Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I dunno maybe I should've put this one in the Locker Room because I don't know if anybody's going to disagree with me. Ok I'll inject politics into it by saying this is the sort of things Liberals/Progressives do:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... -destroyed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The royal collection contains about 1,200 artefacts dating back hundreds of years.

So what is the purpose of doing something like that? You're going to destroy historical artifacts because they're made in part of ivory and you're worried about the elephants? How is that going to help any elephants? I'm pretty sure it's too late.

Seriously, does anyone believe destroying the artifacts will save a single elephant or any other ivory producing animal?

I guess William does. All this time I didn't know he was a Liberal or Progressive or whatever term people who may be very smart but who have no sense are using to describe themselves now.

Or maybe he just feels like he's royalty and people may resent so that he needs to do something Liberal/Progressive to show he's not so pompous after all.

Well it'll absolutely drive up the price of illegal ivory in the black market now...
That's bout how stupid that is

This movement in the UK is coming from the Conservative Party. They're old school conservatives that still have conservation of wildlife as a core tenet. I mean... this has to be the first time I've heard the royal family referred to as liberal or progressive.

Here's the most outspoken UK politician on this issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zac_Goldsmith" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chizzang wrote:Well it'll absolutely drive up the price of illegal ivory in the black market now...

No it won't. Ivory in Buckingham Palace isn't on the market... destroying it would have no effect on the price of ivory.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Well it'll absolutely drive up the price of illegal ivory in the black market now...

No it won't. Ivory in Buckingham Palace isn't on the market... destroying it would have no effect on the price of ivory.

I'm not suggesting that Royal Palace Ivory is on the market
What I'm suggesting is this:
This now marks ivory as more dangerous / more bad / more underground / thus = more expensive

^ That is the thinking. Also the decision to destroy the existing ones had to do with the thought that it would encourage more pouching. Seems to me the best thing to do would have to been to certify those ivory artifacts and sell them off and donate the funds to wild life conservation or something. Meh.

SDHornet wrote:^ That is the thinking. Also the decision to destroy the existing ones had to do with the thought that it would encourage more pouching. Seems to me the best thing to do would have to been to certify those ivory artifacts and sell them off and donate the funds to wild life conservation or something. Meh.

This ^
or anything other than destroying them

Chizzang wrote:Well it'll absolutely drive up the price of illegal ivory in the black market now...

I always felt that diversity in a sentence is important.

http://www.livescience.com/41186-us-des ... kpile.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


To combat elephant poaching, the United States is preparing to publicly pulverize its 6-ton stockpile of illicit ivory this week, which has likely left many wondering, why not just sell it instead?

Though ivory can fetch higher prices than gold, many conservationists argue that destroying confiscated trinkets, carvings and tusks rather than selling them sends a signal to buyers, traffickers and suppliers that ivory will no longer be tolerated as a legitimate commercial product.

Today the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) called on other governments to follow the United States' lead and crush or burn their ivory stockpiles, too.

Done.

Cap'n Cat wrote:http://www.livescience.com/41186-us-des ... kpile.html


To combat elephant poaching, the United States is preparing to publicly pulverize its 6-ton stockpile of illicit ivory this week, which has likely left many wondering, why not just sell it instead?

Though ivory can fetch higher prices than gold, many conservationists argue that destroying confiscated trinkets, carvings and tusks rather than selling them sends a signal to buyers, traffickers and suppliers that ivory will no longer be tolerated as a legitimate commercial product.

Today the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) called on other governments to follow the United States' lead and crush or burn their ivory stockpiles, too.

Done.

Well there you go... (Well Done Sir)

Cap'n Cat wrote:http://www.livescience.com/41186-us-des ... kpile.html


To combat elephant poaching, the United States is preparing to publicly pulverize its 6-ton stockpile of illicit ivory this week, which has likely left many wondering, why not just sell it instead?

Though ivory can fetch higher prices than gold, many conservationists argue that destroying confiscated trinkets, carvings and tusks rather than selling them sends a signal to buyers, traffickers and suppliers that ivory will no longer be tolerated as a legitimate commercial product.

Today the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) called on other governments to follow the United States' lead and crush or burn their ivory stockpiles, too.

Done.

You know, they've burned lot of confiscated ivory before, and heavily advertised the burnings.

Yup, burning illegal inventories has done so much to dissuade the drug market, the gun market, and the ivory market...and a whole host of other black markets. Yes, we should continue to give that brilliant idea a try.

Cluck U wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:http://www.livescience.com/41186-us-des ... kpile.html


To combat elephant poaching, the United States is preparing to publicly pulverize its 6-ton stockpile of illicit ivory this week, which has likely left many wondering, why not just sell it instead?

Though ivory can fetch higher prices than gold, many conservationists argue that destroying confiscated trinkets, carvings and tusks rather than selling them sends a signal to buyers, traffickers and suppliers that ivory will no longer be tolerated as a legitimate commercial product.

Today the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) called on other governments to follow the United States' lead and crush or burn their ivory stockpiles, too.

Done.

You know, they've burned lot of confiscated ivory before, and heavily advertised the burnings.

Yup, burning illegal inventories has done so much to dissuade the drug market, the gun market, and the ivory market...and a whole host of other black markets. Yes, we should continue to give that brilliant idea a try.

Cluckie,
Other complaining about the allegedly failed process, what are you doing to reverse the trend?
Are you helping at all or, like your idol, Limbaugh, are you just fat, dumb and happy to vegetate and pontificate?

BTW, was watching Antiques Roadshow the other day and a woman brought in an ancient Chinese rhino horn carving.

$450,000.

