I don't know if you're talking about me but that is not why I'm here doing what I'm doing.
I've written about my 'whys' many times here. It's not a secret. (mostly in abz npr, fyi)
Jeff Livingston
Ernie gets probation
- Thread starter Mr. Bond
- Start date
I don't know if you're talking about me but that is not why I'm here doing what I'm doing.
I've written about my 'whys' many times here. It's not a secret. (mostly in abz npr, fyi)
Jeff Livingston
Well I guess I could be talking about people on both sides of any debate. You appear to show the kind of support for your side that I agree with. If you feel strongly then proceed. If you are just debating for fun then you may just like seeing your words in print. Proceed regardless. Everyone for that matter.
Debate is great, but don't ignore common law. It does not supplant ethics and emotion.
To One stroke:
Is there a list already ? I thought they started it after inauguration.
I usually try to stay in the npr section here for such discussions, but the line between what is pool-related and what isn't becomes fuzzier everytime a legislative body convenes. The govt is THE biggest enemy of pool there is. What is does to this game is appalling and needs to be defended against, so here I am for this issue.
If anyone wants me to stop, just tell me straight out and I'll consider it.
Jeff Livingston
You're way over-intellectualizing a simple moral issue. Inflicting unnecessary harm on other animals is wrong, and it's wrong whether we want to think of them as our property or not.
Says you.
I'd kill an elephant if it was charging towards me.
I also play with leather pool tips, wear a leather belt, and have a hamburger before playing.
Am I immoral and should the "law" punish me for those transgressions against animals?
Jeff Livingston
I get told this often, usually by those who never integrate morality into issue.
I'm not advocating abuse of animals. I grew up in the country in the middle of Iowa. Animals were treated as animals back then, not as pets or human-like or any such thing as that. I've slopped pigs, fed chickens, milked cows, hunted birds, etc. when I was young. These things put animals in a perspective that most town folks never face directly. They buy their meat at the store, for example, without seeing the animal put down and hung on hook to bleed out.
That is what happens so you can put side spin on the (formerly ivory) cue ball. It will never change as long as humans exist here.
Property rights are paramount regardless of one's feeling towards animals. In fact, property rights are paramount for those who think animals should never be used in these ways, as those folks can buy animals and "save" them from such things. Without property rights, that option is lost, and you have what the ivory market is today: trouble.
And to a greater degree, if you don't own yourself completely, there is no moral choice for you or any animal either. Now THAT is abuse!
I love your conviction, btw.
Jeff Livingston
So your view does not imply that (1) human beings have the right to own non-human animals as their property, and (2) human beings have the right to do with their property whatever they want?
Unfortunately it's not a simple moral issue for many people all over the world. Hence the problem. And you (or us, or they, or them) have no right to make everyone believe the same. Hence the problem.
My only point here is that chasing bones wont stop the killing and will not create more elephants. It never has before..
Trying to shame the world into believing what you do will not stop the killing and will not create more elephants. And it never has before.
That's where actual conservation comes into the picture. Animal management vs land management vs economics.
Some people think Cows are holy, some people eat them.
So we make more, beef has its market price, and everyone goes about their business.
-------
Between 1966 and 1994 due to the great strides in the elephant populations, elephant culling was reintroduced in South Africa as a population management program.
Over the 30 year period where elephant culling was used within the parks, over 16,000 elephants were killed and the population numbers were declining quickly.
In 1995 due to the over-culling within the parks and reserves, the process of culling elephants was banned. This ban lasted eight years while the elephant populations grew large once again, until the parks and reserves could no longer manage the elephant populations just through translocation, and contraception.
In March of 2007 it was announced that a policy proposal for a regulated cull was to be announced by Kruger National Park (the largest game reserve in South Africa). Finally, in February of 2008 the ban on elephant culling was lifted with high regulations and the first elephant cull at Kruger was to happen on the 28th after 13 years.
In the past few years, Elephant culling has been used as a process of population management in South Africa since the ban on culling of elephants was lifted in 2008 by the government.
