Is culling of grey squirrels a viable tactic to conserve r..

"Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote in message news:12l1sq3n1cqibc@news.supernews.com...
>
> <amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote
> > On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:59:59 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >>The majority of ideas that are ridiculed and
> >>violently opposed are so regarded because they are crap.
> >
> > In your flawed opinion. Most are ridiculed because they don't suit the
> > ridiculer's agenda.
>
> There are a few notable ones which fall into that category, those are the
> ones to which Schopenhauer is referring, but the countless wrong-headed
> ideas in the world are rightly ridiculed and rejected, or should be. I
> submit that most religious beliefs fall into this category, along with
> "alternative medicine", "channeling", and "animal rights", just to name a
> few. For further illustrations I would point you to a regular poster on aaev
> by the name of "pearl" who's list of goofy beliefs is legendary. Aliens live
> under Mount Shasta you know..

Aliens? Quite the troll, "dutch"! Provide evidence for everything you
claim above - that alternative medicine, channeling, and animal rights
"are wrong-headed ideas", "are rightly ridiculed and rejected"; that I
believe _everything_ on the ~infamous list~ cobbled together by your
equally desperate wrong-headed ex fellow trolls, and why those items
I do believe in are "goofy". Oh yeah... just so *no one* believe for a
*moment* that you are *at all* credible..

"My wife and I had two kids .. "
- Dutch Jun 30 2003 http://tinyurl.com/ssm99

"During my wife's pregnancies *I* ended up doing
most of the housework ..."
- Dutch Jan 19 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yz4dsw

"No child is born into ideal circumstances. Were you?
I sure wasn't. My wife wasn't, neither were my kids."
- Dutch Feb 20 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yb4dhz

"I don't want my kids seeing cancer surgery or videos
of assaults or anything that might cause them undue
emotional distress. They're children."
- Dutch Jun 30 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ybu8kq

"I never forced my kids to be vegetarians, and they
weren't, [because I never had kids].
- Dutch Oct 17 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y9trhd

You really are a joke, ditch. Wrong-headed, self-deluded..
 >> Stay informed about: Is culling of grey squirrels a viable tactic to conserve r.. 

Geoff wrote:
> http://www.advocatesforanimals.org.uk/pdf/cullinggreysquirrelsl.pdf
>
> Stephen Harris, Carl D. Soulsbury and Graziella IossaSchool of
> Biological Science, University of Bristol, Woodland Rd, Bristol, BS8
> 1UG
>
> SUMMARY
>
> ·Red squirrels populations have historically undergone large
> population fluctuations. [...]

True; all populations will naturally fluctuate. However, the
introduction of an *alien* species such as S. Carolinensis (grey tree
rat to you and me) will almost without exception cause the native
population to decline.


> ·Red squirrel populations are declining for two reasons: ecological
> displacement bygrey squirrels, which may take many years, and squirrel
> poxvirus (SQPV). [...]

So it's not worth saving a native species because the interlopers are
bigger and stronger? I can't agree with such nonsense.


> ·It is widely argued that controlling grey squirrel numbers is the
> best way ofconserving red squirrels.

Yes, there are no two ways about this, if we want reds to survive, we
have to control the greys. In order to live healthy lives, we have
developed techniques such as immunisation and vaccination, antibiotics
and assorted other medicines to control illness. The situation with
red/grey squirrels can be regarded in the same way. In order for the
reds to survive and fill their ecological niche (which is subtly
different from that of the greys), AGS (American/Alien Grey
Squirrel(s)) MUST be controlled.

> However, there is little evidence to support this belief.

Wrong, there is plentiful evidence, research findings, empirical
evidence and plain common sense.

> [...] Attempts to create animmunocontraceptive for grey squirrels have failed and no
> biological control methodsare currently available.

This is partially true. It is not correct to suggest that no
immunocontraceptive has been developed; there have been some trials.
Unfortunately, none of the products tested was effective in the field.
This surely makes the case for a concerted effort to trap AGS even
stronger.


> ·Most control is done within the context of protecting commercial
> woodlands fromsquirrel damage.

Not always, around my way most AGS control is done to protect the
native (and genetically distinct) poulation of red squirrels which is
still hanging on in some of the remoter forests.

