Re: [TSG] Re: Fwd: Dead Fish

[Brian W. Darvell]

Hi,
        Thanks for the prompt response.

        Shall we ignore the smokescreen issues?  It is a commonplace tactic to introduce straw men by way of distracting the opposition.  So, stay focussed ...

At 2008-09-22 10:07, CFried7021 wrote:
====================================================

Once again, thank you for your enlightenment! I used to feel somewhat like you about leaving this world a better place than I found it. However, after many years of beating my head against others that would rather support wars, hatred, ignorance, and ill will toward our fellow man, I decided that the best way I could live the remainder of my life without strife was to PICK the battles that I would fight. Saving the sharks and other members of the animal world are not (as you can tell) on my agenda. I would rather fight a fight worth fighting for HUMANITY'S sake. Let's agree to disagree on the oceans, and agree to agree that the battleground that truly matters today is the battle for saving our own species from our own hatred toward our fellow man. You, by your baiting me,

Baiting?  Is that how you feel?  Well, I suppose if I re-read your responses I detect autonomic reflexes: "carried out without conscious thought or volition."

are a classic example of disrespect for another human being.

Another straw man, but I gave you respect by civility throughout - all I have in return is abuse.

I don't mind being grouped as a "plunderer" by you, your friends, or acquaintances, or by anyone else on this planet. I am a father, and a grandfather, and hopefully my legacy will be that there will be something left to fight about without aiming a gun at someone else's head. You don't care about the source or method by which I obtain my resources, you didn't even bother to ask!

The opportunity was there when I invited you to convince me.  It did not seem necessary to send you a questionnaire.  It was noteworthy that you made no attempt to defend yourself  by mentioning sources and methods, which a legitimate and defensible operation would have done without prompting. 

I'm sure that even knowing that we respond to a secondary market for the leftovers of food fishing that you wouldn't care.

Is this "bycatch" you refer to? Shark is not the most popular meat on the planet.  But, please, explain. 

BTW:  http://www.sharkking.com/bulkteeth.html
That's a lot of teeth, from some interesting species.
Then we have
"LONGFIN MAKO JAWS
Longfin Mako Jaws are VERY Difficult to come by. Perhaps 1 out of every 5,000 Makos is a longfin."
so your page http://www.sharkking.com/JAWS.html
represents 30,000 Makos.  Does that not give you pause for thought?  You condone this? 

You think that food fishing that results in this unnecessary destruction is justifiable and that therefore profiting from its uncontrolled excesses is ethical?

I call you a REPUBLICAN because, like the Rebublicans in this country, if you don't agree with something, you attack the source.

Now you have me, stumped.  So, anyone that goes to the root of a problem is a Republican?  Mystifying.  So, the whole of the scientific endeavour is a republican plot?  The whole of the conservation movement is a republican conspiracy?  There are therefore no Democrat scientists or conservationists?   By addressing a promoter of certain goods, one that we feel is antagonistic to a balanced approach to stewardship of scarce and diminishing resources, to the continued balance of the oceans and thus to that of the whole world, with implications for conflict - which you claim to be avoiding - I would hope to be treating you as a reasonable  person (that is, capable of reason and acting on its implications).  Instead, I have received a catalogue of insults and  profanity.  The Oxford Union this is not.

 You don't agree with CITES, You don't agree with USFWS, you blame the Red list for not having enough data, and you ridicule the SA Sharks Board. All groups will make their own case. and you will believe ONLY what you agree with. That's fine if you can live with that. But, I am not allowed the same privilege as you!

Oh, so if I reply to a point in the normal course of debate, I am being unreasonable?  The argument was simply that the vigorously presented justifications for your position are themselves flawed or misrepresented (by you, that is).  It's like haggling, if you don't like my offer, you make a counter-offer.  With luck, we converge.

Perhaps we will meet some day and share a bowl of chicken soup (since I've only sniffed shark fin soup and would rather eat a steamed rat) and discuss the way we can make the world a better place without attacking another human.

I did wonder about calling by, but to be honest, I think I would fear for my safety.

BWD

BOB
 
 
 
In a message dated 09/21/08 21:39:49 Eastern Daylight Time, b.w.d...@hku.hk writes:

====================================================

>Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:57:27 -0700 (PDT)

>Subject: [TSG] Re: Fwd: Dead Fish

>From: Scuba Diva <scuba...@gmail.com>

>To: The Shark Group <The_Sha...@googlegroups.com>

>

>

>Here's my letter; I'm not sure which e-mail address is his, though, so

>I'd like someone to forward this to him, please:

>

>Dear Bob:

>

>There are two points you make in your letter that I'd like to

>question; the first is that we [humans] are considered apex predators.

