Wayne Stollings wrote:
thing is wayne.....you tried to draw lines of trophy hunting being that of poachers.
No, that is your Strawman attempt, but I did not try to draw any such conclusion. There are poachers who are only after the trophy which makes them trophy hunters in addition to poachers and there are legal hunters who are only after the trophy as well.no strawman wayne. it is the type of thing that i describe that makes you seem to be "at odds" with reality. you dont clarify statements but rather just insist that your way of interpretation is just the way it is. in fact it is the main crux of the issue. lol...now you are crying strawman..."and thats just the way it is"...lmao
Then you should be able to explain exactly how I "tried to draw lines of trophy hunters being that of poachers" with exact quotes to that regard. If you cannot it would seem you are claiming "your way of interpretation is just the way it is" ... wait, where has that been called wrong? Maybe that old double standard will work and maybe I will point its use out yet again.
Unless you have the quotes to support your claim your position is by definition one based on a Strawman. You see I use the actual definitions rather than making up stuff as I go and calling it the truth.
you also tried to draw a line linking "rarity" and "deviations of the norm together" as a horible mischaracterization.
No, you are just misinformed on the use of subsets. The fact is "deviations from the norm" would be a large set with "rarity" being a smaller subset of that large set. Just as trout are a subset of the larger set of fish. i did not state, insinuate or mischaracterize jack shit about groups. in fact i clarified after i realized there was a misinterpretation by you (and you seemed to be the only one) who didnt seem to know my intent with the rarity. that response from you was kinda pathetic wayne...try again, but next time try a different angle thats more challenging to see through.
Just because you do not understand the use of subsets, sets, and groups, does not mean you did not make use of them. You did and I noted it as part of my response and now you call my response pathetic because you are ignorant of the usage? When you get someone to explain it to you I will continue with the discussion, but until then you cannot discuss what you do not comprehend.
not all poachers are trophy hunters.
not all trophy hunters are poachers by any stretch.
I do not know about 'any' stretch, but not all trophy hunters are poachers that is true. how many trophy hunters do you personally know?
why would you doubt "any stretch"? in fact the statement is...."not all trophy hunters are poachers" i added "by any stretch"...as to make no mistakes about it. then you agree that its true that not all trophy hunters are poachers...but take issue with your own agreement by not accepting "by any stretch". wayne thats just clumsy and painfully obvious that you are just looking to object to something but aren't sure what to argue.
I know of two lawyers off the top of my head who have hunted only for the trophy. Their offices are decorated with elk and bison heads but they have never tasted the meat outside of an expensive restaurant. How many do you know?
As for the "any stretch" it is an absolute and making such claims make it easy to refute. I understand you are ignorant of such nuances, but it is the case. If one were to use a penchant for redefinition they could make the case that trophy hunting it poaching by some stretch.
but you attempted to draw that line by ommision.
Huh? What omission? Because I did not state each listing I "must" somehow be attempting to draw that line.
I also did not state they were not aliens from the planet Ork, so I must have also tried to draw that line as well. That is the weakest line of illogical thought I have seen in quite some time.no, but rather, you go to show that there may be instances of trophy hunting in its worst form (by the opinions you consider so common), but offer only those examples that would be looked at as ilegal in some form to attempt to characterize trophy hunters as law breakers to put an even more negative spin on it.
No, there ARE instances of trophy hunting which are documented. There are instances of poaching for trophies which are documented. Where EXACTLY did I state trophy hunters were law breakers? They can be under several laws, but where did I make such a statement? I did not, but you ASSumed I did in your interpretation and treated it as if it were factual. This would be you just insisting that your way of interpretation is just the way it is, would it not? I seem to remember this action being a bother to some group, but I just cannot remember which group that would be.
i stated my meaning of rarity being a "deviation" from the norm. http://www.fws.gov/hunting/huntstat.html13 million people 16 years and older enjoyed hunting in the U.S. Those 13 million hunters spent 228 days afield, took 200 million hunting trips and spent $20.6 billion pursuing their passion.
