefit is not an actual benefit because it is not the sole motivation is absurd. They are still feral animals, even when you eat them mantra. It seems every single argument you make is logically flawed. If I didn't know your style so well I would say you are actually trying to come up with flawed arguments. Pure chance should at least let you be correct occasionally.


It is not just feral animals you are allowed to shoot - that fact I've just discovered.

FD – I’ll try not to be as rude as you are being to me  – but your arguments are too simplistic.  You have learnt one basic doctrine and you keep repeating it.

Locutius was talking about feral animals having diseases.  Are you telling me FD that the hunters who go out and slaughter pigs, foxes and goats actually eat the meat and feed their starving neighbours?

Quote:
Mantra, if you can't grasp the basic logic, no amount of evidence will change your mind, because you won't understand what it means.


As far as this argument is concerned - we are both coming from parallel planets. You can't understand my reasoning and I can't understand yours.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 24th, 2009 at 5:05pm by mantra »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26314
I like fish
Re: Blood sport
Reply #68 - May 24th, 2009 at 9:07pm
 
Quote:
How are you an ethical competitor FD? You are only hunting for yourself - no-one else.


It is not personal Mantra. I am referring to the two competing methods for obtaining meat. Do you understand that by banning one method you  make the other more profitable?

Quote:
That is such an untruth and this is where you contradict yourself again. All you talk about is me and likeminded people trying to stop your pleasure.


I am merely pointing out that your argument seems to hinge on pleasure, and nothing else. No-one else's does. I bring up pleasure because you do. While it seems absurd, it is the only argument of yours without massive logical holes.

Quote:
Why do indigenous people hunt – because it is their “tradition” – useless as it is in 2009.


I can't exactly speak for them, but I would assume they hunt for food, just like me.

Quote:
You are not hunting for any ultruistic reasons - so don't pretend you are.


I never did make that claim mantra. I have gone to great lengths to point out the difference between motivation and justification. You are the only one who gets them confused.

Quote:
FD - there is no-one monitoring the hunters' activities. Who's to say what animals are shot or wounded? The hunters are a law unto themselves.


Mantra, not being able to monitor what people do is not a good enough reason to ban them from doing it. Are you seriously trying now to base your argument on the fact that you don't know what actually goes on?

Quote:
Yes – I agree with you – introduced pests do cause habitat destruction, but why can’t amateur hunters who only do it for pleasure be monitored by some law enforcement agency?


If you come up with a practical suggestion I would consider it, as would many hunters. So far all you have suggested is a ban.

Quote:
Why are they allowed to take their great dirty 4WD’s, weapons & dogs into our parks, while visitors and tourists can’t?


You seem confused Mantra. The vast majority of people driving 4WD's through national parks are tourists with no interest in hunting. I have no idea whether dogs may be used, but I am certainly not going to take your word for it.

Quote:
It is not just feral animals you are allowed to shoot - that fact I've just discovered.


You only just discovered it? What were you saying about checking your facts first?

Quote:
FD – I’ll try not to be as rude as you are being to me  – but your arguments are too simplistic.  You have learnt one basic doctrine and you keep repeating it.


Mantra, the only thing I am repeating are questions and criticisms that you fail to respond to. The simplicity of those questions is a reflection of your argument, not mine.

Quote:
Locutius was talking about feral animals having diseases.  Are you telling me FD that the hunters who go out and slaughter pigs, foxes and goats actually eat the meat and feed their starving neighbours?


Goats are often caught live in national parks and sold live. Foxes would not be eaten. Some pigs are left to rot, but some of them are worth a fortune overseas.

Quote:
As far as this argument is concerned - we are both coming from parallel planets. You can't understand my reasoning and I can't understand yours.


How about you start by answering those simple questions?

Quote:
Yes I am FD - you are just not bothering to read them because you are so one-eyed on this subject.


No you aren't mantra. Here they are for you again, for the third time:
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26314
I like fish
Re: Blood sport
Reply #69 - May 24th, 2009 at 9:09pm
 
freediver wrote on May 19th, 2009 at 10:19pm:
OK mantra, let's try a different approach, one idea at a time. First up, you claim that people's motivation is most important, and that stopping people from having fun is more important than reducing animal suffering or helping the environment. This is wrong on so many levels:

1) It is what people do that matters, not whether they enjoy themselves while doing it. This is especially improtant when it comes to legislation.

2) You appear to be using an absurdly simplistic metric to measure the suffering of animals. To you, if there are two legal ways for animals to suffer, there is twice as much suffering. If you remove one legal way, that halve the suffering. At least, that is what you appear to be arguing. Yet in practice you would remove the more ethical option and force people onto the one that causes more animal suffering. You appear to acknowledge that factory farming causes more suffering, but basically say that you don't care because hunters enjoy themselves and that enjoyment must be stopped. This takes us back to point 1. Do you see how your logic is totally flawed in this?

3) You also claim that hunting should be targetted over crueler methods of supplying meat because hunting can be stopped, whereas factory farming cannot. This argument does not make sense either. If your goal is to reduce animal suffering, your proposal must be judged on whether it reduces animal suffering, not whether it can be achieved. If your proposal makes the situation worse, then the fact that it is (or to you appears to be) acheivable from a political perspective is beside the point. You need to first argue that your proposal is first beneficial, before arguing that it should be adopted because it is easy.