>I have never heard that before, even from people who conclude that

>because we have canine teeth in our mouths, we are born to eat meat.

>If we were apex predators, we would not need man-made tools like guns;

>we would be able to bring down a buck at a run, latching onto its neck

>with our powerful canines. (When's the last time you did that?) We

>might be group predators like wolves, but instead we are scavengers at

>best. And what our bodies do best is break down plant matter; our long

>intestinal tract is not designed to break down too much—if any—

>putrefying meat. (Got kidney stones? Got meat! Most people don't draw

>the connection.)

>

> >Man is the dominate [sic] species on

> >this planet, and with that comes the privilege

> >of being on the top of the food chain...We

> >get one ride on this merry go round called life,

> >and we should make it as pleasant as possible for ourselves.

>

>Uh...wait, I thought you said you had kids? A lot of people are

>concerned for future generations, and well they should be. But in any

>event, the planet is "evolving" into a cesspool, thanks to our

>stewardship.

>

>Some people think we should leave the world a better place than we

>found it. Sadly, I don't think I'll be able to do that, even if I

>manage to live a few lifetimes and clean up everybody else's shit--

>especially with people like you in the world. But even if you're only

>"looking our for number one," to coin a phrase from the 70s (Remember

>the "Me" decade? It was named for you!) you should be concerned about

>*your* air, *your* water, and the quality of life on *your* planet.

>

>I don't have any more time for you; thanks for your views, because

>it's always important to hear how most of humanity thinks.

>

>Scuba Diva

>--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

[Brian W. Darvell]

Hi,

At 2008-09-22 11:49, you wrote:
====================================================

Well placed ... I just can't seem to draw myself away from this... Almost like a Saturday evening debate of about anything with my inlaws.

I think this is just a bit more serious.

First ... Or lastly, No fear on your side.. We are harmless loving people.

        It is here that we see some contradictions, perhaps: having been made aware that loss of sharks leads to destruction of ecosystems which means loss of fishery which means hunger and hardship for many locally-dependent people, does the idea of "harmless" attach itself well to the promotion of shark trophies for vanity, when that same trophy idea is promulgated for shark angling, bycatch by factory fleets, and associated with the destruction of man-hating predators that you claim we would be better off without?  This makes you harmless?  Doing no harm whatsoever?

I'm basically a pacifist.

Not when violence is condoned or promoted: in your earlier messages you encourage destruction, maybe not of people, but it is still disturbingly aggressive.

 You might not like my warehouse full of shark jaws, but all who are respectful of what I do are welcome for lunch (No shark meat... Can't stomach it) It may surprise you to know that I do my hunting in the grocery store.. Like most of us, I prefer to let others do the killing for me.

By proxy is acceptable, then; no problem with that, except for the implications for sharks, for which you appear to accept no responsibility.

Second... I never thought it was my place or responsibility to let you know that I am a by-product dealer.

Well, we were talking about justification, and you took umbrage because I did not know about your methods.  Yet you offered no mitigation.  Consider: I would have no problem with anyone finding a dead shark on the beach and preparing the jaws for their own use, but selling these or the teeth without an indication of provenance only promotes the market, thus encouraging others to get in on the act - by any means possible - to make a profit.

In my lifetime, along with some very well respected (probably even by you) shark researchers; I have imported perhaps 100,000 shark jaws. None of which, as you can well know, are from fining operations.

The key question is, do you know this for sure?

Fining is a waste of meat, skin, and teeth all of which are worth more than the fins.

Sadly, no, not to the Chinese mafia.  They murder and maim to maintain their profit.

Third, Do I condone mass netting of sharks in South America to provide me with thousands of Mako Jaws? I neither condone nor endorse it. I am here to buy the remains.

Interesting neutrality.  Mass netting is a destructive fishery.  Do you suppose all they are doing is supplying you?  Yet you are happy to pay for these jaws, and therefore directly  and knowingly support deliberate destruction.  Do you not see that that makes you party to the process and therefore culpable?

Through my fees to USFWS and CITES, I believe that I am contributing more financially to environmental causes indirectly

And from what you observe, this is positive because they both allow you to continue trading.  I suggest to you that this is the equivalent of buying forgiveness for sins.  The buying of indulgences is well recognized as disreputable, at the very least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Abuses   So, you salve your conscience by a donation or two.   That makes it all OK?  That gets you off the hook?  Please, that is no argument at all.  This is cynicism of the very highest order. 