11.0 million people hunted big game such as deer or elk
5.4 million hunted small game such as rabbits or squirrels
3.0 million hunted migratory birds such as doves or waterfowl
1.0 million hunted other animals such as woodchucks and raccoons
So using your definition of "rarity" it is rare for anyone to hunt rabbits and squirrels, migratory birds, or any other animal other than big game? I believe anyone else might question whether those actions might be less rare than you think
..... they might be even more rare than i think too. but you know what your intent was with that. another clumsy attempt above to consider what i meant by rarity by giving an example with a deviation of some static # of "over 50%".......seriously wayne...your comparison is ridiculous. and when you attempt to assign a number assuming that i meant "a given #" is just flawed logic.
Maybe you should do some research before you claim "ridiculous" and "flawed logic" in the future or you may look even more ignorant of the truth than you already appear. norm
3 : AVERAGE: as; a : a set standard of development or achievement usually derived from the average or median achievement of a large group;
So, you do not believe the usage of the "norm" applies to this comparison now?
but even here you portray rare as being a polar bear in south africa.
well your shining example of what you consider rare and what my obvious meaning in the use of it was well as dishonest as you try to state "the trinity" is.
My example was such that there could be no misinterpretation of my post as is becoming so common by those very same members of the trinity. When you deal with those who try so hard to misrepresent even after being corrected one must make very clear examples. I still note no comment by you on this level of dishonesty, it seems odd for one so critical of the possible effects of dishonesty on this forum. you cry dishonesty after you dishonestly try to portray my intent then try to support your mischaracterization with ficticious scenarios and ficticious figures trying to tie my intent to your linear thinking. yep..im sticking with clumsy on this one too wayne.
If you had the ability to actually make a point, what point would you try to make? You disagree that my "linear thinking" is accurate, which implies you are using non-linear thinking which by definition involve non-conventional aspects such as definition and the such. It appears you are admitting to the use of the smoke and mirrors claimed earlier. The problem is your definition of "rarity" would have to exclude any point of "less rare" in order for my statement (remember the one stated as being wrong?) to be incorrect. That is the relational reference I am using in this example since you seem to be incapable of understanding the point.
as well, you are taking a poaching instance and trying to attach it to watson's bs. watson stated "trophy hunters" you went on to say the definition of trophy hunter is common and went on to state that poachers that you figured were trophy hunters left dead deer by your "lab"..or wherever it was.
No, I never said anything about poachers. I stated they could have been legally checked before being dumped, but you were adamant they had to have been poachers. You may want to read back over the posts before you answer. This is also the reason I asked Donnie for clarification on whether the record for the trophy would be sufficient to cause someone to have the animal checked by the DNR first. He avoided the answer like the plague because it conflicted with your prior contention."could have been" and "were"....are two vastly differnt things "wayne the scientist". in fact you acknowledged you made no attempt to research any of this...and real research could have been done by examining any area where a tag would be or could have been attatched. in fact....you seem to suggest that these deer were actually shot legally, when in reality...had they been checked in....it would be even more risky for those who would do something illegal. thats why i think my assumption of "poached" is probably even more informed and thought out than your speculation of legaly shot by trophy hunters even though you were there. hell i'll say it again.....you didnt even look deeply enough into it to try to assess what actually happened. i at least put thought behind my assumption.
Whether the were or were not tagged was not a priority in my mind. Even if I did look and found no evidence of a tag it would not prove either case. I called the authorities and let them handle the situation. You have made a lot of assumptions, but those are only supported by your personal belief and hold no more weight that that of any other person, including one who would say space aliens were responsible. If I had known I was going to have to defend myself against ignorant claims I might have asked for a copy of any report, but probably not. The factual information supports only one clear set of facts. The deer were killed, the heads/racks were removed, and they were then dumped in another location. There can be cases made for poaching, but why would they transport the deer to a second location, remove the trophies, and then transport them to a third location. The amount of transport would increase the chance of being caught. If they were legally checked there would be no such risk until the actual dumping, which is a risk in any case. There are more such points which could be made, but the fact is they are all equally defensible with the information available.
you know better (or do you) to realize that watson was referring to trophy hunters in whatever way as a generalization making no distinctions between the xyz guy on the outdoor channel hunting a freak racked buck (which im pretty certain would get consumed based only on the fact that it was filmed for the masses and who'd be dumb enough to put together a large production if they were poaching) and poachers in your neighborhood.