4) You claim that factory farming should be allowed because it is necessary. It is not necessary. Regardless of whether it is necesary, this is not a valid argument for banning hunting, if the net effect would be to push people onto crueler options. This would be like saying that coal is necessary to supply our electricity, and that because wind turbines cannot replace coal entirely and have their own (albeit minor) impact on the environment, they should  be banned. I know that sounds stupid, but so does your argument. You implied that for hunting to be justified on the grounds that it is less cruel, it would have to replace factory farming entirely. This is an absurd argument.

5) You claim that it is better for hunters to be motivated by money. This is a rather strange claim to make. If you look at what it did to the farming industry, the profit motive is what created the cruelest farming methods of all. It is nothing short of naive to assume that being motivated by profit is going to make hunters act more ethically.

6) You appear to equate the enjoyment of hunting with the enjoyment of inflicting cruelty to animals. They are not the same thing.

7) You have made a series of arguments that hunting at this time is unnecessary, or does not solve every single problem in the world, or some other BS argument. This boils down to judging it by an unreasonable double standard. It must merely improve the situation for those involved. If it means one person can obtain free range meat more ethically without funding industrialised farming, then this is a good thing. Demanding that it only be done on a needs basis is not a valid argument for banning it, especially as you cannot even show how a ban would be an improvement for animal cruelty. Being able to ban an activity without people starving to death as a result is not a justification for banning it.

8) You also claim that hunters have to breed the animals to hunt them. This is wrong. Wild animals breed all by themselves. If breeding and releasing feral animals is a problem, then ban that practice, not hunting. I think you will find that it is not hunters, but farmers (who you see as the solution) that are doing this.

9) You claim that overhunting or past mismanagement of hunting is a valid reason to ban it. This is also a double standard. Farming and just about everything else we do has caused problems. This is a valid argument for better management, not a ban. As someone who admits to being ignorant of the finer details of modern natural resource management, you are in no position to judge what the appropriate response is, which is perhaps why all you can come up with is 'ban it'.

I hope that by simplifying my criticisms of your argument you will be able to address them. So far all you seem to do is repeat your argument, sometimes just switching between them. For example, you post argument 3, I post the corresponding criticism. Instead of addressing that criticism, you simply post argument 4. And round and round in circles we go. Hoepfully this will make it easier for you. I apologise if this comes across as condescending, but this argument has been going for 4 pages and so far we have not moved beyond you posting a flawed argument, me posting a criticism of it, then you moving on to another flawed argument, or simply reposting the same one. If you could address the actual criticisms I posted, rather than simply changing the topic, I would appreciate it. Use the numbers if it helps. Remember, these are logical flaws that do not hinge on evidence. I will leave the issue of evidence until after you have adressed the logical flaws in your argument.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8945
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #70 - Jun 25th, 2009 at 2:36pm
 
An example of how hunters can hold a goverment to ransom.

How did they get the numbers to get into Parliament?  Preferences from some religious party no doubt. The don't give a stuff about NSW and selling off NSW State Lotteries - as long as they get to smell some blood - they'll sign off on anything.


The Rees Government is now facing a full-blown crisis to get any legislation through the Legislative Council.

The opposition claimed this morning that such a move to "collapse" the house had not occurred since the 1920s.

The crisis has risen because the Shooters Party has been voting against the Government all week after cabinet failed to back the Shooters Party's push to hunt in national parks.

With the opposition and Greens opposing the Lotteries privatisation, the Government needed the support of the two Shooters Party MPs.


http://www.smh.com.au/national/night-of-the-long-bell-rees-faces-new-crisis-2009...

How did these selfish idiots get to be MP's?

An older article.....

Quote:
The NSW government is set to back a bill allowing hunters into national parks in order to gain key Shooters' Party MPs' support for its sale of NSW Lotteries, the state opposition says.

The coalition has vowed to oppose the government's plans to grant a long-term, exclusive licence to the private sector to operate NSW Lotteries for at least the next 30 years.

For the relevant enabling legislation to pass through the upper house, the government will need the support of crossbench MPs as Labor does not hold a majority in the Legislative Council.

With the Greens opposed to the Lotteries sale, the government will need the backing of the two Shooters' Party MPs.

Opposition environment spokeswoman Catherine Cusack said that in return for their support, the government would back a Shooters' Party bill allowing hunters into national parks that would also legalise the hunting of a number of native animals.


"The government really needs the revenue from the privatisation of State Lotteries and the Shooters are basically putting this (their bill) up as their gambit claim in exchange for voting for lotteries," she said.

"It is lotteries versus wildlife in NSW at the moment."

Ms Cusack said the government had been negotiating with the Shooters' Party over their bill for two years

http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=581165
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
locutius
Gold Member
*****
Offline


You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1813
Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Blood sport
Reply #71 - Jun 25th, 2009 at 3:58pm
 
mantra wrote on Jun 25th, 2009 at 2:36pm:
An example of how hunters can hold a goverment to ransom.

How did they get the numbers to get into Parliament?  


Democratically I suppose. Just like the Greens. Or do only the people you agree with have a right to representation?
Back to top
 

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1330
Re: Blood sport
Reply #72 - Jun 25th, 2009 at 4:09pm
 
[quote author=freediver link=1242081351/60#68 date=1243163259

Mantra, not being able to monitor what people do is not a good enough reason to ban them from doing it. Are you seriously trying now to base your argument on the fact that you don't know what actually goes on?

[/quote]

Now where have I heard that argument recently?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print