At Risk?

[highlander_Daz]

The trouble with extremists is that quite often they are the ones that refuse to listen to reason and respect other peoples point of view, If you cant change peoples opinion with reasoned debate, wit and logic then-

a. your argument doesnt hold water
b. agree to disagree like gentleman/women

however because not everyone is reasonable, there are times when direct action is appropriate. history tells us that.

things like culls animal cruelty etc are always going to cause upset, however often its the way in which things are carried out rather than then end result that causes offence.

[McRod]

For myself, i have often worn a sealskin dress sporran, knowing full well where it comes from. I personally dont have a problem with the issue. If it was an endangerd species then yes i would have second thoughts. As to the extremists, and i have one in my work area, nothing you can say will change their outlook, so i dont waste my time trying, we agree to disagree. Nature in the wild is a tough place and 'cute' just doesn't cut it.

[highlander_Daz]

There is a similar issue with Ivory on bagpipes, the Ivory used is normally from old sources like Billiard balls and ivory harvested years ago, people still jump up and down over it, Im satisfied that as long as its not from a new source its OK weve learned our lesson.

[Angus MacSpey]

There's got to be one good way to find out.

Next time PETA is in town, I'll go down there wearing my wool kilt, zebra leather shoes, baby seal sporran with wolf mask, ivory handled sgian dubh, polar bear claw necklace, panda fur hat, buckskin shirt, and of course, my lucky rabbit's foot.

[highlander_Daz]

Ive always wondered why if its wrong to eat animals -why do they taste so good?

[KiltedKnight]

An extremist cannot be reasoned with, they are just like a liberal in the fact that once you start to have an honest discussion with them they find that the truth gets in their way and then they get extremely violent.

Trying to convince these types of the truth and the facts of life is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It just makes you look rediculous and it annoys the hell out of the pig.

If any one of these decide to throw anything on my sporran they would buy me a new sporran of the same sort and obviously a new kilt- just after they spent ten minutes or so trying to lick the material off my sporran and kilt. Paint doesn't taste very good and I doubt they'd try it again.

Chris.

[GlassMan]

There's got to be one good way to find out.

Next time PETA is in town, I'll go down there wearing my wool kilt, zebra leather shoes, baby seal sporran with wolf mask, ivory handled sgian dubh, polar bear claw necklace, panda fur hat, buckskin shirt, and of course, my lucky rabbit's foot.

I gotta see a picture of that. And if it's cold out when they visit will you add a full length fur coat?! :rolleyes:

[davedove]

There's got to be one good way to find out.

Next time PETA is in town, I'll go down there wearing my wool kilt, zebra leather shoes, baby seal sporran with wolf mask, ivory handled sgian dubh, polar bear claw necklace, panda fur hat, buckskin shirt, and of course, my lucky rabbit's foot.

And don't forget to have plenty of feathers sticking out of the hat for decoration.

[Southern Breeze]

And don't forget to have plenty of feathers sticking out of the hat for decoration.

Make sure those are Spotted Owl feathers.

[GlassMan]

An extremist cannot be reasoned with, they are just like a liberal in the fact that once you start to have an honest discussion with them they find that the truth gets in their way and then they get extremely violent.

Trying to convince these types of the truth and the facts of life is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It just makes you look rediculous and it annoys the hell out of the pig.

If any one of these decide to throw anything on my sporran they would buy me a new sporran of the same sort and obviously a new kilt- just after they spent ten minutes or so trying to lick the material off my sporran and kilt. Paint doesn't taste very good and I doubt they'd try it again.

Chris.

It's not just extreme liberals that refuse to listen to logic. It's extreme anything, be they liberal, conservative, animal-rights freaks, environmentalists, industrialists, etc. It doesn't matter what a person believes, the minute it stops being based on reason and starts being based on faith then logic goes out the window.

I've a friend who's a doctor and he constantly gets on me for smoking a pipe, but he enjoys a bit of marijuana to relax at night when he's not on call. Even though he'll admit that pipe smoking contains far lower levels of carcinogens than cigarette smoke based on scientific studies, he still thinks that I should smoke tobacco at all. But he refuses to believe the scientific studies which show that modern marijuana has become so much stronger than the stuff from the 60's (through simple scientific crop improvements - even drug lords have business sense) that it is now much more addictive and has 70% more carcinogens per ounce than tobacco.

So if we compare my average of 2 to 3 pipes a day at 20% of cigarettes carcinogens works out to 60% of a cigarette a day or 4.2 cigarettes a week . But his average of 1 to 2 joints a day at 70% of a cigarette work out to 1.4 cigarettes a day or 9.8 cigarettes a week. So he gets over twice the amount of carcinogens and that doesn't even consider the difference caused by method of smoking. A pipe smoker puffs the tobacco, keeps the smoke in his mouth for a second or two and then releases without ever inhaling it into his lungs. But a marijuana smoker inhales deeply into his lungs and holds it to maximize the "high." So if we consider the probability that the encounter with a given unit of carcinogens has a higher chance of effecting the lungs the longer it is contact with actual lung tissue, than the method of smoking also has to be considered. So while I firmly believe that I'm raising my risks of cancer with a tobacco pipe because of logic and reason, that same logic and reason also leads me to believe that his marijuana habit is orders of magnitude worse for his health. And yes, reason also leads me to believe that both of our risks of cancer are still less than that of a 2 to 3 pack a day (or worse, a carton a day) cigarette smoker.

However, he takes it as an article of faith that marijuana is harmless so he refuses to believe that his behavior is wrong while he condemns mine in no uncertain terms.

I don't want to start a debate on smoking here (that's why I've conceded that I am being exposed to more carcinogens than a non-smoker) but I've made a personal choice based on my risk analysis (I've so much lung scarring and damage from asbestos exposure and smoke inhalation/burns that it's a foregone conclusion to my pulmonalogist that I'm going to get lung cancer even if I never get anywhere near a smoker or tobacco for the rest of my life).

I used this as a personal example to show how how even someone you would expect to use scientific information and logic can be blindfolded by personal beliefs into acting irrational. I'd have more respect for him on this issue if he conceded that there are health risks to smoking marijuana but that in his cost/benefit analysis he feels it is worth it to get the high. But he won't. He continues to claim that the high is absolutely harmless and completely non-addictive.

Another example is the old debate about evolution and creationism. Creationism is an article of faith, and no amount of scientific evidence will disprove it to a true believer. Evolution is a scientific theory that appears to fit the facts. Personally, I believe that there is a God and that God's hand started the evolutionary ball rolling and that God set the ground rules for evolutions development. God probably also got involved directly in which evolutionary pathways were taken so that in the end, after millions of years, God's son could be born in human form. But that's my faith. I don't use reason or logic to get to that conclusion. It's what I believe in my heart is true. However, no amount of proof of the theory of Evolution can ever disprove that there is or isn't a guiding hand of God. Why? Because God's existence isn't proveable. However, the age of the planet, and the fact that life evolved over eons is something for which we can find rational proof and verifiable examples.

Because of that, Intelligent Design & Evolution aren't even on the same playing field and no amount of argument or scientific research will ever prove that God exists or that God had no hand in evolution. You can't prove a negative and you can't prove God. So there shouldn't even be an argument over the issue. But extremists on both sides who can't accept that the other position even exists insist on fighting over it.

We see the same thing in so many arguments in this world, be it Global Warming or whatever.

I'm a firm believer that in somewhere in between two extreme viewpoints there is almost always a rational explanation and position that most closely approximates the truth. Notice I didn't say "is" the truth. We're humans after all and won't ever completely agree. If we were in abosolute total harmony and agreement than we wouldn't be individuals.