> There is mixed evidence that grey or red squirrel control worked;bounties schemes in the
> past have proved unsuccessful at lowering populationnumbers. Success has been limited
> to isolated populations such as islands; greysquirrels can colonize areas quickly, so
> most grey squirrel control is ineffective.

Maybe it's only worked on islands because it's easier to clear a small
area with few landowners? If all landowners in a given area were to
join forces, more success would be likely. I've been controlling AGS
on my 10 acres since last year. In the first season (which started in
the autumn, after the breeding season) I trapped more than three dozen
of both sexes and all ages. In the second season, I saw fewer than one
dozen. This suggests to me that I trapped the entire population on my
holding as well as the first wave of replacements, which meant that
there were 3 dozen fewer squirrels around to breed the following
spring.


> ·Grey squirrels can damage commercial forestry [...] Whilst the evidence with regard to
> commercial forestry isunequivocal, controlling squirrel numbers is not
> always effective and currentsilviculture techniques may exacerbate the
> problem.

Excuse me? If there is a problem, surely the best way to deal with it
is to remove the root cause. If AGS are damging trees, they should be
removed or controlled to a level where their population density is not
such a threat. How exactly do current forestry practices "exacerbate
the problem"?

> There is at best limited data tosuggest the minor role of
> grey squirrel's impact on two species of woodland bird.

At the moment, not much research appears to have been carried out into
this issue. To say that there is "at best limited data" is to skew the
facts.

> These arguments ignore damage to forestry and predation on woodland birds
> that historically were attributed to red squirrels when they were more abundant.

The problem is that the biomass of AGS is 10 times greater than that of
the red and consequently does 10 times more damage.

> Inaddition, no consideration is given to the benefits that grey squirrels may have,including > the formation of deadwood, an important component of biodiversewoodlands

I think this perceived "benefit" is spurious - trees die naturally,
they don't need to be killed by AGS in order to create biodiverse
woodlands. In fact, there is a very strong argument to be made for the
opposite, namely that AGS actually *reduce* the biodiversity of
woodlands.


> ·Culling of grey squirrels could lead to more problems than solutions.

Really?

> Culling maylead to an increased localised density, an increase in forest damage levels
> andincrease the spread of disease.

WTF? How on earth did you reach that conclusion? Surely if AGS are
culled, the population will spread out to fill the gaps left, thus
reducing population density? Please tell me how this could lead to
increased damage to forests and spread of disease because I just can't
see it.

> ·Red squirrel populations will continue to decline in the face of increased
> ecologicaldisplacement by grey squirrels and SQPV.

If nothing is done to control AGS, this is inevitable. If we pull our
fingers out and implement an eradication program, the reds stand a
chance.

> Novel techniques need to be devised toprotect red squirrels. These include
> setting island refugia, and developing aneffective and humane way to
> eliminate grey squirrels.

Island refugia are not a panacaea; AGS will spread even to these if not
controlled. The most humane methods of control currently available
involve live capture traps and either massive trauma to the head
delivered swiftly and accurately with a blunt implement or a .22 pellet
to the brain. When done correctly (which is very easy), the squirrel
is killed instantly and has stopped moving in the time it takes to put
the gun down and open the trap (about 5 seconds). This can be
confirmed by clicking one's fingers in front of the squirrel's face and
watching for a reaction. How much more humane do you want than instant
death?


> ·Large sums of money are being spent on red squirrel conservation.
> However, thismoney is not spent wisely. Whilst red squirrels are
> native to Britain, many of thepopulations are recently introduced
> European stock, and so even if red squirrels doeventually disappear
> from Britain, they could easily be reintroduced again. Globally,red
> squirrel populations are not threatened and the conservation effort in
> Britain is of little importance.

I beg to differ. Genetic analysis of our local reds showed 4 uniquely
Welsh haplotypes, namely ang1, wc3, mw1 and mw2. If these were to
disappear, there is no way they could be reintroduced from the
continent. These squirrels have evolved to live in central Wales, not
the Massif Central or Transylvania. The conservation effort here is
immensely important.

Furthermore, reds *are* under threat in Europe and Asia. AGS were
introduced into parts of northern Italy and have already spread into
neighbouring countries, displacing native reds as they go. It has now
become a global issue.

