On 8/4/2015 12:38 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 11:31 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 6:01 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 1:58:39 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/3/2015 11:51 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:43:01 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

He is facing years in an African Prison... need I say more?

Read an article the other day. Since the Treaty with Zimbabwe (1998)
no one has been extradited from the U.S., the crime has to be at least
a penalty of one year in prison. Extradition also has to be approved
in federal court here. The court may question the credibility of
justice, evidence, etc. The dentist, if extradited, could face a
$20,000 fine and / or 10 years in prison. The Zimbabwe government
most likely would take the fine over a prison term.


IF it was a true mistake on his part he shouldn't have any issues with
paying restitution and even investing in some sort of assistance in
helping repopulate the endangered lion prides there.



Why would they have to re-populate?

Do you think about what you say before you post it, or even think about
what you've read before you jump that chasm where the wrong conclusion
is waiting to be immortalized?

No one has to re-populate anything. IF a person feels regret for
killing an animal they may want to invest time and money into a program
that will help raise new baby animals. That's how regret works. A
person feels they made a mistake, and they try to overcome that mistake
by doing something good after they've made the mistake.

YOU claimed the numbers
that show the severe decline in lions over the last 50 years are
just statistics, they don't show right, wrong or anything else.

One more time, statistics only show gathered data. Think about that
before you jump. Statistics aren't emotional, therefore, they can't
produce an emotional result - they are just numbers. OTOH, a "right vs
wrong" determination is an emotional conclusion based on personal
interpretation.

The ONLY way to come to a right vs wrong conclusion is to take data
(which is just numbers) and insert emotions ONTO that data.

Statistics and right vs wrong are separate entities. You've been
referring to statistics as if they proved right vs wrong. Numbers can't
do that - only emotions can.

That's why some of use aren't THAT irritated or upset about the numbers
and other people ARE upset about the numbers. The amount of emotions a
person invests in the interpretation of the numbers directly influences
their response to the numbers.

I look at the numbers and see multiple causes for the decline in the
lion population and I respond with referencing the multiple causes and
I'm not surprised or outraged that man are included in the causes.

You respond by looking at the numbers and shouting "ISN'T IT OBVIOUS
THAT MAN CAUSED THE DECLINE IN THE LION POPULATION!!!! YOU'RE AN IDIOT
IF YOU CAN'T SEE THAT!!" That kind of outrage is disproportional to
what the statistics actually represent.

The next time you want to use statistics as a reason to be outraged you
should stop, imo, don't mention statistics, and just mention how
outraged you are because an emotional response makes you right, doesn't
it?? sheeeeeeeeesh


And you said that if an endangered species is meant to survive,
it will, without regard to what we do. And if it goes extinct,
no big deal, it will just be replaced by another species.

Yes, I said that, and I believe that to be true based on how many
species have already gone extinct and how many are still teetering on
the edge of extinction despite our efforts to preserve those species.
We might be successful saving some species, but I don't think our
efforts will help all of them and some will still go extinct despite our
efforts to help.

THAT is your remarkable and totally ignorant position. Don't
try to wiggle away on us now.


Who is "us"?? I only see you arguing that stats prove right vs wrong.

Every thing is based on stats(history). economics, politics, scientific
research, is there any thing not based on stats.? Stats is not right and
wrong. The drawn conclusion from stats can be wrong or right.

Yes!

We had really bad flooding in our city few years ago. many things got
damaged(like washed away bridges, etc.) Those bridges were designed
based on past 100 years rain fall stats. in summer. But climate has
changed over time, now any thing based on past 100 year's stats. are
proven wrong(can't depend on it).

I totally agree with you. (¬€¿Â¬)

OMG, a Republican agreeing that climate change is real.

--
Froz...

Quando omni flunkus, moritati