Part P conudrum.....

[John Cartmell]

Apart from the 15 pages in Ward. Or is that too much reading? ;-)

[Andy Hall]

Hmmm..... I think that that one's a bit thin.

In the case of angling, why do it at all - i.e. why not leave the fish alone? Swimming along, going for what seems to be a tasty tidbit and then having a hook through the roof of the mouth doesn't strike me as all that appealling to the fish.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Er..what is an objective definition anyway?

If its written in the statute books, its a definition that is objective to me.

You might as well say there is no objective definition of red.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I doubt a lamb much likes being killed for food either.

[John Cartmell]

One that applies to the animal rather than their social relationship to us. Eg 'Mammal' is objective as is 'Homo sapiens' and 'Vulpes vulpes'. 'Vermin' is defined as those animals that 'we' consider to be pests - but as 'we' may not agree which animals are pests; the list may vary from time-to-time and place-to-place; the assumptions trhat 'we' make may be wrong; and 'we' are frequently the instigator of what becomes a pest the definition is subjective and has frequently been used to replace understanding or thinking through the problem. Many an argument has been prematurely ended by someone blithely stating, "it's vermin" without appreciating that the label may be without sense.

It may be to you - if you wish to hide behind such a formulation without thinking for yourself.

I can define 'red' by reference to a range of wavelengths of light. I can only define 'vermin' by pointing to a list that is attached to the definition for no objective reason. Now should you decide to define 'red' as a dozen or so wavelengths of light spread across the spectrum - but ones that you particularly dislike - then the comparison would be valid. You would have a bloody stupid idea of what 'red' was though.

[John Cartmell]

So you want to ban fishing as well as strengthening the ban on hunting with dogs? That's a respectable point of view.

[John Rumm]

Because enough people do that to represent a sizeable class of potentially lost votes.

too right...

[Andy Hall]

Probably spoils its entire day...

[Andy Hall]

Exactly...

[Tony Bryer]

According to the Telegraph more foxes are now being shot than before the hunting ban, presumably because in hunting areas it was thought to be bad form to shoot foxes and thus spoil the sport. Therefore if we take your line that foxes are vermin, the removal of the prejudice against shooting them should a good thing.

[Nigel Molesworth]

We have a bus on Thursdays.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I can define vermin by reference to a range of species.

In the end all definitions are subjective..at what frequency does red light become orange, for example?

Your logic is flawed, and your prejudices are clear.

[Andy Hall]

Not really. I would simply like there to be some honesty and consistency and that hasn't happened.

[Chris Bacon]

It doesn't matter, John, does it - there's so much s**te posted here that a bit more does not matter - you've not complained about it, anyway, have you.

P.S., thanks for the helpful posts you normally contribute.

[Chris Bacon]

Shooting them will not help control numbers either, Cartmell said in an earlier contribution. ROFL.

[John Cartmell]

If you find a way of eliminating them without destroying other wildlife then get in touch with the Australian authorities. they would very much like to reverse the destruction caused by the introduction of foxes into that country. Introduced by those wanting to hunt the foxes of course.

[John Cartmell]

You cannot. Or at least, if you try, it will have no points of contact with the current definition.

Wrong question; the colour (and description) shades.

If you can see the difference between labelling a continuous range of wavelengths with one name and labelling a selection of non-continuous wavelengths with another name then you can follow my logic.

I'm prejudiced against cruelty, destruction, and ignorance - especially when combined as in fox hunting.

[John Cartmell]

I'm honest & consistent. Don't blame me for those who aren't - and don't expect me to accept your argument that says we shouldn't promote legislation unless it includes all possible reforms.

[Steve Firth]

And it shows.

[John Cartmell]

about his statement: [I'm prejudiced against cruelty, destruction, and ignorance]

But that doesn't alter my valid statements. It does bring into question your prejudice in cutting the description of my prejudice - and makes one wonder whose prejudice is in favour of cruelty, for destruction, and to promote ignorance ... ;-)