If Advocates for Animals, who commissioned and sponsored this
"research" truly cared for animal welfare, they would support AGS
control for the sake of the reds. Squirrelpox is a horrible disease
which kills slowly and painfully. I think I included a link to an
image of a red squirrel suffering from this disease in a previous
message, but if you're in any doubt, just enter "squirrelpox" into your
search engine and look at the images.

I am not sponsored by any special interest group and I am not an expert
in squirrel conservation, merley concerned for the survival of our
native wildlife. I do welcome comments and support from anyone with
more knowledge.

I feel I should appologise for cross-positing like this, but I do feel
it's worth it to try and redress the balance of this argument.

Finally, if you have a sensible point to make, questions to ask or
(please) want to come to my aid, please e-mail me. If you merely want
to slag me off, spout a load of nonsense like this report or otherwise
waste my time, please do the rest of us a favour and go and boil your
head .
 >> Stay informed about: Is culling of grey squirrels a viable tactic to conserve r.. 

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:36:49 -0800, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:

>
><amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>news:kmv1l2ttuh97d7s7n2a2v483fmsmgr94pq@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:57:38 -0800, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote
>>>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:59:59 -0800, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>>>The majority of ideas that are ridiculed and
>>>>>violently opposed are so regarded because they are crap.
>>>>
>>>> In your flawed opinion. Most are ridiculed because they don't suit the
>>>> ridiculer's agenda.
>>>
>>>There are a few notable ones which fall into that category, those are the
>>>ones to which Schopenhauer is referring, but the countless wrong-headed
>>>ideas in the world are rightly ridiculed and rejected, or should be.
>>
>> Who decides whether they are wrong-headed?
>
>Rational observers.
>

You mean subjective observers.

>> I
>>>submit that most religious beliefs fall into this category, along with
>>>"alternative medicine", "channeling", and "animal rights", just to name a
>>>few.
>>
>> In your opinion.
>
>Don't you agree that there are countless goofy ideas out there that are
>rightly ridiculed and rejected?
>
>

The quote refers to "truth"

>>>For further illustrations I would point you to a regular poster on aaev
>>>by the name of "pearl" who's list of goofy beliefs is legendary. Aliens
>>>live
>>>under Mount Shasta you know..
>>
>> I have no followed "pearl's" posts. If you condemn posts as lies the
>> quote doesn't apply.
>
>They aren't "lies" they are simply goofy beliefs.
>

If people have "goofy beliefs" that's up to them. They may or may
not be "true"

>>>>>Therefore if you
>>>>>find that your ideas are treated this way do not conclude that they
>>>>>represent truth, because they are mostly likely crap.
>>>>
>>>> Again, in your flawed opinion.
>>>>
>>>> If there's any crap about, it's your logic :-))
>>>
>>>My logic is unassailable, as you would discover if you tried.
>>
>> I'm trying:-)
>
>Fair enough.
>
>>>The Schopenhauer proposition:
>>>All truth is followed by ridicule and opposition and ultimately
>>>acceptance.
>>>
>>
>> I believe that is the case. Lies usually get found out and
>> discredited.
>
>Goofy ideas are recognized by rational observers but continue to have
>followers anyway.
>

Again subjective.


>>
>>>That is catchy but it's dubious that "all truth" follows this formula,
>>>however..
>>>
>>>Your fallacious extrapolation of that proposition:
>>>Since what I say is ridiculed and opposed it is credible.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You've got it the wrong way around. It's credible to start with but
>> unacceptable by fake conservationists because it would affect their
>> income.
>
>I wasn't talking about this particular issue, that may be true in this case.
>

But the quote only refers to the "truth".

If it said "all goofy ideas.........", you might have a point, but
what would determine a "goofy idea" other than the subjective opinions
of others?


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
 >> Stay informed about: Is culling of grey squirrels a viable tactic to conserve r.. 

<amacmil304.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:g043l212uicsjb28pf8m0np7gid92ao9dv@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:36:49 -0800, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><amacmil304.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:kmv1l2ttuh97d7s7n2a2v483fmsmgr94pq@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:57:38 -0800, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><amacmil304.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote
>>>>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:59:59 -0800, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>>>The majority of ideas that are ridiculed and
>>>>>>violently opposed are so regarded because they are crap.
>>>>>
>>>>> In your flawed opinion. Most are ridiculed because they don't suit the
>>>>> ridiculer's agenda.
>>>>
>>>>There are a few notable ones which fall into that category, those are
>>>>the
>>>>ones to which Schopenhauer is referring, but the countless wrong-headed
>>>>ideas in the world are rightly ridiculed and rejected, or should be.
>>>
>>> Who decides whether they are wrong-headed?
>>
>>Rational observers.
>>
>
> You mean subjective observers.

