killing butterflies for fun???

jh jhimmel at mindspring.com
Sat Jul 6 11:29:14 EDT 2002


This message and several others that were posted had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to
do with what I wrote - and this is what happens every time this topic
arises.  So many on both sides are so eager to score points that these posts
become conversations among deaf people.  Instead of reading and responding
to what was written, the respondants' back gets up as he or she reads a
perceived attack on their hobby/vocation and launches into a defensive
diatribe.

My whole focus was on the use of one particular argument - comparing
actively collecting to accidentally hitting leps with cars. I'm sorry, but
they cannot be compared.  We live in a society where we need to drive to get
to our jobs.  We don't live in a society where we need to collect
butterflies and moths.  There are those (and again, I'm not one of them - I
feel like I have to say this in order to keep this on topic) who are
bothered that some people collect butterflies and moths for a hobby.  They
are bothered that some people go out of their way to do so.  Asking those
people to give up driving is unrealistic.  [So is asking them to give up
eating meat - but I may be poking a hornet's nest with that one ;^) ]  

Whether or not anti collectors are hypocrites or collectors are killers is
an entirely different argument that I would not even entertain on this
listserve (or even off - it's tiring).  You will see this if you take the
time and read what I originally posted.  I went very much out of my way to
put my views in words that would attempt to avoid this turning into a
collector vs. non-collector debate.

I should have known better to have even skirted the corners of this issue...
I really should have - having been on this list for so many years.

John Himmelman    

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
John Himmelman
Killingworth, CT
jhimmel at mindspring.com
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

 Visit my websites at:
  www.johnhimmelman.com
  www.connecticutmoths.com
  www.ctamphibians.com 
____________________________   

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-leps-l at lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-leps-l at lists.yale.edu]On
Behalf Of Grkovich, Alex
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 9:14 AM
To: 'neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk'; leps-l at lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: killing butterflies for fun???


Listen, the argument being made here (by anti-collectors) is hypocritical.
And this is why: Unless the anti-collector happens to be a Saint and lives
on wild honey and water, he or she EATS ANIMALS AND/OR FISH MEAT AND PLANTS
(it has been demonstrated that gently stroking a plant encourages growth of
the plant; thus, the plant can sense when it's being torn up and destroyed;
anyway the plant is a living thing, right?). Also, we may assume that most
(if not all) anti-collectors kill flies and mosquitoes, apply pesticides to
the grass, many no doubt toss cigarette butts onto the street or out of
their cars, etc. etc. 

So, they are not righteous any more than I (a collector) am. So thus the
argument is a matter of hypocrisy. And one that I have also stopped paying
any attention to (with exception this post).

Also, Joseph Sugar exists and will come again (in the form of some other
name and argument). Maybe he and Betty are one.

Again, Neil, you always have something to say.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Neil Jones [SMTP:neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk]
> Sent:	Thursday, July 05, 2001 9:02 AM
> To:	leps-l at lists.yale.edu
> Subject:	Re: killing butterflies for fun???
> 
> On Thursday 04 July 
> 2002 12:16 am, Kenelm Philip wrote:
> > Two people have posted to the effect that killing butterflies while
> driving
> >
> > is irrelevant to arguments over collecting:
> > > But I would expect that none of them would argue in support of their
> > > pastime or vocation with that over-used car casualty scenario.
> > >
> > > The car casualty argument is actually a very very poor point.
> >
> > So _why_ is the car casualty argument so poor? In the state of Illinois,
> > an estimated 20 million butterflies are killed per _week_ along the road
> > system. Compared to that, the depredations of collectors are pretty
> minor
> > (provided they are not affecting endangered species).
> >
> > Note that in law, if you drive your car carelessly through a crowd and
> kill
> > 100 people, I think you will draw a longer prison term than if you
> deliber-
> > ately murder a single person. 100 shorter sentences add up fast...
> >
> 
> It really is quite simple. I don't agree with the argument but I
> understand 
> why it is put forward. It is a question of _volition_.  To extend your 
> analogy further a driver is driving a roadworthy vehicle down a street
> quite 
> slowly within the legal speed limit, suddenly a small child runs out from 
> behind a parked car just feet in front of him and is killed. In this case
> the 
> driver cannot be held to blame because he had no control over what
> happens.
> However driving carelessly though a crowd is something you _have_ control 
> over. The same is true for people who accidentally hit butterflies with
> the 
> car it is _accidental_. The objection that these people have is to the 
> _deliberate_ killing of butterflies.
> 
> When you use an argument what doesn't address the real issue it is seen as
> 
> being evasive.
> 
> 
> >
> >         From the _butterflies'_ point of view, drivers are far more of a
> > menace, and most of the people who object to collecting would probably
> > like to think that they are 'speaking for the butterflies'.
> 
> > Why is it OK to kill myriads of insects as we go about our lives, but
> > positively evil to pick out kill a single insect for one's curiosity
> > about the natural world? Curiosity about the natural world is how I go
> >about my life--so I fail to see the difference.
> >
> >                                                Ken Philip
> 
> Let me reiterate that I am not interested in banning colllecting. I do not
> 
> believe that it is morally wrong to kill insects. However, some people do.
> People do believe in odder things than that. There are people who believe 
> that native americans are decended from the lost tribes of israel!
> 
> I quote Andrew Lees for two reasons.
> 
> 1. He was an inspirational conservationist who helped conserve one of my 
> favourite wildlife sites in the UK and he died in Madagascar fighting to
> save 
> a tropical forest. Like me he worked to conserve _habitats_ and I like his
> 
> quotation because it fits what I do. 
>  
> 2. When I was asked for help in designing the memorial. I suggested using
> the 
> quote used in his obituary by the organisation for whom he worked.
> Naturally 
> being a butterfly conservationist I would wouldn't I. :-) Using the
> memorial 
> quote myself has therefore an element of irony that appeals to me.
> 
> Next time I go to Crymlyn Bog I will have to take some pictures of the 
> memorial and the bog itself to put on the web.
> 
> --
> Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
> "At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
> butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
> National Nature Reserve
> 
>  
>  ------------------------------------------------------------ 
> 
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> 
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl 
>  

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl 
 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 5916 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20020706/d6c03326/attachment.bin 


More information about the Leps-l mailing list