Cap'n Cat wrote:BTW, was watching Antiques Roadshow the other day and a woman brought in an ancient Chinese rhino horn carving.

$450,000.

Maybe she didn't bother to read the news that wealthy folks are not supposed to pay for ivory.

In the end, it is just another example of rich racists causing black people to take all the risk by becoming bottom level dealers getting chased and shot at by the police while the rich white/Asian folks get to spend money on the fancier drugs...I mean, ivory.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Yup, burning illegal inventories has done so much to dissuade the drug market, the gun market, and the ivory market...and a whole host of other black markets. Yes, we should continue to give that brilliant idea a try.

Cluckie,
Other complaining about the allegedly failed process, what are you doing to reverse the trend?
Are you helping at all or, like your idol, Limbaugh, are you just fat, dumb and happy to vegetate and pontificate?

Well, I don't purchase drugs, haven't bought a gun (but have been given several) in a long time, and I only have a dozen or so smallish pieces of ivory...presumably OK because the ivory was harvested before TV made it a bad thing, so I don't believe I am contributing to any of those problems.

Haven't recently chained up any slaves, beaten up any homeless person, played the knock out game on any strangers, or popped a cap in anyone playing loud music. I'm a regular angel, except for the ass kicking I give houndpuppy, but even PETA would say I was doing everyone a favor.

Of course, you've been trying to bulk up for years so that you can draw fire away from near sighted poachers in an effort to save the elephants and rhinos, so I commend you for doing something you believe in. BTW, when is your flight to the Third World coming?

Cluck U wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Cluckie,
Other complaining about the allegedly failed process, what are you doing to reverse the trend?
Are you helping at all or, like your idol, Limbaugh, are you just fat, dumb and happy to vegetate and pontificate?

Well, I don't purchase drugs, haven't bought a gun (but have been given several) in a long time, and I only have a dozen or so smallish pieces of ivory...presumably OK because the ivory was harvested before TV made it a bad thing, so I don't believe I am contributing to any of those problems.

Haven't recently chained up any slaves, beaten up any homeless person, played the knock out game on any strangers, or popped a cap in anyone playing loud music. I'm a regular angel, except for the ass licking I give houndpuppy, but even PETA would say I was doing everyone a favor.

Of course, you've been trying to bulk up for years so that you can draw fire away from near sighted poachers in an effort to save the elephants and rhinos, so I commend you for doing something you believe in. BTW, when is your flight to the Third World coming?

And it felt good!

Houndawg = Pee Wee Herman

Cuck U = Pee Wee herman's pecker

cs.com = a triple X double feature

houndawg wrote: Houndawg = Pee Wee Herman

No one I have ever known has willingly compared himself to Pee Wee Herman.

Congrats!

Though ivory can fetch higher prices than gold, many conservationists argue that destroying confiscated trinkets, carvings and tusks rather than selling them sends a signal to buyers, traffickers and suppliers that ivory will no longer be tolerated as a legitimate commercial product.

That makes no sense at all. I mean really. Think about it.

All you're going to do is make it more valuable on the black market. Really. Can everyone not see that?

Besides, the British Royals weren't going to be selling what they have anyway. You're talking about artwork.

This is like the Taliban destroying the Budda statutes as some kind of statement. Only it's secular preservationism rather than Islam behind the madness.

SDHornet wrote:^ That is the thinking. Also the decision to destroy the existing ones had to do with the thought that it would encourage more pouching.

What could possibly be wrong with pouching?

biobengal wrote:

SDHornet wrote:^ That is the thinking. Also the decision to destroy the existing ones had to do with the thought that it would encourage more pouching.

What could possibly be wrong with pouching?

That one doesn't have a pouch, it has a sack

Why not destroy them?

Preserving them means that they have value. The best way to show that they have no value is to destroy them.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Though ivory can fetch higher prices than gold, many conservationists argue that destroying confiscated trinkets, carvings and tusks rather than selling them sends a signal to buyers, traffickers and suppliers that ivory will no longer be tolerated as a legitimate commercial product.

That makes no sense at all. I mean really. Think about it.

All you're going to do is make it more valuable on the black market. Really. Can everyone not see that?

Besides, the British Royals weren't going to be selling what they have anyway. You're talking about artwork.

This is like the Taliban destroying the Budda statutes as some kind of statement. Only it's secular preservationism rather than Islam behind the madness.

I think the idea is to lessen the demand. There is some logic to it, but it will take time. If you are against the trade of ivory I'm not sure what you gain by keeping ivory.

BlueHen86 wrote:Why not destroy them?

Preserving them means that they have value. The best way to show that they have no value is to destroy them.

They DO have value. They are historical artifacts.

This really DOES remind me of the Taliban in Afghanistan destroying the Buddah statues.

I can't believe members of Western Civilization are acting like this.

JohnStOnge wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:Why not destroy them?

Preserving them means that they have value. The best way to show that they have no value is to destroy them.

They DO have value. They are historical artifacts.

This really DOES remind me of the Taliban in Afghanistan destroying the Buddah statues.

I can't believe members of Western Civilization are acting like this.

How so? Poachers are harvesting ivory as I type. That doesn't make their harvest a historical artifact.

How so? Poachers are harvesting ivory as I type. That doesn't make their harvest a historical artifact.

No their harvest isn't a historical artifact (though, like it or not, something crafted from their illegal harvest may be reasonably viewed as such at some point in the future). But a lot of the things that are constructed or partially constructed from ivory in the British Royal Collection ARE historical artifacts. One of them was one of Queen Victoria's thrones. Destroying stuff like the artwork below won't save a single elephant. It's pointless. People who buy ivory right now don't care about that. The Brits destroying their collection will make zero difference in whether or not those people buy ivory.