That goes without saying, all observers are subjective.

>>> I
>>>>submit that most religious beliefs fall into this category, along with
>>>>"alternative medicine", "channeling", and "animal rights", just to name
>>>>a
>>>>few.
>>>
>>> In your opinion.
>>
>>Don't you agree that there are countless goofy ideas out there that are
>>rightly ridiculed and rejected?
>>
>>
>
> The quote refers to "truth".

Yes it does, but my point is that one cannot infer anything about any
particular idea from this quote.

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

The reason I say that is that complete bullshit also passes through stages
one and two, therefore if one finds that their ideas are being ridiculed
and/or violently opposed, one can only deduce that they are either truth or
complete bullshit.
>
>>>>For further illustrations I would point you to a regular poster on aaev
>>>>by the name of "pearl" who's list of goofy beliefs is legendary. Aliens
>>>>live
>>>>under Mount Shasta you know..
>>>
>>> I have no followed "pearl's" posts. If you condemn posts as lies the
>>> quote doesn't apply.
>>
>>They aren't "lies" they are simply goofy beliefs.
>>
>
> If people have "goofy beliefs" that's up to them. They may or may
> not be "true"

Right, even though they are ridiculed and violently opposed. Contrary to
what that quote tends to imply, an idea being ridiculed and/or violently
opposed does NOT lend it any credibilty.

>>>>>>Therefore if you
>>>>>>find that your ideas are treated this way do not conclude that they
>>>>>>represent truth, because they are mostly likely crap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, in your flawed opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there's any crap about, it's your logic :-))
>>>>
>>>>My logic is unassailable, as you would discover if you tried.
>>>
>>> I'm trying:-)
>>
>>Fair enough.
>>
>>>>The Schopenhauer proposition:
>>>>All truth is followed by ridicule and opposition and ultimately
>>>>acceptance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I believe that is the case. Lies usually get found out and
>>> discredited.
>>
>>Goofy ideas are recognized by rational observers but continue to have
>>followers anyway.
>>
>
> Again subjective.

True, but not necessary to say.

>>>
>>>>That is catchy but it's dubious that "all truth" follows this formula,
>>>>however..
>>>>
>>>>Your fallacious extrapolation of that proposition:
>>>>Since what I say is ridiculed and opposed it is credible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You've got it the wrong way around. It's credible to start with but
>>> unacceptable by fake conservationists because it would affect their
>>> income.
>>
>>I wasn't talking about this particular issue, that may be true in this
>>case.
>>
>
> But the quote only refers to the "truth".

The veracity of the quote is dubious due to it's rhetorical nature. He might
have corrected that by saying "Some truth" instead of "All truth", but the
quote would not have the same ring to it.

Anyway, even if we stipulate that the quote is accurate, it says nothing at
all about any particular idea to which you may be wishing to attach
veracity.

> If it said "all goofy ideas.........", you might have a point, but
> what would determine a "goofy idea" other than the subjective opinions
> of others?

The same can be said about "truth".


>
>
> Angus Macmillan
> www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
> www.killhunting.org
> www.con-servation.org.uk
>
> All truth passes through three stages:
> First, it is ridiculed;
> Second, it is violently opposed; and
> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
 >> Stay informed about: Is culling of grey squirrels a viable tactic to conserve r.. 

"Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote in message
news:12l1rk5sfs2ndb0@news.supernews.com...
>
> "BAC" <casswalk DeleteThis @NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1162892958.10184.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
> >
> > "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote in message
> > news:12l0iogg41mlv72@news.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> <amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:prg0l2h0au8calcb8fc6lhi6jn58nu8ghn@4ax.com...
> >> > On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:22:48 -0800, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >><amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote
> >> >>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:53:10 -0800, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>><amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote
> >> >>>>> All truth passes through three stages:
> >> >>>>> First, it is ridiculed;
> >> >>>>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
> >> >>>>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
> >> >>>>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>The fallacious implication of this quote... "If you ridicule and
> > oppose
> >> >>>>what
> >> >>>>I am saying that means it must be true."
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Read it again :-)
> >> >>
> >> >>Why, what will that accomplish? I think you should follow your own
> >> >>suggestion and read my comment again.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > You're confused.
> >>
> >> No, I am not, you are dense. The majority of ideas that are ridiculed
and
> >> violently opposed are so regarded because they are crap. Therefore if
you
> >> find that your ideas are treated this way do not conclude that they
> >> represent truth, because they are mostly likely crap.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > So, if, for the sake of argument, a handful of people (e.g. some Usenet
> > posters) were to describe your idea of the way Schopenhauer's quote
should
> > be interpreted as an illogical crock of shit, and to suggest it must be
> > the
> > product of a warped mind of negligible intellect, would that mean it was
> > 'most likely crap', in your opinion?
>
> I didn't say the quote was an illogical croc of shit, although I am
dubious
> that "All" truth is ridiculed at first.
>
> > How about the theory of evolution of species? That was (still is)
> > vehemently opposed/rejected by a sizeable number of people, does that
make
> > it 'likely crap', in your opinion?
>
> No, you've embarked on another version of the same fallacy.
>
>

The initial fallacy in this thread, IMO, is your assumption that the quote
implies that any proposition which is ridiculed and violently opposed must
be true. What it actually means, I suggest, is that a proposition which is
ridiculed and violently opposed may eventually be widely accepted as the
truth.
 >> Stay informed about: Is culling of grey squirrels a viable tactic to conserve r.. 

"BAC" <casswalk DeleteThis @NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrotee

>> >> >>>><amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote

>> >> >>>>> All truth passes through three stages:
>> >> >>>>> First, it is ridiculed;
>> >> >>>>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>> >> >>>>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>> >> >>>>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

> The initial fallacy in this thread, IMO, is your assumption that the quote
> implies that any proposition which is ridiculed and violently opposed must
> be true. What it actually means, I suggest, is that a proposition which is
> ridiculed and violently opposed may eventually be widely accepted as the
> truth.

I did not assume that, in fact my message was a caution against making that
very assumption. The quote as a tagline strikes me as an attempt to preempt
any effort to ridicule or oppose the opinion of the poster, as if to say,
"Watch out, you may ridicule and oppose me now, but <insert quote>", as if
to imply an esteemed philosopher supports me. My comment is that the
opinions of X are equally susceptible to inaccuracy, whether or not one
subscribes to Schopenhauer's maxim.
 >> Stay informed about: Is culling of grey squirrels a viable tactic to conserve r.. 

<amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:tio3l2p3mgd003f5ih4isjr16gutdurklg@4ax.com...
> On 8 Nov 2006 05:37:30 -0800, "Gwyddno" <Ieithgi DeleteThis @googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> >
> >I am not sponsored by any special interest group and I am not an expert
> >in squirrel conservation, merley concerned for the survival of our
> >native wildlife. I do welcome comments and support from anyone with
> >more knowledge.
> >
> >I feel I should appologise for cross-positing like this, but I do feel
> >it's worth it to try and redress the balance of this argument.
> >
> >Finally, if you have a sensible point to make, questions to ask or
> >(please) want to come to my aid, please e-mail me. If you merely want
> >to slag me off, spout a load of nonsense like this report or otherwise
> >waste my time, please do the rest of us a favour and go and boil your
> >head .
>
> Sounds like all you want to do is slag people off.
>
>

I don't think he wants to slag people off. Sounds to me like he believes
having red squirrels on mainland UK is terribly important, so, naturally, he
feels driven to rubbish any paper which suggests it isn't, and/or that
attempts to preserve them are probably futile and a waste of time and
resources.
 >> Stay informed about: Is culling of grey squirrels a viable tactic to conserve r.. 

