Discussion:
Big Game Hunting on an Even Footing
(too old to reply)
Zeborah
2008-08-31 20:10:59 UTC
Permalink
To me also. For a less human perspective, perhaps we should turn
to observed animal behaviour. Animals hunt and kill for meat;
they attack, drive off, or kill known predators when they catch
them at a suitable advantage; they encroach on each others'
territories, which in any case are chronically overlapping when
taken on a cross-species basis, all the time. But do they take
trophies? I can imagine something like that developing as a kind
of courtship behaviour, but I don't know of any examples.
Cats, I understand, sometimes present their kill to their owner. (Mine
doesn't; she growls at me if she thinks I'm going to take it from her.)
Probably from motives other than strict trophyism though I suppose.

Though in general I think "Animals [don't] do it, therefore it's [not]
okay for humans to do it!" is a rather useless argument. Some animals
eat their young, but I disapprove of the practice among humans; animals
don't recount fiction as entertainment, but most humans accept fiction
as a perfectly moral pastime.

Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
Helen Hall
2008-08-31 22:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zeborah
To me also. For a less human perspective, perhaps we should turn
to observed animal behaviour. Animals hunt and kill for meat;
they attack, drive off, or kill known predators when they catch
them at a suitable advantage; they encroach on each others'
territories, which in any case are chronically overlapping when
taken on a cross-species basis, all the time. But do they take
trophies? I can imagine something like that developing as a kind
of courtship behaviour, but I don't know of any examples.
Cats, I understand, sometimes present their kill to their owner. (Mine
doesn't; she growls at me if she thinks I'm going to take it from her.)
Probably from motives other than strict trophyism though I suppose.
Yes, well-fed cats will hunt just for the thrill of it. Our Fluffy used
to murder moles and once left a neat row of 4 mole corpses by the back
door. Not exactly trophies, but neither she nor our Siamese would eat
moles or shrews, yet they still killed them and brought them to show off
to their humans.
Post by Zeborah
Though in general I think "Animals [don't] do it, therefore it's [not]
okay for humans to do it!" is a rather useless argument. Some animals
eat their young, but I disapprove of the practice among humans; animals
don't recount fiction as entertainment, but most humans accept fiction
as a perfectly moral pastime.
Yes, I agree that "it's natural, animals do it" has a rather limited
validity.

Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
Graham Woodland
2008-09-01 05:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Helen Hall
Post by Zeborah
To me also. For a less human perspective, perhaps we should turn
to observed animal behaviour. Animals hunt and kill for meat;
they attack, drive off, or kill known predators when they catch
them at a suitable advantage; they encroach on each others'
territories, which in any case are chronically overlapping when
taken on a cross-species basis, all the time. But do they take
trophies? I can imagine something like that developing as a kind
of courtship behaviour, but I don't know of any examples.
Cats, I understand, sometimes present their kill to their owner. (Mine
doesn't; she growls at me if she thinks I'm going to take it from her.)
Probably from motives other than strict trophyism though I suppose.
Yes, well-fed cats will hunt just for the thrill of it. Our Fluffy used
to murder moles and once left a neat row of 4 mole corpses by the back
door. Not exactly trophies, but neither she nor our Siamese would eat
moles or shrews, yet they still killed them and brought them to show off
to their humans.
Okay, cats are a fair counterpoint, and also rebut my just-posted
argument to Zeborah that we don't like animals that do stuff like
that.
Post by Helen Hall
Post by Zeborah
Though in general I think "Animals [don't] do it, therefore it's [not]
okay for humans to do it!" is a rather useless argument. Some animals
eat their young, but I disapprove of the practice among humans; animals
don't recount fiction as entertainment, but most humans accept fiction
as a perfectly moral pastime.
Yes, I agree that "it's natural, animals do it" has a rather limited
validity.
Of course. But it has considerable validity in response to
criticism of humans for wickedly, stupidly, or unfairly doing
things that 'no animal does', which seemed to be one of Alma's
points. The differently-charged argument that homosexuality is
wicked because unnatural uses similarly IMO faulty logic; but
it's still fair game to point out that 'no animal does it' is
grossly false, and that therefore the argument fails even on its
own stated terms.

(Been off .misc until Zeborah gave me the heads-up; life has
turned muchly busy.)
--
Cheers,

Gray

---
To unmung address, lop off the 'be invalid' command.
James A. Donald
2008-09-01 01:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Graham Woodland
Post by Zeborah
Animals hunt and kill for meat; they attack, drive
off, or kill known predators when they catch them at
a suitable advantage; they encroach on each others'
territories, which in any case are chronically
overlapping when taken on a cross-species basis, all
the time. But do they take trophies?
Zeborah
Post by Zeborah
Cats, I understand, sometimes present their kill to
their owner.
Cats also make gifts to their feline friends. Because
of the notorious vanity and selfishness of cats, I am
inclined to interpret this as "See what a mighty hunter
I am".

