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

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:46:25 -0800, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:

>
><amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>news:75a4l2d0426o9j43pjjief761fi3hm7iaj@4ax.com...
>> 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?
>
>Everyone is subjective.
>

Agreed. So where is the rationality?

>>>>>> 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.

It only deals with the truth.

>
>>>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.
>
Sure but the quote only deals with truth so you can't apply it to
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.

Good, so am I.

>
>>> 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.
>

It doesn't need any credibility if it's the truth and disagreement
doesn't depend or preempt something being true or untrue.

>>>>>>>>>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.
>

So what is rational to one most certainly won't be to another.


>>>>>>>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's true it must be credible.

>>>> 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.

So the idea of "rationality" doesn't exist

> 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.
>


Not if it refers to the truth. However I do take the point that it
should perhaps refer to "some" truth because not all truth goes
through process it describes.

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)

<amacmil304.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote

>>I guess what I am saying is that the quote seems to be a bit of bluster.
>>
>
>
> Not if it refers to the truth.

Since usenet is almost exclusively an exchange of opinions on subjective
issues, you must excuse me if I interpert the quote in that context. As
such, it clearly appears to me to be preemptive. In fact I have had it used
against me before, after I ridiculed and opposed someone's ideas. That's
where I got the idea that it can be a fallacy.

> However I do take the point that it
> should perhaps refer to "some" truth because not all truth goes
> through process it describes.

That's an acceptable bit of literary license in my view.