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 15:15:12 -0000, "BAC" <casswalk.TakeThisOut@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk>
wrote:

>
><amacmil304.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:tio3l2p3mgd003f5ih4isjr16gutdurklg@4ax.com...
>> On 8 Nov 2006 05:37:30 -0800, "Gwyddno" <Ieithgi.TakeThisOut@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>> >
>> >I am not sponsored by any special interest group and I am not an expert
>> >in squirrel conservation, merley concerned for the survival of our
>> >native wildlife. I do welcome comments and support from anyone with
>> >more knowledge.
>> >
>> >I feel I should appologise for cross-positing like this, but I do feel
>> >it's worth it to try and redress the balance of this argument.
>> >
>> >Finally, if you have a sensible point to make, questions to ask or
>> >(please) want to come to my aid, please e-mail me. If you merely want
>> >to slag me off, spout a load of nonsense like this report or otherwise
>> >waste my time, please do the rest of us a favour and go and boil your
>> >head .
>>
>> Sounds like all you want to do is slag people off.
>>
>>
>
>I don't think he wants to slag people off. Sounds to me like he believes
>having red squirrels on mainland UK is terribly important, so, naturally, he
>feels driven to rubbish any paper which suggests it isn't, and/or that
>attempts to preserve them are probably futile and a waste of time and
>resources.
>

Perhaps "slagging off" was a bit harsh but not far off the mark.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
 >> Stay informed about: Is culling of grey squirrels a viable tactic to conserve r.. 

On 8 Nov 2006 05:37:30 -0800, "Gwyddno" <Ieithgi.RemoveThis@googlemail.com>
wrote:

>Geoff wrote:
>> http://www.advocatesforanimals.org.uk/pdf/cullinggreysquirrelsl.pdf
>>
>> Stephen Harris, Carl D. Soulsbury and Graziella IossaSchool of
>> Biological Science, University of Bristol, Woodland Rd, Bristol, BS8
>> 1UG
>>
>> SUMMARY
>>
>> ·Red squirrels populations have historically undergone large
>> population fluctuations. [...]
>
>True; all populations will naturally fluctuate. However, the
>introduction of an *alien* species such as S. Carolinensis (grey tree
>rat to you and me) will almost without exception cause the native
>population to decline.

What a stupid statement! No sense in reading the rest of your boiled
head nonsense!

<snip>

>Finally, if you have a sensible point to make, questions to ask or
>(please) want to come to my aid, please e-mail me. If you merely want
>to slag me off, spout a load of nonsense like this report or otherwise
>waste my time, please do the rest of us a favour and go and boil your
>head .

Doesn't seem to have improved your logic much!
 >> Stay informed about: Is culling of grey squirrels a viable tactic to conserve r.. 

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:33:46 -0800, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:

>
><amacmil304.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:g043l212uicsjb28pf8m0np7gid92ao9dv@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:36:49 -0800, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><amacmil304.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:kmv1l2ttuh97d7s7n2a2v483fmsmgr94pq@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:57:38 -0800, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><amacmil304.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote
>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:59:59 -0800, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>[..]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>The majority of ideas that are ridiculed and
>>>>>>>violently opposed are so regarded because they are crap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In your flawed opinion. Most are ridiculed because they don't suit the
>>>>>> ridiculer's agenda.
>>>>>
>>>>>There are a few notable ones which fall into that category, those are
>>>>>the
>>>>>ones to which Schopenhauer is referring, but the countless wrong-headed
>>>>>ideas in the world are rightly ridiculed and rejected, or should be.
>>>>
>>>> Who decides whether they are wrong-headed?
>>>
>>>Rational observers.
>>>
>>
>> You mean subjective observers.
>
>That goes without saying, all observers are subjective.

If they're subjective who decides if they are rational?

>
>>>> I
>>>>>submit that most religious beliefs fall into this category, along with
>>>>>"alternative medicine", "channeling", and "animal rights", just to name
>>>>>a
>>>>>few.
>>>>
>>>> In your opinion.
>>>
>>>Don't you agree that there are countless goofy ideas out there that are
>>>rightly ridiculed and rejected?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The quote refers to "truth".
>
>Yes it does, but my point is that one cannot infer anything about any
>particular idea from this quote.


Any truthful idea can be inferred to.

>
>All truth passes through three stages:
>First, it is ridiculed;
>Second, it is violently opposed; and
>Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>
>The reason I say that is that complete bullshit also passes through stages
>one and two, therefore if one finds that their ideas are being ridiculed
>and/or violently opposed, one can only deduce that they are either truth or
>complete bullshit.

But if it's complete bullshit it's not the truth and is not relevant
to the quote.