Further, cats will catch (and torture) critters just for
fun, even when they are neither going to eat what they
kill, or show it off.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Zeborah
2008-09-01 03:54:09 UTC
Permalink
in the Tsavo book the overseer boasted of having once "killed a lion
with his bare hands" - as a show of strength, proof of manhood,
whatever.
Anyone who wishes to take a lion for a trophy should be made to do
THAT. And if they can't, shooting a lion with a machine gun just
because they want its skin is not going to make them a man. Just a
monster.
Shooting a lion with a machine gun just because they want its skin makes
them an idiot. The bullet holes will ruin the skin.
Oh, twaddle. Any man who'd go up against ANY significant predator
voluntarily with bare hands -- for trophy or anything out of "well, I
had no CHOICE at the time" -- wouldn't be a man, he'd be an idiot, and
if he SURVIVED it, a LUCKY idiot. I'm not even talking here about things
like lions or tigers; panthers/pumas, even a bobcat or a lynx, a
chimpanzee or baboon, these are all MORE than a match for an unarmed
human being. They'll rip you to pieces. Lions or tigers? They'll play
with you for a while because you're no more dangerous to them than a
housecat -- a DECLAWED housecat -- is to you.
You haven't seen the way my cat bites. OTOH opposable thumbs and
brains. What's the circumference on a lion's neck? If you could
magically get on the back of a lion you might be able to strangle it, at
least for a second before it claws you off again. Hmm. Or gouge out
its eyes perhaps, which (though I imagine it wouldn't stop it killing
you) is an experience it won't forget in a hurry.

The thing about hunting predators, as opposed to many other skills, is
that impressiveness is directly correlated to danger. The more
impressive the feat you're attempting, the more likely you die rather
than succeed. This kind of danger is not shared by impressive
novelists, violinists, swimmers, etc.

Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
Graham Woodland
2008-09-01 05:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zeborah
To me also. For a less human perspective, perhaps we should turn
to observed animal behaviour. Animals hunt and kill for meat;
they attack, drive off, or kill known predators when they catch
them at a suitable advantage; they encroach on each others'
territories, which in any case are chronically overlapping when
taken on a cross-species basis, all the time. But do they take
trophies? I can imagine something like that developing as a kind
of courtship behaviour, but I don't know of any examples.
Cats, I understand, sometimes present their kill to their owner. (Mine
doesn't; she growls at me if she thinks I'm going to take it from her.)
Probably from motives other than strict trophyism though I suppose.
Though in general I think "Animals [don't] do it, therefore it's [not]
okay for humans to do it!" is a rather useless argument. Some animals
eat their young, but I disapprove of the practice among humans; animals
don't recount fiction as entertainment, but most humans accept fiction
as a perfectly moral pastime.
No. But when an argument seems to suggest that humans are in
some senses uniquely depraved amongst the animal kingdom, it is
useful to turn to actual animal behaviour to circumscribe the
reasonableness of the accusation a bit.

Conversely, killing-to-have-killed is a behaviour humans
traditionally find peculiarly unattractive in animals -- for
clear reason -- and except for the odd Canadian politician, I
seldom hear anybody who cares to speak up for the noble
wolverine. This seems not unrelated to trophy-hunting in its
purest form, or to its bastard cousin trophy-collecting ("No,
look, I really *am* Nimrod the mighty hunter! -- Well, in a
higher sense, obviously.")
--
Cheers,

Gray

---
To unmung address, lop off the 'be invalid' command.
Zeborah
2008-09-01 05:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Well, to be blunt, it comes across to me as being a case of selective
criticism. What led to this was comments made by Alma about armed
humans vs. predators that just doesn't hold up. Those assumptions are
rather common ones among those who aren't exposed to hunting, common
enough I made a separate thread to discuss the mechanics of man vs.
predator.
Now, what's interesting to me is that there were no calls for Alma to
take this thread elsewhere.
The reason for that is because Tina appears to have Alma killfiled, so
she hadn't seen the thread until David posted. It was nothing personal
against David or you or any of your views. It's just that she doesn't
want this sort of controversial argument on rasfc; and it was turning
into a controversial argument no matter what your intentions were.
Frankly, I don't particularly care that
Alma doesn't like hunting, and as I said from the start it wasn't my
purpose to make a convert. But when David voices contradiction in
Alma's position, then we have your "ruling" to take it elsewhere, and
(I was blissfully unaware of this thread and the idiot, non-rasfc
relevant comments in it until you jumped in.)
To say that this rubbed me the wrong way on several levels is a bit of
an understatement. In fact, I've had to walk away from the computer
before posting a fairly heated reply. To be quite honest, it seems
arbitrary and, well, somewhat political in a group sense.
Oh, it rubs me up all sorts of wrong ways too, but I frequently have
that reaction to Tina (as she no doubt has to me) and in any case it's
not at all clear in what way it's political. And in *any* case, she has
every right to make the request for any reason she likes.
If that's the case, then I have to wonder if rasfc is worth the candle
anymore, and quite honestly I'm starting to think that it's not.
Were you here when we came up with the idea of using rasfm as a
bull-pen? Because rasfc was *not* worth the candle at the time. It was
argumentative verging on nasty, and politics had taken over to the
exclusion of writing. People had left, people were continuing to leave,
and I was ->this<- close to leaving myself.

