Re: Whats the difference?

On 27 Sep, 13:08, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:15:51 -0700 (PDT), h.lan...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:



On 24 Sep, 23:26, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:38:27 -0700 (PDT), h.lan...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:

On 24 Sep, 09:02, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:34:03 -0700 (PDT), h.lan...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:

On 22 Sep, 23:28, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:57:44 -0700 (PDT), h.lan...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:

On 21 Sep, 23:03, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:44:08 -0700 (PDT), h.lan...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:

On 21 Sep, 08:48, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 23:40:06 +0100, Robert Seago

<rjse...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <2rb9d4t19s5ino1ou1iugh80rfh0ol6...@xxxxxxx>,
  <amacmil...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Or do you advertise the fact that your wildlife trust kills rabbits?

As most people understand, rabbits have to be comtrolled.  All land owners
are obliged to do this if there is a problem with agriculture.

We are perfectly open about this.

No you're not.  You use the euphemism "control" for killing.

Only somebody with a worse grasp of the language than I have would
have any difficulty with the term controlling meaning killing.

So why don't they say "killing"?

Why should they?  Saying killing merely says they are killing the
animal leaving the reader to wonder why.  

They could say why.

Why on earth be more verbose than necessary.  Why do you want them to
use more words than are needed?

They're not short of words when asking for money.

I have yet to see a charity being particularly verbose when asking for
money.  Generally they are trying to be concise as they want to ensure
it is read and /or trying to ensure it fits on to the size available
for the advert, leaflet etc.  Perhaps you would like to provide an
example.

You obviously don't read the unsolicited junk mail from the Woodland
Trust and the RSPB  which for so-called conservationists is damaging
to the environment by it's production, distribution and disposal.

Firstly yet again you are refering to the RSPB do you have a
particular reason to have a down on them.  Are they the only charities
you know anything about?   What charities do you support?

I oppose fake conservation organisations.

So you are saying that the RSPB isn't a conservation organisation or
that it isn't a charity which?

I wondered why your remarks never strayed away from the RSPB and
sometimes the woodland trust.


What charities do you support?

It is considered polite in most societies to answer questions put to
you. However I have mentioned a number already now do you mind being
polite and answering the question I put to you?




Now there's a good question for charities.  How much do they spend on
junk unsolicited mail?

Why iris it a question.  As I have pointed out they will only carry it
out when it brings in more money than it costs.

Do they until they send it out?  

Experience let alone calculations as simple as whatif questions on a
spreadsheet will show if it is likely to be sucessfull.

There is no guarantees that it will
bring in more money.  

True little in life is guaranteed other than death.

How do you know?

See above. A business does similar calculations before sending out
mailshots e.g. double glazing offers. A charity with more reason to
use its money carefully definitely will.
 





Using control or reduce
helps the reader to understand why the killing is taking place.  

Controlling or reducing an animals' presence doesn't necessarily mean
killing.

It does when the statement covers such words as marksman.

Marksmen can also maim and injure

Marksmen as oppose to men with guns rarely if ever maim or injure.

Not so.  

Why do you say that.  You hvae quoted one soruce but that only applies
to one sort of animal.

I don't believe in fallability of marksmanship and if they can maim a
deer they can maim anything.

The size of hole and damage caused to a large animal such as a deer
might be more survivable than the hole and damage caused to say a fox
or rabbit. Both are far less likely to survive.




However if they do the animal is followed up and killed.  

Not so according to the vets evidence at the Burns Inquiry.

And their results can be applied to ALL species?

Why should it be different?

See above.




Do you
suggest that nature doesn't main and injure animals?

Not at all.  

So man as the top predator is doing no maore and no less than nature.

So you have no objection to wiping out all wildlife on that basis?

Do you have any grasp of the natural world? If you had you wouldn't
make such a crass statement. Predators do not wipe out their prey
species. To put it bluntly there is no future in it. If a predator
wipes out its prey then it starves. Why on earth should my pointing
out that man is a natural top predator suggest I would wipe out all
wildlife or for that matter that humans would wipe out all wildlife?




It also
does to people who know and understand conservation and animal
management.

"Management" - another euphemism.

Euphemism for what?

Killing wildlife to suit their agendas.

Are you suggesting that ALL management is killing?

I'm suggesting it includes it and as such it should not blanket all
eventualities.  That's a reason for FoI legislation.

So are you suggesting that when management of any organization uses a
variety of methods of management they should spell them all out
clearly. This would appear to revolve round your fascination with
killing and death.






You
seem to be rather anxious to confuse the reader by not letting them
know the reason for the killing.

Not in the slightest for the reasons stated above.  Quite the opposite
in fact.

Then controlling culling and control are perfectly adequate, you seem
to have some morbid fascination with killing.

Not at all.  If they are killing they should say it.

You seem to have a fixation with the word kill.  Why is it any better
than culling control etc.

Because killing is their method of control.

So culling means killing why do you insist they say kill rather than
cull etc.

Culling can mean gathering.

Culling according to my dictionary only means gathering when applied
to information etc. When applied to living things it invariably means
killing.

 Killing is more defined.

Not so the other terms are more defined because they narrow down the
reason for the killing rather than leave it vague e.g. reduce -
killing because of numbers, We appear to be back to your unhealthy
fascination with killing.






Why not just say you kill rabbits and by what means you do so?

