Vegetarian's guide to talking to carnivores

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by James R, Aug 29, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Oh... Deer.

    White-tailed deer are native to here. We killed off the woods, cut down the trees and their population exploded.

    When wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone park, trees began sprouting and growing in what was grassland, tree cover increased, the ecology changed significantly.

    Change one thing, you get a cascade of effects. Ecology 101.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Yup, pretty much.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    No, that's one definition.

    One that can be found on, for example, wikipedia.

    But if you look at the source referenced for the sentence in question, it references the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which actually has this to say:
    Pest
    something resembling a pest in destructiveness; especially : a plant or animal detrimental to humans or human concerns (as agriculture or livestock production)

    So no, my assertion stands unchallenged, in the english dictionary, a pest is not defined exclusively on the basis on its impact on humans, it does, however, imply that a species that has a detrimental impact on humans and human affairs is more likely to be labled a pest.

    Furthermore, under the New Zealand Biosecuirity Act, the definition of a Pest is:
    pest means an organism specified as a pest in a pest management strategy
    And an Organism is:
    organism

    (a) does not include a human being or a genetic structure derived from a human being:

    (b) includes a micro-organism:

    (c) subject to paragraph (a), includes a genetic structure that is capable of replicating itself (whether that structure comprises all or only part of an entity, and whether it comprises all or only part of the total genetic structure of an entity):

    (d) includes an entity (other than a human being) declared by the Governor-General by Order in Council to be an organism for the purposes of this Act:

    (e) includes a reproductive cell or developmental stage of an organism:

    (f) includes any particle that is a prion.

    But it gets worse (well, for you anyway), because the Biosecurity act also explicitly states that one of the criteria for classifying an organism as a pest is:
    each organism in respect of which the strategy is under consideration is capable of causing at some time a serious adverse and unintended effect in relation to New Zealand on 1 or more of the following...
    ...(ii) the viability of threatened species of organisms, the survival and distribution of indigenous plants or animals, or the sustainability of natural and developed ecosystems, ecological processes, and biological diversity...

    Each of the animals I listed, like gorse and scottish thistle are pests because they're invasive, so James' contention is completely bogus, and wholy without merit.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Yeah, as I understand it, those are ring tailed possums, not brush tailed possums, I believe they are related though.
     
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    trippy, both ring tales and brush are Australian natives,

    the US has a species which is called the opossum

    They have no relationship (dont know if ring tails and brush are related but much more likly than US opossums)

    http://www.bobinoz.com/blog/4013/possums-and-opossums-australia-and-america-all-explained/
     
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Right, but...

    One, I'm not Australian, am I?

    Two, we don't have ring tailed possums in New Zealand (to my knowledge anyway).

    So whether or not they're in Australia is irrelevant.
     
  10. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    yes but the pic chimpkin posted are NOT ringtails

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    They are Opssums (and ugly), ring tailed possums are cute

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    and a brush tail

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    oh and actually the biggest pest species in Australia is New Zelanders

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (this may come to bite me in the but if the mad monk gets power and i move to kiwi land)

    BTW why would you name your country after a green fruit

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    There you go then, I thought 'Opposum' was just another name for ring tailed possum :shrugs: LOL.

    But then again, I remember getting confused over trunks roleplaying with a guy from Florida, and I still haven't figured out WTF a sweet potatoe is. (my wife thinks they're yams).
     
  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    That's funny - because the most damaging pest species in NZ is a native australian LOL.
     
  14. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    sweat potatoes

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_potato

    there are 2 types of sweet potato sold here (no idea if they are the same species), an orange one and a purple (skined) one which tastes like chestnuts
     
  15. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    oh, helps if i read my own links

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Huh? Isn't that pretty much what I said?
    I didn't get it from Wiki, by the way.

    Well, that would do it. But i find this a rather odd definition.

    If you look at it that way one could, perhaps, say that an invasive species is a special kind of pest (in which case you'd be right but not very specific).

    Pretty much all dictionaries define the word more or less as I did though.
     
  17. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No James.

    Just because we were wrong to treat people like animals doesn't mean we should now treat animals as people.

    So it's not "your laws", it's the laws of the entire world that don't equate the interests of cows, pigs, chickens etc to humans.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2011
  18. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Not really.
    The Willows did better though, because they weren't foraged by the Elks as intently and thus the Beavers have increased significantly because they need Willow to get through the winter. The increased Beaver dams have then had a significant positive impact.

    http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/intermed/inter_mgmt/yellowstone.pdf
    http://www.yellowstonepark.com/2011...he-face-of-the-greater-yellowstone-ecosystem/
     
  19. Anti-Flag Pun intended Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,714
    Exactly the point. If you support or partake in any other reasons for animals to be killed or to suffer you are just as at fault as meat eaters, and are being very hypocritical and dishonest with your reasoning and claiming a "moral" argument.