The agreement to move controversy to rasfm upon request was unanimous.

And since then rasfc has been pleasanter than it had been for a long
while, and people have been returning in droves.

I should be sorry indeed to see you leave. But I should be far far
sorrier to lose the agreement of using rasfm as bullpen and to see rasfc
return to what it was earlier in the year.

And, I repeat, the agreement to move controversy to rasfm upon request
was unanimous. *Unanimous.* On *Usenet*, of all places.

Anyway, to quote from the FAQ:

{Off-topic and controversial discussions:

Sometimes topics are introduced that seem insufficiently sfnal in nature
or that would be better addressed in another newsgroup, in which case it
is commonly requested that the discussion be moved elsewhere (and not
everyone who makes the request will do so politely). If you are not
familiar with the group, please check section 6 "Where else do I go for
help?" before posting, to make certain this is the right place for your
query/comment. Also read Section 4. "How does one start posting to
rasfc?"

Often a thread will begin on a sfnal topic but veer into non-sfnal
territory. When this happens, particularly if it is likely to be a
controversial topic, either a participant or bystander may request that
the discussion be moved to rec.arts.sf.misc instead.

A request by a bystander may consist of a post on rasfc saying words to
the effect of, "This discussion would be better suited to
rec.arts.sf.misc", with followups set to rasfm. A move by a participant
may begin with a short statement in rasfc that "I disagree, but am going
to present my arguments in rec.arts.sf.misc".

Reasons for the move need not be given in rasfc itself (and probably
should not be, as they are likely themselves to be controversial); nor
should the arguments themselves. If they are presented there, a
responder may ignore the followups and post a short reply to rasfc
saying words to the effect that "These arguments should not have been
posted to rasfc, and I will be posting a rebuttal in rec.arts.sf.misc",
with followups set to rasfm.}

Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
Brian M. Scott
2008-09-01 05:35:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 17:26:08 +1200, Zeborah
<***@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:1imlm6c.gmt5b0gateheN%***@gmail.com> in
rec.arts.sf.misc:

[...]
Post by Zeborah
The agreement to move controversy to rasfm upon request
was unanimous.
Among those expressing an opinion. I may be misremembering,
but I believe that I diplomatically held my peace, since I
was of two minds about it. I still am, actually, though
considerably less so, having so far seen only one request
that bothered me.

[...]

Brian
Zeborah
2008-09-01 07:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 17:26:08 +1200, Zeborah
[...]
Post by Zeborah
The agreement to move controversy to rasfm upon request
was unanimous.
Among those expressing an opinion.
Well, yeah. Still a bleedin' miracle.
Post by Brian M. Scott
I may be misremembering,
but I believe that I diplomatically held my peace, since I
was of two minds about it. I still am, actually, though
considerably less so, having so far seen only one request
that bothered me.
I have a (possibly faulty) recollection that you stated ambivalence as
to whether it would succeed or not. I think on the whole it has,
despite inevitable glitches.

I do understand the concern about inappropriate requests, but I don't
think a social system without potential for abuse is possible, and
besides, just so tired of all the arguing.

Zeborah
(In an unrelated grumpy mood today, so please excuse lack of grace.)
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
Brian M. Scott
2008-09-01 17:15:29 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:22:39 +1200, Zeborah
<***@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:1imlpsz.179jhs51igrsonN%***@gmail.com> in
rec.arts.sf.misc:

[...]
I don't think a social system without potential for abuse
is possible, [...]
One of life's few certainties, I think.

Brian
Kevin J. Cheek
2008-09-01 23:36:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zeborah
Were you here when we came up with the idea of using rasfm as a
bull-pen? Because rasfc was *not* worth the candle at the time. It was
argumentative verging on nasty, and politics had taken over to the
exclusion of writing. People had left, people were continuing to leave,
and I was ->this<- close to leaving myself.
No. I was skimming the topics, as I do now, for anything interesting.
I was actually writing for a change - and note the lack of smiley.

