Re: Unambiguous definition?

In article <mfvcp3dvvi4jm5krjb3qr96mtuno799luh@xxxxxxx>,
<amacmil304@xxxxxxx> wrote:

If something is extinct there is no choice.

But they're not really extinct, are they.
Extinct in Britain, that's not too difficult is it?
They're just not present
where you want them. If I was as daft as the fake conservationists I
could claim that red squirrels were extinct in my garden.
You wouldn't know one if you saw one.


I am still happy to see White tailed eagles and Red kites. I would be
happy to see Beavers. Introductions are usually done with care to
matching up the DNA as well as possible.


Happiness has got nothing to do with it.
It has for me, but we all understand how you are only happy if you can
grizzle on in misery.


Many species which we love such as Rabbit, Brown Rat, Brown Hare,
Fallow deer etc. do not fall into this category, and few
conservationists would wish to eradicate these species, with the
possible exception of the Brown Rat in some cases.

You don't "love" them if you kill them.

That does not follow.

For example I kill the odd fish for the pot but I love them.

To eat, obviously; but not as living beings.

No I don't eat them alive :-)

No actually you are wrong, I do love fish as living beings, and yes I do
still kill some. That is a compromise that I am willing to make, just as
you said once that you consumed dairy products, which of course could not
have been produced without some compromise of your declared AR agenda.

--
Regards from Bob Seago: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/
.