 By all means sin, but confess (but you are not, are you ...) and all will be well.  No purgatory for you, just hell for the rest of us.

than most of my nay sayers.

Oh, and this relativistic "than most" is a gratuitous accusation (plainly just an assumption to make you feel better) that is supposed to cast you in a good light?  Tut!   Can't you do better than that?

Fourth... I'm not here to convince you of anything.

Of course not, but you said you were going to try.  And I said I was willing to listen to a cogent argument; I maintain an open mind.  It has been changed before, on the basis of evidence and rationality.  It could be changed again.  A specific instance of acceptable trade is conceivable, despite the overwhelming global evidence of a major problem.

Because I suggest that you are wrong (as you do I) does not mean that either of us is REALLY open to being changed in our position.. I quote IDI AMEN when he asked his advisor "Why did you let me send the Indians out of the country" His advisor responded with, " I TOLD YOU NOT TO DO IT" Idi, countered with "But... You did not convince me".  Do we really have to convince each other that either of us is right or wrong? And if we did manage to change the other.... Would either of us bow? I judge that you are as immovable on this as I.

You see, you continue to make the assumption that I will behave as you are are committed to behaving.  You have closed the door by saying that you cannot be changed, because your tuna sandwich is much more important than anything else on earth.  Well, enjoy, because it is this attitude that means your tuna sandwich should be enjoyed while you can, because soon there will be no more tuna, at the rate we are going.

Were you able to provide the convincing case, I would be happy to concede.

Fifth .. Are there no Democratic Scientists ... Of course.. and they are viewed by the Republican ones in the same way as when the mirror is reversed. Your "Strawman" argument is a bit off base, as new points are always brought into a discussion, not always to "smokescreen" the issue, but rather to further the implications of disagreement. Are there rules to a good or bad natured argument... Some, but If I remember my collage debate teams motto ... when you are thru beating your head against the wall..... Find the softest spot and continue.

That is straw man in another guise.  If you cannot win the argument, deflect it.

Again .. This has taken far too much time from my daily non routine. I'm sure that it has also taken up a great deal of yours. I've given you the courtesy of my contact information, but haven't received the same from you.

Dr Brian Darvell, The University of Hong Kong. You have my email address, which is plain.  If you had Googled me, you would have found plenty.

 It is always nice to know from what or where my correspondence is going or coming. Your partner (or is it you)

A different person altogether, unconnected except in sharing our dismay at your trade.

lives in Hermanus SA which is a location I have visited and enjoyed. And even have some business friends who live there. I have been promised that I might be poisoned

Please, even you must see that is a gross exaggeration:
"you would most likely have been asked to leave before getting your main course..."
The ploy does you no favours, betraying a need to cast your correspondents as the bad guys - "see, I am not as guilty" - perceiving presumably that the good ol' American way of character assassination as practised so well in the Presidential campaigns is your best chance.  Regrets, no dice.
(Same problem as regards the aspersion on your 'naysayers' above.  Same response.  )

(or at least denied service) in a fine dining establishment on the water. So perhaps it is I that should be worried about a meeting in the future.

Only because it seems that you would lose any argument.  Review your case as presented: I cannot find a single substantive point in your favour - and I am good at playing devil's advocate - while you miss the only opportunity to make some kind of justification.  Naturally, I will not feed you that, but you could yet try.

Sleep well.

BWD

 My business takes me all over the world, and even as I no longer like to sit on an airplane for 23 hours, I will most likely be somewhere where our paths might cross.
BOB
 
 
 
In a message dated 09/21/08 23:06:16 Eastern Daylight Time, b.w.d...@hku.hk writes:

Introducing new contentious topics deliberately to complicate the discussion is a well-known tactic.  I shall ignore it.

BWD

At 2008-09-22 11:00, you wrote:

====================================================

Just your preamble...... No time for the other right now ... Getting late here and too much to do

 

 

 

In a message dated 09/21/08 22:56:03 Eastern Daylight Time, b.w.d...@hku.hk writes:

Did you read the interpolations, or just the preamble?

What exactly don't you understand?

BWD

At 2008-09-22 10:52, CFried7021 wrote:

====================================================

Sorry.... Don't follow that... For the first time, you have written something I don't understand

 

 

 

Hi,

BTW:  http://www.sharkking.com/bulkteeth.html

Then we have

"LONGFIN MAKO JAWS

BWD

BOB

====================================================

>From: Scuba Diva <scuba...@gmail.com>

>

>

>

>Dear Bob:

>