I thank you for your kind words and explanation.

- Kevin J. Cheek
Helen Hall
2008-09-01 21:56:52 UTC
Permalink
Well, to be blunt, it comes across to me as being a case of selective
criticism. What led to this was comments made by Alma about armed
humans vs. predators that just doesn't hold up. Those assumptions are
rather common ones among those who aren't exposed to hunting, common
enough I made a separate thread to discuss the mechanics of man vs.
predator.
Now, what's interesting to me is that there were no calls for Alma to
take this thread elsewhere. Frankly, I don't particularly care that
Alma doesn't like hunting, and as I said from the start it wasn't my
purpose to make a convert. But when David voices contradiction in
Alma's position, then we have your "ruling" to take it elsewhere, and
(I was blissfully unaware of this thread and the idiot, non-rasfc
relevant comments in it until you jumped in.)
At the moment I don't have time to read all of rasfc and mark lots of
posts as read. I saw the start of this thread, realised it was heading
off topic, but as I didn't have time to comment at the time, I just
hoped it would die away or mutate. It didn't, therefore I backed Tina's
request that it be moved to misc.
If that's the case, then I have to wonder if rasfc is worth the candle
anymore, and quite honestly I'm starting to think that it's not.
I'm trying to make time for rasfc now we have a mechanism for taking
controversial non-writing related stuff into misc. I'm happy to join in
the hunting debate over there, but not in here. I'm sorry that this
system isn't working for you, but that's what was agreed.

I don't think Tina meant to imply disagreement with your viewpoint and I
don't disagree with it either, but the thread was showing signs of
rising heat and therefore was not appropriate where it was.

Hope this clarifies things.

Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
Kevin J. Cheek
2008-09-01 23:46:37 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:56:52 +0100, Helen Hall
Post by Helen Hall
I don't think Tina meant to imply disagreement with your viewpoint and I
don't disagree with it either, but the thread was showing signs of
rising heat and therefore was not appropriate where it was.
I really don't care to argue my viewpoint, and for a very basic
reason: Some people are hunters, others aren't, and east is east and
west is west and never the twain shall meet. If someone thinks hunting
is barbaric, then so be it. That didn't ruffle my fur.

Rather, it was the manner in which it was done which set me on edge.
In particular the term "idiocy" and a fiat declaration in a
non-moderated newsgroup. I would not have been offended if this had
been made as a suggestion rather than a command, and if a neutral term
had been used. For example:

"Guys: I think this argument on morality is one of the things we all
agreed should be discussed in rec.arts.sf.misc."

In particularly, spelling out the group name rather than use rasm
would have done wonders to clarify what was going on. Since I skim the
topics, I did not notice that it had been agreed to create (I assume
the newsgroup was created for this purpose) rasm for hot button
topics.

- Kevin J. Cheek
David Friedman
2008-09-02 01:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
I really don't care to argue my viewpoint, and for a very basic
reason: Some people are hunters, others aren't, and east is east and
west is west and never the twain shall meet.
"Till earth and sky stand presently at God's great judgement seat
But there is neither east nor west, border nor breed nor birth
When two strong men stand face to face though they come from the ends of
the earth."

Or in other words the verse (and the poem) mean almost the opposite of
what you, not alone, imply.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Helen Hall
2008-09-02 18:50:24 UTC
Permalink
In message
Post by David Friedman
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
I really don't care to argue my viewpoint, and for a very basic
reason: Some people are hunters, others aren't, and east is east and
west is west and never the twain shall meet.
"Till earth and sky stand presently at God's great judgement seat
But there is neither east nor west, border nor breed nor birth
When two strong men stand face to face though they come from the ends of
the earth."
Or in other words the verse (and the poem) mean almost the opposite of
what you, not alone, imply.
Perhaps unwittingly Kevin chose the right quote? :)

I don't think there is such an extreme dichotomy as he's trying to make
out. When it comes to hunting, I usually sit firmly on the fence because
the issues are very complicated and far from black and white. For one
thing a whole variety of different activities are lumped under the
general heading of "hunting", some of which I think are perfectly OK and
some I don't.

Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
Kevin J. Cheek
2008-09-03 00:41:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:50:24 +0100, Helen Hall
Post by Helen Hall
I don't think there is such an extreme dichotomy as he's trying to make
out. When it comes to hunting, I usually sit firmly on the fence because
the issues are very complicated and far from black and white. For one
thing a whole variety of different activities are lumped under the
general heading of "hunting", some of which I think are perfectly OK and
some I don't.
Shrug. That's just my perspective. Maybe there's not such a strong
dichotomy. OTOH, I don't look for anyone to change anyone's mind.