The main reason for not doing so is probably because it is
unnecessary.   You don't find people driving cars through 30mph limits
shouting out of the window I am keeping to the speed limit or going
into a bank saying I'm going to put some money in not rob the bank.

Not more silly analogies :-(

Do you have difficulty coping with analogies?

Not yours :-))

Wonderful then you will have no trouble understanding them and no
reason to complain about them.

Why not?

Because you will have no trouble understanding them and therefore have
no reason to complain about them.

Understanding them is why I complain about them

Well try to use the normal conventions of discussion/debate and reply
to them.

I have.

Not just by silly comments which appear to be a round about way of
escaping from answering but by honest debate of argument and counter
argument.






I was starting to be concerned that
they were a bit too subtle for you.  Thanks for the reassurance.

"I am beginning to form an impression that when you are starting to
find the going difficult you edge towards personal insult and abuse..
There have been one or two posts where I feel your replies are
intended to be insulting.  Are you incapable of holding your own in
open debate without that."

I am unsure of why you quote my words here.  

It seems you are now suffering from the lack of understanding; not me.

:If they are intended to

imply that my worries over not stating my analogies in a way you
understand is abuse far from it.

I understand your analogies perfectly but they are the most ridiculous
ones you can think of.

Oh no they aren't believe me I can think of ridiculous ones if I
try.  

Come on then. Be more ridiculous :-))

When the need arises I will but please remember that it is at your
invitation so you can hardly complain about that.


Just because you don't like them doesn't make them ridiculous
necessarily.

People are unlikely to ask such stupid questions.

As I said above not liking them doesn't reduce their worth in a
debate.


What proof do you have they do at present?

In case you haven't noticed we are debating a subject. That I am
given to understand is the purpose of newsgroups. I haven't said
anybody does ask such silly questions I have pointed out a vindictive
person with an axe (or believed grundge) against an organisation could
waste its resources by such infantile actions. At the moment they are
rightly allowed to ignore such trivia.




A genuine concern on my part that
you were not replying in a way that seemed you understoood and could
put forward a reasoned counter.  Which is after all the purpose of
debate.

See above. I have.

Your definition of reasoned debate and mine must be miles apart.


No you have merely said you find them ridiculous.  You have made no
attempt to decate them  If you don't want debate why are you posting
here?

What's decate?  If you mean debate, I already have. See above.

There is no counter arguments above there are a few sweeping
statements and some very blatent attempts to avoid points but not a
lot of debate.






People (at least those with a couple of brain cells to rub together)
know pests have to be controlled and that controlled means killed.

It could mean fenced out of an area.  That's control.

As there is a legal requirement for landowners to control rabbits
every piece of land would need to be fenced.  This would have one of
two effects.  Either they would be fenced in - leading to the legally
required killing or they would be living in a tiny space between
fences leading to starvation.

Not at all.  There is plenty of space for rabbits if fenced outside
agricultural areas.  

Ok try to explain the practicalities of this one.  I have a friend who
owns about a farm about 250 or 260 hectares.  Firstly how does he
manage to fence right round it?  Second what happens to the animals
contained inside the fence.  Thirdly agricultural land runs 5 miles to
the next town.  How do you organize removing the rabbits from your
land without letting them on to your neighbours.  Suppose you do do
you think the house holders in the town will enjoy shuch a high
density of rabbits in their gardens.  Do you think there will be
enough food to keep all the rabbits alive if the gardeners are
prepared to allow them in the garden?

Very easily.  Identify the land and how many complaints there are
about rabbits and I'll look into it and let you know.

You miss understand.  Farmers are required by law to control the pests
on their land.  

Not necessarily. Only if a complaint is made.

So suppose a farmer decides he can afford the miles of
fence rather than a few cartridges.  He puts up the fence - how does
he persuade the rabbits to vacate his land?  

By not shooting foxes and other natural predators.

This will never remove all the rabbits it will merely reduce them.
When the food supply reduces the foxes will turn to the farmers hens
etc.   So what do you suggest.

Don't give the foxes the key to the henhouse :-)

As I have been pointing out above you try to avoid having to answer
points in the debate. Now try to rise above the primary school level
of answer and give a sensible try to dealing with the point. Unless
you are going to keep hens etc inside permanently you will not protect
them from foxes. Even keeping them in permanently might not work 100%
in all cases.


We all have to protect our assets ...

Which is exactly why the farmer shoots the rabbits in the first
place. I am glad you accept he has the right to protect his assets.


read more »

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats the difference?
    ... particular reason to have a down on them. ... What charities do you support? ... helps the reader to understand why the killing is taking place. ... escaping from answering but by honest debate of argument and counter ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Whats the difference?
    ... What charities do you support? ... answering points raised in debate. ... out when it brings in more money than it costs. ... helps the reader to understand why the killing is taking place. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Whats the difference?
    ... What charities do you support? ... answering points raised in debate. ... out when it brings in more money than it costs. ... helps the reader to understand why the killing is taking place. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Personhood and nervous systems -- was Re: Pope goes Totalitarian
    ... A reasonable and decent person could accept each stage. ... Killing human beings is different in kind to killing ... The reason can't merely be that there's some uniquely ... So it seems that it's my mind that makes me who I am. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • ID Revisited
    ... It's not a debate - it's a querulous mob looking for comfort. ... You cannot reason with those to whom reason is ... or with those driven by fear and ignorance. ... desire to see science dethroned. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)