[]PJ subjugates all principles, including common sense itself, to his opposition to marine parks.

Yes you and Jagsignature like talking about 'common sense', this would seem to be code for 'it sounds like a good idea even though I know nothing about fisheries'.

Quote:


So you refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it may involve acknowleding reality?

There aren't any marine parks where I live and there aren't likely to be. Do you think about anything you post? You have just contradicted your second question.

Answering the question implies nothing about your support for marine parks in general or the liklihood of their use. This is all just your overactive imagination. Either that or a really lame excuse you had to come up with when you realised you have spent a few pages arguing indirectly against a principle that you cannot bring yourself to oppose directly becuase you would then look even sillier than you do now.

So you are saying it's a loaded question!

Quote:


Can you explain how answering a question implies that no other questions are worth asking?

You have just explained it above.

Quote:


I did not ask for a yes/no answer. Any kind of answer would be better than your BS excuses.

You are insisting on a yes/ no answer. Would you accept that I don't have an opinion or am not keen on either alternatve.

PJ, if you had the opportunity to exclude your favourite fishing spot from a NTZ, would you refuse the opportunity on the grounds that it is a loaded question?

I don't have any one favourite fishing spot. The one I favour also depend on the time of year, weather and other factors.

If you had a choice between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, would you refuse to choose unless they included your favourite flavour?

Trust you to compare NTZ's to yummy ice cream. What you are offering is termed a flase dichotomy. A rhetorical device comparing two unpallatable alternatives when really there are other choices available.

link=1330690120/62#62 date=1331338575] Quote:


Can you explain how it is possible to contradict a question?

If the question is built on a premise.

Quote:


No PJ. It is saying that it is not a loaded question. Remember, the term loaded has a meaning, beyond you being unable to give a straight answer.

In that papragraph you revealed what mileage you would make out of my potential answer.

Quote:


Quote me.

See below!

Quote:


It would be a little strange for you to argue against these principles for so many pages then when I turn around and ask what you think to suddenly pretend you have no opinion.

Is this what you are saying - that you do not really oppose them?

No , moron.

Quote:


NO it is not PJ - any more than asking you whether vanilla or chocalate is better is a false dichotomy. It is all in your imagination.

A flat denial is not very convincing.

Quote:


OK I'll rephrase the question for you so that you do not get so confused by the possibilities:

PJ, if you had the opportunity to exclude your favourite fishing spots from a NTZ, would you refuse the opportunity on the grounds that it is a loaded question?

If I took the opportunity it's merely a matter of expediency or damage limitation. If this scenario was actually happening then it would not be a loaded question - just a reality I would have to deal with. This is not the same as saying your not making a false ditchotomy or loaded question. These premises are ones you have created.

PS: are you the only one allowed to ask questions?

Do you think it is a good idea to base a marine park zoning around not including one persons favourite fishing spots in NTZ's?

How likely do you think it is that will happen?

What does it say about the merits of your policy when your ignore relevant criticisms to instead resort to time wasting loaded questions and false dichotomies?

] Quote:


What premise? It is all your imagination.

Quote:


That does not make it loaded. It just makes you silly.

Once again your flat denials aren't convincing.

Quote:


OK then PJ, if it was actually happening, what would your response be? What about the situations where it has happened elsewhere and shore based fishing has beene excluded or included? Are you allowed to have an opinion on that, or would that be a loaded opinion? [/quote]

I have discussed situations of actual marine parks. Yes, some tend to leave landbased spots popular with casual fishermen open to fishing. This is merely so as not to upset the punters and have an out of sight out of mind approach.

Your approach on the other hand is merely a fisheries allocation mechanism and a poorly designed one.

In other examples of real marine parks shore based spots are included in fishing bans because they wish to include all habitat types. We have the situations of fishing bans on some beaches for instance. The effacacy of such bans is extremely doubtful, as has been pointed out by several fisheries scientists.

] Quote:


It is not just a flat denial. I explained to you the real meaning of a loaded question. Just because it makes you look silly does not mean it's loaded.

Duh, the statement this referred to was a flat denial. As to you previous explanation you offered an example - which I pointed out was very similar to your loaded question.

Quote:


Does this mean you are allowed to have an opinion on this aspect? Do you support it or oppose it? Or would that be a loaded opinion?

I am saying it is a cynical approach.

Quote:
.

Can you make a distinction between them?

A distinction between what?

Quote:


Is this 'effacacy' measured in terms of environmental outcomes or more direct outcomes for fishermen? Do your views on 'effacacy' ever translate into support or opposition, or would that again be a loaded opinion?

Why would I support a policy with no benefit? There would be no environmental or fisheries benefit from the beach fishing bans. PS: the term is loaded question not opinion!

[1331440106] Quote:


You mean this one?

Quote:


It is not just a flat denial. I explained to you the real meaning of a loaded question. Just because it makes you look silly does not mean it's loaded.

Yes in other statement (duh), where you offered an example which basically proved my point as it was very similar to your loaded question.

Do you think you look less silly getting into a disagreement over what a loaded question or a flat denail is, or more silly?

You look silly saying that. A question loaded or not has nothing to do with a flat denial.

Quote:


Between my approach and the other one, in refence to this from you:  Quote:


Do you think forgetting what you are talking about makes you look less silly, or more? Are these also loaded questions?

The problems was you were vague and a just wanted to make sure what you were talking about.

Quote:


You define a loaded question as one that makes you look silly.

No that was just you interpretion, with no actual basis.

Hence your opinions are also loaded.

There is no such term as a loaded opinion. 

Unless of course you want to switch to the real meaning of a loaded question, but that would make your frantic backpedalling over the last few pages look even more absurd.

The last few pages merely demonstrate you have lost the plot and lost the argument.

Quote:


Because it combines something you support in principle with something you oppose in principle? Or would that be a loaded way of explaining it?

Quote:


Can you explain how having fishermen lined up in front of a marine park, looking straight at it and trying to catch fish from it, is an 'out of sight, out of mind' approach?

I'm talking about existing maine parks - can you tell me of any that fit that description?

Do you think it is a bad thing to 'not upset the punters'?

It can be.

[] Quote:


Most of them tend to leave land based fishing spots open. You even alluded to this.

With offshore NTZ's immediately adjacent? Plenty of them have landbased closures as well.

Quote:


Can you elaborate? Does this mean it is good to deliberatly 'upset the punters' in some situations?

Proper management does not always coincide with the most popularist approach.

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2012 at 8:56pm:


Where is the 'waffle' in the last post?  Your fond of projecting your own faults onto me.