Basically, elephant culling is a procedure where mass amounts of elephants are killed at a single time. The parks and reserves do this through professional hunters and a well planned out schedule. Many parks and reserves throughout South Africa have been putting culling within their quarterly plans each year due to the overpopulation of elephants within the parks.
Although the process of elephant culling might seem cruel and inhumane, it is one of the only ways to save the biodiversity within the South African land in which the elephants live, and at this time, is the only viable management program due to the greatness of the over population.
----------------
I honestly don't understand what this debate has become...
Who here is arguing that killing Elephants for their Ivory is a GOOD thing? Who thinks this practice should continue (publicly or privately)? And what could the justification for this possibly be?
I don't understand how property rights enters the discussion. It doesn't change one single thing about the cruelty of the act. It doesn't change the fact that people would be prosecuted for poaching & trading illegally gotten Ivory, etc... It doesn't change anything, not one thing would change.
What's the issue now, I'm lost.
Who here is arguing that killing Elephants for their Ivory is a GOOD thing? Who thinks this practice should continue (publicly or privately)? And what could the justification for this possibly be?
I don't understand how property rights enters the discussion. It doesn't change one single thing about the cruelty of the act. It doesn't change the fact that people would be prosecuted for poaching & trading illegally gotten Ivory, etc... It doesn't change anything, not one thing would change.
What's the issue now, I'm lost.
Let me re-emphasize this point:
McDonald's and Burger King sell millions of pounds of meat every day, that we eat every day, that comes from animals that some cultures find " unholy " (pigs) or from an animal that some cultures treat as a diety. (cows)
We kill and eat their gods, and don't think twice about it.
The moral crusade for elephants, while I whole heartedly agree with it, will not persuade those who do not feel the way we do.
McDonald's and Burger King sell millions of pounds of meat every day, that we eat every day, that comes from animals that some cultures find " unholy " (pigs) or from an animal that some cultures treat as a diety. (cows)
We kill and eat their gods, and don't think twice about it.
The moral crusade for elephants, while I whole heartedly agree with it, will not persuade those who do not feel the way we do.
I give up.
I've explained it how many times here? I've offered resources that explain it in detail. I've offered economic arguments, moral arguments, practical arguments, justice arguments.
I can't offer a cure to ignorance, except to myself.
Jeff Livingston
You need to give them a hug.
That after a trip to In N Out burger.
The cow sh!# and all that rain forest getting leveled to plant more soy for cows to eat will probably kill all elephants due to global warming .
Not to mention us.
But, let's go after decades old ivory in the US.
Whether anyone does or does not think it is a simple moral issue doesn't change the fact that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on others. I'm not trying to change anyone's beliefs, though it would certainly be a good thing if everyone realized this fact.
And if something is morally wrong we not only have the right to tell others but we have a moral obligation to tell others. Some cultures practice female genital mutilation. The fact that those cultures think the practice of female genital mutilation is ok doesn't make it so, and it shouldn't stop us from telling those cultures that it is wrong.
I'm not claiming anything about the effectiveness of the ban on ivory, by the way, in helping to curtail the poaching of elephants. I simply don't know what its effect is on poaching. But I would certainly be in favor of any measure that decreased the amount of unnecessary suffering that humans inflict on each other and on other animals.
1) Ivory is not a sustainable source of material ; Savaged from the poached turned injured and turned dead elephants . Stolen ivory , black market ivory ; falsified ivory documentation ; graft to governing officials .
2) Ernie made profit from not only this deal to Taiwan but many many previous one throughout his worklife.
The $10 grand fine is a easy let off behind-the-doors-agreement punishment .
HIGH-END CUES BROKERING SUPPORTS THIS UNUSUAL DEMAND AND SUPPLY. !
3) There are an abundance of natural or synthetic modern materials which suits cuemaking / artistry making .
To hand-make and sell an artistry billiard stick above $10000 with the synthetic shit ?!?!?
Ernie says " No way ! No pay cut for me ! "
Proudly made in USA !
2) Ernie made profit from not only this deal to Taiwan but many many previous one throughout his worklife.