>>
>>>>>For further illustrations I would point you to a regular poster on aaev
>>>>>by the name of "pearl" who's list of goofy beliefs is legendary. Aliens
>>>>>live
>>>>>under Mount Shasta you know..
>>>>
>>>> I have no followed "pearl's" posts. If you condemn posts as lies the
>>>> quote doesn't apply.
>>>
>>>They aren't "lies" they are simply goofy beliefs.
>>>
>>
>> If people have "goofy beliefs" that's up to them. They may or may
>> not be "true"
>
>Right, even though they are ridiculed and violently opposed.

But the quote only refers to truth which is ridiculed and violently
opposed.

> Contrary to
>what that quote tends to imply, an idea being ridiculed and/or violently
>opposed does NOT lend it any credibilty.

I don't think anyone has said it does.


>
>>>>>>>Therefore if you
>>>>>>>find that your ideas are treated this way do not conclude that they
>>>>>>>represent truth, because they are mostly likely crap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, in your flawed opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there's any crap about, it's your logic :-))
>>>>>
>>>>>My logic is unassailable, as you would discover if you tried.
>>>>
>>>> I'm trying:-)
>>>
>>>Fair enough.
>>>
>>>>>The Schopenhauer proposition:
>>>>>All truth is followed by ridicule and opposition and ultimately
>>>>>acceptance.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe that is the case. Lies usually get found out and
>>>> discredited.
>>>
>>>Goofy ideas are recognized by rational observers but continue to have
>>>followers anyway.
>>>
>>
>> Again subjective.
>
>True, but not necessary to say.
>

Please explain.


>>>>
>>>>>That is catchy but it's dubious that "all truth" follows this formula,
>>>>>however..
>>>>>
>>>>>Your fallacious extrapolation of that proposition:
>>>>>Since what I say is ridiculed and opposed it is credible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You've got it the wrong way around. It's credible to start with but
>>>> unacceptable by fake conservationists because it would affect their
>>>> income.
>>>
>>>I wasn't talking about this particular issue, that may be true in this
>>>case.
>>>
>>
>> But the quote only refers to the "truth".
>
>The veracity of the quote is dubious due to it's rhetorical nature. He might
>have corrected that by saying "Some truth" instead of "All truth", but the
>quote would not have the same ring to it.
>

I grant you that.

>Anyway, even if we stipulate that the quote is accurate, it says nothing at
>all about any particular idea to which you may be wishing to attach
>veracity.
>

Except that it must be true.

>> If it said "all goofy ideas.........", you might have a point, but
>> what would determine a "goofy idea" other than the subjective opinions
>> of others?
>
>The same can be said about "truth".
>
>
Sure, but the quote only deals with the truth and that could be
construed by some as a goofy idea or otherwise.

>>
>>
>> Angus Macmillan
>> www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
>> www.killhunting.org
>> www.con-servation.org.uk
>>
>> All truth passes through three stages:
>> First, it is ridiculed;
>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
>

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
 >> Stay informed about: Is culling of grey squirrels a viable tactic to conserve r.. 

<amacmil304 RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:75a4l2d0426o9j43pjjief761fi3hm7iaj@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:33:46 -0800, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><amacmil304 RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:g043l212uicsjb28pf8m0np7gid92ao9dv@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:36:49 -0800, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><amacmil304 RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:kmv1l2ttuh97d7s7n2a2v483fmsmgr94pq@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:57:38 -0800, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><amacmil304 RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote
>>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:59:59 -0800, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The majority of ideas that are ridiculed and
>>>>>>>>violently opposed are so regarded because they are crap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In your flawed opinion. Most are ridiculed because they don't suit
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> ridiculer's agenda.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There are a few notable ones which fall into that category, those are
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>ones to which Schopenhauer is referring, but the countless
>>>>>>wrong-headed
>>>>>>ideas in the world are rightly ridiculed and rejected, or should be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who decides whether they are wrong-headed?
>>>>
>>>>Rational observers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You mean subjective observers.
>>
>>That goes without saying, all observers are subjective.
>
> If they're subjective who decides if they are rational?

Everyone is subjective.