I don't think anyone cares for poaching. Some hunters over here will
try to bend the rules, so to speak (and some fishermen, too), on
issues such as limits. Then there's the baited field issues. Of
course, the game wardens are aware of this, and like to drop by to say
howdy at big dove hunts. But out and out poaching is generally held as
reprehensible.

There's other issues that crop up. Locally it's frowned upon to waste
meat. I think most states have laws requiring an effort be made to
retrieve game.

There's probably other areas of agreement. One of the reasons we have
seasons and ended market hunting was to preserve species.
Unfortunately that was after the passing of the Passenger Pigeon.

- Kevin J. Cheek
Helen Hall
2008-09-03 18:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
Shrug. That's just my perspective. Maybe there's not such a strong
dichotomy. OTOH, I don't look for anyone to change anyone's mind.
I don't think anyone cares for poaching.
Well, now there's poaching and poaching... Acquiring a brace of the rich
landowner's grouse or catching the odd rabbit with lurchers is a
different kettle of fish to killing the few surviving members of an
endangered species, though both are poaching.
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
Some hunters over here will
try to bend the rules, so to speak (and some fishermen, too), on
issues such as limits. Then there's the baited field issues. Of
course, the game wardens are aware of this, and like to drop by to say
howdy at big dove hunts. But out and out poaching is generally held as
reprehensible.
There's other issues that crop up. Locally it's frowned upon to waste
meat. I think most states have laws requiring an effort be made to
retrieve game.
In the UK of course, the main controversy over hunting regards the
killing of foxes by dogs. This is one example of what I mean by finding
some practices acceptable and some not. The fox is either trophy or dead
vermin, depending on how the hunter regards it -- perhaps both? But
whilst I gradually settled on being opposed to hunting foxes on
horseback with a pack of hounds for the fun of it, I have no objection
to our local farmers taking their shotguns and a few dogs to flush out
and shoot the foxes on the land where their lambs will soon be
frolicking.
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
There's probably other areas of agreement. One of the reasons we have
seasons and ended market hunting was to preserve species.
Unfortunately that was after the passing of the Passenger Pigeon.
Deer and grouse hunting (and fishing) is done according to seasons to
ensure the survival of the creatures and the continued income from the
shooting rights. Ditto fishing, which is licensed.

I'm sure things are completely different in the US where you have more
wilderness and more large creatures that are worth eating.

Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
Kevin J. Cheek
2008-09-03 22:32:38 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 19:27:07 +0100, Helen Hall
Post by Helen Hall
Deer and grouse hunting (and fishing) is done according to seasons to
ensure the survival of the creatures and the continued income from the
shooting rights. Ditto fishing, which is licensed.
I'm sure things are completely different in the US where you have more
wilderness and more large creatures that are worth eating.
Depends on the local. There's more deer and turkey in this area now
than forty years ago. There was pressure for the state to import both
species - the deer came from Wisconsin and had ear notches or tags -
to bolster the indigenous herds and flocks. We went from two bucks per
year to two bucks and several does, all to control the population.

Meanwhile, Alabama used to allow a deer a day, but don't know if
that's still the case.

Alligator hunting is coming back, although it's closer to what Alma
desired. We've started limited bear hunting in my lifetime.

OTOH I grew up in the boonies and while we didn't have deer, we did
have panthers and the occasional bear.

- Kevin J. Cheek
Catja Pafort
2008-09-08 11:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
I don't think anyone cares for poaching.
That depends who is doing the poaching or why. If you pick up someething
that ran into your car, you're a poacher - yet most people would
consider that morally defensible, considering how difficult it is to
kill anything by driving into it. And someone who takes a couple of
rabbits of pheasants or pigeons or fish *for their pot* because they're
hard up... for me that is part of the 'hunting as subsidence' thing
which I don't disagree with, or at least not until so many people do it
that there's a good chance that nobody will be able to profit.
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
Some hunters over here will
try to bend the rules, so to speak (and some fishermen, too), on
issues such as limits.
That, to me, is a different kind of poaching, along with hunting on
either side of the official season and hunting animals that are legally
excempt.

<very firmly refrains from making further remarks>


Catja
--
writing blog @ http://beyond-elechan.livejournal.com
James A. Donald
2008-09-03 08:56:59 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:50:24 +0100, Helen Hall
Post by Helen Hall
I don't think there is such an extreme dichotomy as
he's trying to make out. When it comes to hunting, I
usually sit firmly on the fence because the issues are
very complicated and far from black and white. For one
thing a whole variety of different activities are
lumped under the general heading of "hunting", some of
which I think are perfectly OK and some I don't.
I don't feel threatened by hunters. I feel threatened
by those who concern themselves excessively with what
other people do. Hunters don't kill people. Busy
bodies do kill people - killed a hundred million or so
in the twentieth century.