The $10 grand fine is a easy let off behind-the-doors-agreement punishment .
HIGH-END CUES BROKERING SUPPORTS THIS UNUSUAL DEMAND AND SUPPLY. !
3) There are an abundance of natural or synthetic modern materials which suits cuemaking / artistry making .
To hand-make and sell an artistry billiard stick above $10000 with the synthetic shit ?!?!?
Ernie says " No way ! No pay cut for me ! "
Proudly made in USA !
Last edited:
Your premise is wrong.
The rest that follows, if based on that premise, would be mostly wrong, too.
I'm gonna eat bacon today. I've been eating it for decades and will continue, BUT ONLY IF A FREE MARKET EXIST to allow greedy, selfish, fallible humans to exploit it fully, thus maintaining the supply lines.
Jeff Livingston
You seem to be proposing that market economics is a panacea. It is most certainly not. This is an ideological fallacy. It sounds like you've been reading too much Ayn Rand.
Pigs are sustainably sourced no matter how many we kill because they are extremely cheap and easy to breed and slaughter. Elephants, raised for Ivory, are not. The math just wouldn't add up, the supply of Ivory from Elephants, whether wild or "farmed" will always be much more limited and expensive due to the far greater time and resources that go into growing tusks.
Again, privatizing the Elephant herds won't do change one single thing, I've tried to explain that. Supplies will still be low as Elephants have a long maturation time (males can't reproduce until they're at least 15 years old), and the amount of Ivory gotten from a single male Elephant is very small compared to the resources required for it's growth. Poachers and an illegal trade will still flourish, because all the benefits to doing so remain. Policing and prosecuting people in the black market will probably increase, not decrease.
I'm not trying to be combative, but you just keep saying "privatize it and the market will make everything better". But as far as I can see, this doesn't make any sense. Privatization will do literally nothing. This strikes me as a naive, ideological idea.
You seem to be proposing that market economics is a panacea. It is most certainly not. This is an ideological fallacy. It sounds like you've been reading too much Ayn Rand.
Pigs are sustainably sourced no matter how many we kill because they are extremely cheap and easy to breed and slaughter. Elephants, raised for Ivory, are not. The math just wouldn't add up, the supply of Ivory from Elephants, whether wild or "farmed" will always be much more limited and expensive due to the far greater time and resources that go into growing tusks.
Again, privatizing the Elephant herds won't do change one single thing, I've tried to explain that. Supplies will still be low as Elephants have a long maturation time (males can't reproduce until they're at least 15 years old), and the amount of Ivory gotten from a single male Elephant is very small compared to the resources required for it's growth. Poachers and an illegal trade will still flourish, because all the benefits to doing so remain. Policing and prosecuting people in the black market will probably increase, not decrease.
I'm not trying to be combative, but you just keep saying "privatize it and the market will make everything better". But as far as I can see, this doesn't make any sense. Privatization will do literally nothing. This strikes me as a naive, ideological idea.
Hazlitt. Rothbard. Mises.
Your premise is wrong. Yes, I've read everyone of Rand's books and they're beautiful. But I'm not channeling Rand here, but those who disagreed with her in many ways (see Rothbard's play about her...it's 14 minutest and funny)
Economics exist in spite of anyone's belief about it. Humans act...even when dealing with big animals. Human Action is real. That is not a naive idea, but central to ALL happiness and prosperity and for peace.
I said I was through, and this thread has run its course, but I just had to try one more time to help you understand this vital concept. Good luck with things.
Jeff Livingston
Yes, I've actually read all of Rand's non-fiction work. Some of it is interesting (For The New Intellectual is a good read), and some of her Fic as well.
I studied economics in university. The reason this is an ideological stance is that the field of economics just does not yield conclusions that "the market solves all". This is something that people who don't understand economics tend to think. It's like saying that since this thing called Physics exists, therefore warp drive is the only way to travel. No, that's what called a non sequiter.
The religion of the Free Market since the 1980's is a true religion.
Last edited:
Calling Ernie a lowlife is unacceptable. He should be lauded and getting awards. All the ivory he used was legal.