>>>>> I
>>>>>>submit that most religious beliefs fall into this category, along with
>>>>>>"alternative medicine", "channeling", and "animal rights", just to
>>>>>>name
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>few.
>>>>>
>>>>> In your opinion.
>>>>
>>>>Don't you agree that there are countless goofy ideas out there that are
>>>>rightly ridiculed and rejected?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The quote refers to "truth".
>>
>>Yes it does, but my point is that one cannot infer anything about any
>>particular idea from this quote.
>
>
> Any truthful idea can be inferred to.

I was talking about opinions. The quote does not signify anything about any
particular opinions.

>>All truth passes through three stages:
>>First, it is ridiculed;
>>Second, it is violently opposed; and
>>Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>>
>>The reason I say that is that complete bullshit also passes through stages
>>one and two, therefore if one finds that their ideas are being ridiculed
>>and/or violently opposed, one can only deduce that they are either truth
>>or
>>complete bullshit.
>
> But if it's complete bullshit it's not the truth and is not relevant
> to the quote.

That's not quite true, the quote talks about ideas being ridiculed and
violently opposed, and my point is that happens to both truth AND bullshit.

>>>>>>For further illustrations I would point you to a regular poster on
>>>>>>aaev
>>>>>>by the name of "pearl" who's list of goofy beliefs is legendary.
>>>>>>Aliens
>>>>>>live
>>>>>>under Mount Shasta you know..
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no followed "pearl's" posts. If you condemn posts as lies the
>>>>> quote doesn't apply.
>>>>
>>>>They aren't "lies" they are simply goofy beliefs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If people have "goofy beliefs" that's up to them. They may or may
>>> not be "true"
>>
>>Right, even though they are ridiculed and violently opposed.
>
> But the quote only refers to truth which is ridiculed and violently
> opposed.

I'm not disagreeing with the quote, I am cautioning against misconstruing
it.

>> Contrary to
>>what that quote tends to imply, an idea being ridiculed and/or violently
>>opposed does NOT lend it any credibilty.
>
> I don't think anyone has said it does.

I did. In my view using the quote is a subtle attempt to preempt
disagreement. I would welcome an alternate explanation.

>>>>>>>>Therefore if you
>>>>>>>>find that your ideas are treated this way do not conclude that they
>>>>>>>>represent truth, because they are mostly likely crap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, in your flawed opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there's any crap about, it's your logic :-))
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My logic is unassailable, as you would discover if you tried.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm trying:-)
>>>>
>>>>Fair enough.
>>>>
>>>>>>The Schopenhauer proposition:
>>>>>>All truth is followed by ridicule and opposition and ultimately
>>>>>>acceptance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that is the case. Lies usually get found out and
>>>>> discredited.
>>>>
>>>>Goofy ideas are recognized by rational observers but continue to have
>>>>followers anyway.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again subjective.
>>
>>True, but not necessary to say.
>>
>
> Please explain.

ALL opinions are subjective, our worldviews are subjective.

>>>>>>That is catchy but it's dubious that "all truth" follows this formula,
>>>>>>however..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your fallacious extrapolation of that proposition:
>>>>>>Since what I say is ridiculed and opposed it is credible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You've got it the wrong way around. It's credible to start with but
>>>>> unacceptable by fake conservationists because it would affect their
>>>>> income.
>>>>
>>>>I wasn't talking about this particular issue, that may be true in this
>>>>case.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the quote only refers to the "truth".
>>
>>The veracity of the quote is dubious due to it's rhetorical nature. He
>>might
>>have corrected that by saying "Some truth" instead of "All truth", but the
>>quote would not have the same ring to it.
>>
>
> I grant you that.
>
>>Anyway, even if we stipulate that the quote is accurate, it says nothing
>>at
>>all about any particular idea to which you may be wishing to attach
>>veracity.
>>
>
> Except that it must be true.

No idea is lent any credibility by this maxim.

>>> If it said "all goofy ideas.........", you might have a point, but
>>> what would determine a "goofy idea" other than the subjective opinions
>>> of others?
>>
>>The same can be said about "truth".
>>
>>
> Sure, but the quote only deals with the truth and that could be
> construed by some as a goofy idea or otherwise.

Exactly, every idea stands or falls in the opinion of others by virtue of
it's worth and that of it's supporters. Whether or not "truth", whatever we
mean by that, passes through these three stages is of little consequence in
any given instance.

I guess what I am saying is that the quote seems to be a bit of bluster.
 >> Stay informed about: Is culling of grey squirrels a viable tactic to conserve r..