Busybodies are still killing people - for example, I
personally would be a great deal safer if I could buy
some DDT. I would also be safer if it was open season
on any salt water croc in the vicinity of human
habitation. People who worry about the welfare of
crocodiles mosquitoes, and a couple of other creatures
which I am not naming to avoid giving away my precise
location, are endangering my personal safety.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Helen Hall
2008-09-03 18:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by James A. Donald
I don't feel threatened by hunters. I feel threatened
by those who concern themselves excessively with what
other people do. Hunters don't kill people. Busy
bodies do kill people - killed a hundred million or so
in the twentieth century.
Busybodies are still killing people - for example, I
personally would be a great deal safer if I could buy
some DDT. I would also be safer if it was open season
on any salt water croc in the vicinity of human
habitation. People who worry about the welfare of
crocodiles mosquitoes, and a couple of other creatures
which I am not naming to avoid giving away my precise
location, are endangering my personal safety.
Erm.... I don't remember DDT being banned in order to protect mosquitos.

Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
James A. Donald
2008-09-04 01:27:05 UTC
Permalink
James A. Donald
Post by Helen Hall
Post by James A. Donald
Busybodies are still killing people - for example, I
personally would be a great deal safer if I could
buy some DDT. I would also be safer if it was open
season on any salt water croc in the vicinity of
human habitation. People who worry about the
welfare of crocodiles mosquitoes, and a couple of
other creatures which I am not naming to avoid
giving away my precise location, are endangering my
personal safety.
Helen Hall
Post by Helen Hall
Erm.... I don't remember DDT being banned in order to
protect mosquitos.
It was restricted to protect the welfare of birds that
eat mosquitoes, balance of nature blah blah blah -
songbirds being more charismatic than mosquitoes.

There is an arguable case for not spraying DDT over the
general environment such as food crops and grass that
cattle eat, because it inevitably gets into people, but
in any area with mosquito born diseases, we should spray
ceilings, walls, eaves and nonfood trees and shrubs near
humans with DDT.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Brian M. Scott
2008-09-04 01:36:30 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:27:05 +1000, "James A. Donald"
<***@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:***@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.misc:

[...]
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
Helen Hall
Post by Helen Hall
Erm.... I don't remember DDT being banned in order to
protect mosquitos.
It was restricted to protect the welfare of birds that
eat mosquitoes, balance of nature blah blah blah -
songbirds being more charismatic than mosquitoes.
True as far as it goes, but misleadingly (and typically)
incomplete. It was restricted on the grounds that (1) there
was evidence, albeit mixed, that it was a danger to wildlife
*and* human health, and (2) it was persistent, a
circumstance that would tend to exacerbate any dangers that
actually existed.

[...]
James A. Donald
2008-09-04 03:05:25 UTC
Permalink
--
Helen Hall
Post by Brian M. Scott
Post by James A. Donald
Post by Helen Hall
Erm.... I don't remember DDT being banned in order
to protect mosquitos.
It was restricted to protect the welfare of birds
that eat mosquitoes, balance of nature blah blah
blah - songbirds being more charismatic than
mosquitoes.
True as far as it goes, but misleadingly (and
typically) incomplete. It was restricted on the
grounds that (1) there was evidence, albeit mixed,
that it was a danger to wildlife *and* human health
and (2) it was persistent, a circumstance that would
tend to exacerbate any dangers that actually existed.
The major danger to wildlife is and was that it was
highly effective in killing insects, and for the purpose
of protecting against diseases, one wants a persistent
insecticide.

The objections you list against DDT are just objections
to the fact that it is damned good at doing what it
does.

The number one thing one can do to stop the spread of
insect born diseases is to spray house eaves and
suchlike, and for this purpose, deadliness, persistence,
and repellent abilities are exactly what is wanted -
which are exactly the "problems" that led it to be
restricted.

The excellent effectiveness of DDT means that broad area
spraying will have substantial side effects, which are
grounds for cautiously reconsidering broad area spraying
case by case - but what we have instead is that broad
area spraying is totally banned, and small area surface
spraying, such has housing eaves and the vicinity of
housing, is so regulated and restricted that it is not
worth trying to fight the regulations.

