|
U-Know! Forum » Another Election |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
dhajjieboy 913 posts |
May 23, 2017, 00:15
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "You all should know by now that ole' {politically moderate} dhajjie is gonna' see both sides of any issue" Well, since even Sanctuary is anti foxhunting (and probably anti elephant slaughter too) we'll all be fascinated to know how you, alone, see the other side of those things as having any merit. Nigel....your inner inquisitor is showing.... From whence do you extrapolate that I would think "fox hunting" or "elephant slaughter" has any merit? I also would like to assure you that I myself certainly had nothing to do with the present leadership fiasco this side of the pond... My reference to seeing the 2 halves of any issue really stemmed from the trumped-up case that several of you are attempting to lambaste Sanctuary and any oppositional voter with.... Do you really believe that any governing body that the U.K. might elect will endorse ivory trading, much less "elephant slaughter"? If that is the best political slander that the 'Left' has got to offer, I can tell you from experience....be prepared to have your asses handed to yourselves...{again...} next election.... Lots of accusations...no substantiation....just like Sanctuary said. I am following this election lead-up very closely.... all i'm seeing so far is a lot of Fuck You-ing from both sides. Good luck with that.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 23, 2017, 07:23
|
||
|
dhajjieboy wrote: Do you really believe that any governing body that the U.K. might elect will endorse ivory trading, much less "elephant slaughter"? First, nobody said "endorse". "Allow" yes, I believe that is the case, which is different, but the same from the elephants' point of view Second, the problem with ivory trading is that it DOES involve elephant slaughter, given that fresh ivory can now be faked to appear to be historic ivory, so there's no "much less" about the matter. In summary then, yes I believe an incoming Tory Government WILL allow some degree of ivory trading and elephant slaughter. BTW, is there a written US Presidential manifesto? There ought to be.
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
May 23, 2017, 09:58
|
||
|
I hear the new phrase is Weak and Wobbly. Anti phrases are definitely the way forward.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Edited May 23, 2017, 10:20
May 23, 2017, 10:06
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: dhajjieboy wrote: Do you really believe that any governing body that the U.K. might elect will endorse ivory trading, much less "elephant slaughter"? First, nobody said "endorse". "Allow" yes, I believe that is the case, which is different, but the same from the elephants' point of view Second, the problem with ivory trading is that it DOES involve elephant slaughter, given that fresh ivory can now be faked to appear to be historic ivory, so there's no "much less" about the matter. In summary then, yes I believe an incoming Tory Government WILL allow some degree of ivory trading and elephant slaughter. BTW, is there a written US Presidential manifesto? There ought to be. Not wishing to extend this difference of opinion until we all give up the will to live Nigel, but you have yet to provide written proof from government documentation that your belief is true. The elephant is an endangered species and the government IS supporting ALL endangered species worldwide as they quite clearly state in the manifesto. The aim, to stop its slaughter! Would they do that if they were going to allow new ivory to enter our country knowingly? You can firmly believe what you like of course but I have supplied the evidence that makes it most unlikely - with respect - you haven't. Roy
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 23, 2017, 11:14
|
||
Several people several times have pointed out to you that omitting a previous specific commitment in favour of a vague general one means that the specific commitment has been dropped - else mention of it wouldn't have been dropped. That's the top and bottom of it and you persisting in saying otherwise is neither here nor there.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 23, 2017, 11:26
|
||
I don't think anyone can deny that her image has suffered a big blow. Everyone thought that her avoiding debate was a deliberate strategy because she was so far ahead. Now it turns out she looks surprisingly hunted when under real pressure. It's been established, Thatcher she ain't.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
May 23, 2017, 11:32
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Several people several times have pointed out to you that omitting a previous specific commitment in favour of a vague general one means that the specific commitment has been dropped - else mention of it wouldn't have been dropped. That's the top and bottom of it and you persisting in saying otherwise is neither here nor there. FAIL. Still in denial - still not providing written proof.
|
|||
|
Toni Torino 2299 posts |
May 23, 2017, 12:41
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: nigelswift wrote: Several people several times have pointed out to you that omitting a previous specific commitment in favour of a vague general one means that the specific commitment has been dropped - else mention of it wouldn't have been dropped. That's the top and bottom of it and you persisting in saying otherwise is neither here nor there. FAIL. Still in denial - still not providing written proof. As everyone is having a go, I'd like to add my opinion. Current legislation allows the sale of ivory as long as it is older than 1947. This was extremely difficult to enforce - anyone who watches antique shows on TV will tell you the experts merely assume ivory is assumed to be of a certain age merely because it is in a style of a ceertain period. I think current law now requires proof of age before you can sell. The argument is that - whatever the trade restrictions - the ongoing trade in ivory encourages the ongoing interest in ivory including new ivory thus continuing to endanger the few animals we have left. So, as it stands, the UK allows ivory trade with restrictions. If the Government's intention is to allow the status quo to continue, there is no need to provide written proof to that effect. If they wish to change this, then it should be in the Tory manifesto. A general commitment to provide support to organisations trying to protect endangered species and marine animals is now in the Tory manifesto. That is a helluva long way off banning ivory trade completely in my eyes. They could have included both pledges if they want to and it's perfectly reasonable for people to insist on clarification now - before the election - than after when it will be too late. That's the democratic process.
|
|||
|
dhajjieboy 913 posts |
May 23, 2017, 13:10
|
||
|
Nigel...as you are ageing, you are becoming much less adept at cheap point scoring and un-clever twisting of words...semantics old boy. You still seem to want to re-direct this particular issue into something about Trump for some inscrutable reason. As Mr. Torino has pointed out there are many objects d' art with established legacies here and abroad with cultural value and worth that have unfortunately involved the use of ivory... Do you suggest we pile it all into a conflagration as they do with confiscated tusks in Africa? That's gonna involve a shitload of pianos {some of which Beethoven himself played on and still exist}{for starters...}. Whatever else you say....it's the continuing ASIAN demand for ivory that will see off the last elephant.{and Rhinos too} Not anything going on in the U.K. Try taking THAT on.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 23, 2017, 13:40
|
||
|
dhajjieboy wrote: Nigel...as you are ageing, You unsophisticated knob.
|
| Pages: 37 – [ Previous | 1 … 32 33 34 35 36 37 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