You still are calling it a poaching incident with nothing to prove your case other than your wish to believe there was a poaching incident. no, but i offer support for my line of reasoning. its you who reject poaching just because you think it is a key somehow to this arguement. is poaching merely hunting without a tag wayne? some areas consider poaching huntin on land you aren't permitted to hunt, hunting with methods that deviate from law.....and just doing things illegally. hey look....just about everywhere in the us where hunting is licensed.....dumping carcasses and tossing consumable hunted matter...is illegal.
No, I reject the poaching because it is an unsupported assumption on your part. I reject any assumptions presented as fact. I clearly have only stated probabilities not actualities. There is no way to even support the probability of poaching only a possibility.
if you want me to give you a number in what i meant as rarity..id give you my thoughts on what i'd figure i consider rare....but you never asked, even when it was apparent that our meanings didnt mesh. and of course i would have stated that that number would be my guess based on my experience(s). which you really dont quantify anything any more effectively...yet you call what is made into law some form of scientific proof????!.
I never stated I did, but you have misrepresented my posts with the same lie as did RF. I suppose that is why you have not made a comment on the dishonesty, since you are doing it as well.you neglect the fact that when asked...i clarified "rarity"....you that hung up on it? or is it your crutch that i didnt clarify it before i realized that you would be the only person needing clarification. i am certainly not the only person who views your instance of a pile of deer as relatively rare. or a dumped piece of machinery for that matter.
It was not the "relatively rare" that was defended but my statement that it may not be as rare as you assume that was attacked. You can review the thread if you need to do so.
like i said.....you seem to align yourself with a poster just to take sides against another poster. im not speaking of rf or donnie.....im speaking of me...because i happened to have agreed with them on this issue you lumped me in to some sort of "trinity".
No, I have nothing against you or your posts, except when they are less than truthful. The fact is that when one is involved in a contention there seems to be posts by the other two in support regardless of the level of truth or lack thereof in those posts. you have yet to show any dishonesty in my portrayal of anything other than your twist of what you believe my intent has been.
Really? You have claimed my intent with nothing to support it but your beliefs. You have CLEARLY stated what my intent was regardless of what my view was. That is dishonest in any reasonable and honest person's book.
tell me about your hunting, poaching, experience(s) beyond putting holes in a snake with your pistol wayne. and all you can refer to is hunting laws in an effort to cry "scientific proof".
My experiences are no more representative of the average than are yours without some level of correlation. You do not seem to understand that simple mathematical fact and that is fine since you are not a mathematician or scientist. The hunting laws are more representative of the national experience
rather than the rather limited personal experience you seem to wish to base the comparison on.so is it pretty common for people to screw sheep?....i mean there are laws regarding that in many states...so it must be a pretty common problem....
It may be more common than you believe ... and including dogs, horses, cattle, and other animals. Oh Wait that is wrong because I do not know how rare you think it is so I cannot "know" anything and that use of "may" is still not enough to prevent the statement from being a lie ....
[color] but seriously...if something is so common....one would think it is acceptable and society wouldnt want it illegal because it would infringe upon too many peoples belief in doing it. aren't these laws you tote put there to keep the few from performing what the masses consider bad?[/color]
Law breaking is common, thus using your logic there should be no laws at all ...
How many cars break the speed limit? Is that common or uncommon? How many people are arrested for theft in its various forms? Is that common or uncommon? Your attempt at logic fails yet again.