People should be free to purchase DDT labeled for small
area surface spraying in quantities consistent with
small area spraying. DDT should not be regulated except
when people purchase it by the barrel, and even barrel
loads of DDT should be used by people who are
appropriately knowledgeable and cautious.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Brian M. Scott
2008-09-04 03:41:29 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:05:25 +1000, "James A. Donald"
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
Helen Hall
Post by Brian M. Scott
Post by James A. Donald
Post by Helen Hall
Erm.... I don't remember DDT being banned in order
to protect mosquitos.
It was restricted to protect the welfare of birds
that eat mosquitoes, balance of nature blah blah
blah - songbirds being more charismatic than
mosquitoes.
True as far as it goes, but misleadingly (and
typically) incomplete. It was restricted on the
grounds that (1) there was evidence, albeit mixed,
that it was a danger to wildlife *and* human health
and (2) it was persistent, a circumstance that would
tend to exacerbate any dangers that actually existed.
The major danger to wildlife is and was that it was
highly effective in killing insects,
The actual dangers are irrelevant; it was banned because of
perceived dangers, for which there was at least some
evidence. You may feel that the evidence was inadequate,
and quite a few sane, intelligent folks would agree, but
that's entirely beside the point.
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
and for the purpose of protecting against diseases, one
wants a persistent insecticide.
Not necessarily, no.
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
The objections you list against DDT are just objections
to the fact that it is damned good at doing what it
does.
Now you're just being ridiculous.

[more irrelevant matter]
James A. Donald
2008-09-04 11:14:08 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:41:29 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
Post by Brian M. Scott
The actual dangers are irrelevant; it was banned
because of perceived dangers, for which there was at
least some evidence. You may feel that the evidence
was inadequate, and quite a few sane, intelligent
folks would agree, but that's entirely beside the
point.
Assuming the perceived dangers were real, they were, and
are, dangers of using it on a much larger scale than
individual use to protect homes and the immediate
vicinity of homes.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Brian M. Scott
2008-09-02 03:10:59 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:46:37 -0400, "Kevin J. Cheek"
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:56:52 +0100, Helen Hall
Post by Helen Hall
I don't think Tina meant to imply disagreement with your
viewpoint and I don't disagree with it either, but the
thread was showing signs of rising heat and therefore
was not appropriate where it was.
I really don't care to argue my viewpoint, and for a very
basic reason: Some people are hunters, others aren't,
and east is east and west is west and never the twain
shall meet. [...]
Piffle. The real situation is far more complex than that.

[...]
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
Rather, it was the manner in which it was done which set
me on edge. In particular the term "idiocy"
Correction: 'idiot, non-rasfc relevant comments'.
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
and a fiat declaration in a non-moderated newsgroup.
There wasn't one. Tina's original request was simply
'Please take it to rasfm'. It was followed by a
parenthetical comment pointing out to David F. that she'd
have been blissfully unaware of the thread if he hadn't
posted in it -- she has a rather considerable number of
people killfiled -- and expressing the opinion that a lot of
it was off-topic for rasfc. She did specify what parts of
it were off-topic.
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
I would not have been offended if this had been made as a
suggestion rather than a command, and if a neutral term
had been used.
It was a polite request, not a command, and there was no
indication at that point of just what parts of the
discussion Tina thought 'idiot'.

[...]
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
In particularly, spelling out the group name rather than
use rasm would have done wonders to clarify what was
going on. Since I skim the topics, I did not notice that
it had been agreed to create (I assume the newsgroup was
created for this purpose) rasm for hot button topics.
It was not: it already existed, with a description
compatible with such use, and was not otherwise being used
for much of anything. There was a good deal of discussion
when the decision was made, and the policy has been in
effect for a while now; it would not have occurred to me
that someone whom I recognize as something of a rasfc
regular might be unaware of it.

[...]

Brian
Helen Hall
2008-09-02 18:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:46:37 -0400, "Kevin J. Cheek"
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
In particularly, spelling out the group name rather than
use rasm would have done wonders to clarify what was
going on. Since I skim the topics, I did not notice that
it had been agreed to create (I assume the newsgroup was
created for this purpose) rasm for hot button topics.
It was not: it already existed, with a description
compatible with such use, and was not otherwise being used
for much of anything. There was a good deal of discussion
when the decision was made, and the policy has been in
effect for a while now; it would not have occurred to me
that someone whom I recognize as something of a rasfc
regular might be unaware of it.
Yes, I apologise to Kevin for making assumptions, but like Brian, I
recognised your name as a regular and thus thought you were au fait with
the "side room for off-topic discussion" agreement.

Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
Kevin J. Cheek
2008-09-03 00:49:52 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:47:05 +0100, Helen Hall
Post by Helen Hall
Yes, I apologise to Kevin for making assumptions, but like Brian, I
recognised your name as a regular and thus thought you were au fait with
the "side room for off-topic discussion" agreement.
No apology on your part is necessary. But the fact is that I don't
read every single thread in most newsgroups. Whether the original
thread that brought on this decision had devolved to the eye-rolling
stage or whether I just didn't find it interesting enough to read, I
can't say. It could have been either.

What might be important, though, is that I'm probably not the only one
who skims rasc, and there may be others who don't know about the
decision, or who don't realize there's been a change to the FAQ and
don't bother to read it anymore.

- Kevin J. Cheek
Zeborah
2008-09-03 03:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:47:05 +0100, Helen Hall
Post by Helen Hall
Yes, I apologise to Kevin for making assumptions, but like Brian, I
recognised your name as a regular and thus thought you were au fait with
the "side room for off-topic discussion" agreement.
No apology on your part is necessary. But the fact is that I don't
read every single thread in most newsgroups. Whether the original
thread that brought on this decision had devolved to the eye-rolling
stage or whether I just didn't find it interesting enough to read, I
can't say. It could have been either.
There were a number of threads that devolved, so the proposal was
brought out into its own thread, titled "META: Creating a sister group"
(at
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.composition/browse_frm/thread
/f262332f0866617e )

Then when there was some general agreement on the concept, I started a
new thread titled "Proposed FAQ addition" (at
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.composition/browse_frm/thread
/921b4a85106ec241 )
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
What might be important, though, is that I'm probably not the only one
who skims rasc, and there may be others who don't know about the
decision, or who don't realize there's been a change to the FAQ and
don't bother to read it anymore.
FWIW, when I make changes to the FAQ, I enclose them in {squiggley
brackets} in the plain text and make the red in the html version. The
FAQ and the FAQ pointer I post also include the date it was last
updated.

Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
Brian M. Scott
2008-09-03 01:35:06 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:10:59 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
<***@csuohio.edu> wrote in
<news:1htp9w1izxdj9.zxylfgeragpt$***@40tude.net> in
rec.arts.sf.misc:

[...]
Post by Brian M. Scott
Tina's original request was simply
'Please take it to rasfm'. It was followed by a
parenthetical comment pointing out to David F. that she'd
have been blissfully unaware of the thread if he hadn't
posted in it -- she has a rather considerable number of
people killfiled -- and expressing the opinion that a lot of
it was off-topic for rasfc. She did specify what parts of
it were off-topic.
Oops: that should have been 'didn't specify'.

[...]

Brian
Kevin J. Cheek
2008-09-01 23:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zeborah
Though in general I think "Animals [don't] do it, therefore it's [not]
okay for humans to do it!" is a rather useless argument. Some animals
eat their young, but I disapprove of the practice among humans; animals
don't recount fiction as entertainment, but most humans accept fiction
as a perfectly moral pastime.
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced there's a strong
emphasis on trophies among humans. More than one person told me I
should frame a copy of my first sale, and many people display the
first dollar they ever made. Some people have "Glory Walls" with
pictures of dignitaries, and perhaps that diploma serves a purpose
more than showing you've completed the course of study. If that's the
case, then perhaps the idea of trophy is to demonstrate prowess.

- Kevin J. Cheek
Aqua
2008-09-08 21:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin J. Cheek
Post by Zeborah
Though in general I think "Animals [don't] do it, therefore it's [not]
okay for humans to do it!" is a rather useless argument. Some animals
eat their young, but I disapprove of the practice among humans; animals
don't recount fiction as entertainment, but most humans accept fiction
as a perfectly moral pastime.
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced there's a strong
emphasis on trophies among humans. More than one person told me I
should frame a copy of my first sale, and many people display the
first dollar they ever made. Some people have "Glory Walls" with
pictures of dignitaries, and perhaps that diploma serves a purpose
more than showing you've completed the course of study. If that's the
case, then perhaps the idea of trophy is to demonstrate prowess.
I think trophies are a form of social capital - advertising prowess,
status, accomplishments to other humans. I think humans would have to
be the most complex social species around, and I believe the best
theories for our rapid development in intelligence over the last 5
million years involve our complex social dynamics.

So in this case, it's not surprising that we're doing something that
isn't seen much if at all in other species.

Aqua
James A. Donald
2008-09-09 07:14:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aqua
I think trophies are a form of social capital -
advertising prowess, status, accomplishments to other
humans. I think humans would have to be the most
complex social species around, and I believe the best
theories for our rapid development in intelligence
over the last 5 million years involve our complex
social dynamics.
So in this case, it's not surprising that we're doing
something that isn't seen much if at all in other
species.
I am pretty sure that when one cat presents another cat
with a dead gopher, it is a trophy.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...