    That you criticize others for their hierarchical structure whilst you admit to having your own.


    Not since I was a kid, they're not very nutritional or tasty.
    Your claim - prove ants are lesser etc etc. They seem very intelligent to me, certainly more than many larger animals.
    Your argument is that you don't see all animals as equal, again the hierarchical structure that meat eaters have, and your reasoning is much the same.

    See above. You justify your structure, meat eaters justify theirs.
    You're being obtuse, dishonest, and hypocritical. Cows and humans are no more equal than cows are to ants, and ants to plants.

    Ah so you admit to just pulling that "fact" out of your ass then. It matters because you raised it as a point, and it's a lie. So it merited being debunked, like everything you come up with.

    As you well know I was addressing your point on health issues, and the 50% of the world being vegetarian without consequences which is blatantly not true.
    To try and twist that into claiming it was my dishonest and sole argument(when I've provided you with an abundance) is just more outright lies. But I expected that from you at this point.

    Your trolling is becoming tiresome.
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I never said we are superior.

    What I did say is that I don't give equal rights or equal consideration to a chicken because it is a chicken.

    You weren't applying it as something 'alive'.

    Which has been your argument.

    You are demanding that I apply human standards to chickens.

    You mean there is a real argument to be made that a chicken is not a human being?

    What do you expect Enmos? You are ranting because I don't consider chickens to be equal to humans and then accuse me of trolling. You are also a moderator..

    So when you ask me why chickens are of lesser value than humans, you're not demanding anything at all, right?

    It is of lesser value and cannot be given equal consideration because it is poultry. We cannot apply human values to animals. Because they are animals. Not because of a sense of superiority, but because to do so would raise an expectation upon the species. I see chickens and treat them as chickens because it is a chicken.

    Is that really so hard to understand?

    Chickens are alive. As alive as a plant or any other organism. That does not mean it should automatically be granted human values.

    And a chicken remains a chicken.

    Which I already answered, many times. And again above.

    So James compares black people to cattle to tell me that I should apply human standards to chickens and cows?

    Right..

    Because that is not racist at all..

    When one considers the history of black people, it is not racist at all to make such a comparison..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Because what he did was to state that my considering cows to be cows was akin to a white person being racist to a black person.. Now unless cows evolved to become human the last time I checked, they are still bovines. And black people are human beings, same human race as white people who are being discriminated against because of the colour of their skin.

    That he cannot tell the difference is his concern. That he uses that kind of comparison is racist.


    And you keep expecting that I somehow agree with you.
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Another way for you to hurt this community?

    This is an excellent example of what I was referring to:

    So it becomes one of those points nobody ever talks about. You know, where they say, "I never said that," or some such, and yet are unable to recognize that their broader argument demands the outcome.​

    Thank you for proving my point.

    Which is why—

    —you are incorrect.

    I have known for years that this is not a subject of which we can expect your honesty or rationality. As you demonstrate, there really is no point to arguing against your zealotry.

    Your equal consideration argument requires what you claim you never said.

    This kind of dishonest behavior is corrosive, James. Why do you continue to seek ways to harm this community?

    State yourself clearly, James. I mean, certainly you're not suggesting that people should shut up after you directly and dishonestly address them. So what, exactly, do you mean?
     
  22. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Oh what the hell are you guys on about this time? You're getting as bad as -- was it Sam and one of the ex-moderators a few years ago? Does anybody even know what sets you off? I encounter posts by both you and James all the time, and I never come away thinking either one of you is "corrosive."

    Funny, when I start raving about rampant violations of the scientific method, which I rather reasonably believe should be the Prime Directive for a website with the word "Science" in its title, I get almost no support. "But that member sometimes makes positive contributions. We should forgive this pattern of disingenuousness and let him/her stay." But you seem to think that we should all support your position in this matter--whatever that position is.

    It's been suggested more than once that disputes between moderators about how they deal with the site (and telling a moderator that you think he "seeks ways to harm this community" would seem to clearly fall in that category) should be aired on the moderators' board, not in public. That was a very good suggestion.

    I wouldn't have brought this up here, but it's already here and I'm trying to put a lid on it.

    Mom and Dad should never fight in front of the kids!
     
  23. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    ageist old fogey

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    kindly move along then
    and take your self-professed ignorance with you
    i see you opening up a new front by bringing up sam
    troll!!


    really? did you bring that assumption out from the mod forum?

    /snicker

    haha
    silly little troll
    you are just an opportunist airing your own goddamn grievances out in the goddamn open

     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page