The Welsh Cruiser
-
Posts
666 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by The Welsh Cruiser
-
-
10 hours ago, MartynG said:
it would be best overall if cruel and unacceptable torture of fish also known as coarse fishing or angling was prohibited.
You don't mention the debris that the fishist leaves behind. Swan and other wildlife with part swallowed fishing line are sometimes seen. My daughters dog got caught up in fishing line not so long ago resulting in a hook disappearing under the dogs skin requiring an x ray and removal of the hook under anaesthetic by a vet.
.
I don't know what you like to do in your spare time. It's not my business. Providing that you don't harm someone else with what you do it will remain, not my business. I probably wouldn't understand why you enjoy doing what you like to do. That's no reason for me to try to prevent you from carrying this out. Just because I don't understand why you enjoy it, or take offence at my own interpretation of why you might enjoy it. This offence leading to language such as "torture".
Angling can be a pastime, a competitive sport, a social event or a hobby. Or it can be an obsession, the most important thing in someone's life. It can enable spending time in beautiful quiet places, with a purpose. An opportunity to contemplate. A lifetime of angling is insufficient to provide a full knowledge of the habits of fish. There is always a surprise around the corner. Other wild animals, too. It can provide those with mental health difficulties to broaden their perspectives and experience new things. It can enable disabled people, whose access to most sports/ pastimes is severely limited, to lead fuller lives.
If you really want to see "torture" you should concentrate on the commercial fishing industry. Millions of fish either crushed to death under the weight of the colleagues or starved of oxygen. It's very rarely quick. I once saw a conger eel, caught 2 days previously, still alive as it met the gutting knife. Perhaps you don't eat fish?
Those fishing for the pot usually kill what they catch with a swift blow to the head. The culture in Britain is to return coarse fish. Some are recognisable. Some carp for example. They are caught several times over their lifes. Sometimes many times. How great is this cruelty, compared to being crushed to death or effectively drowned?
Do we really want to ban this, deny the millions of people who gain pleasure from angling and sometimes, the meaning for their life? Do we wish to deny the benefits it can offer to those with mental and physical difficulties? For what, because those who don't understand why those who enjoy it do so, think it's cruel?
-
1
-
1
-
-
Technically: EA licence required along with the permission of the controlling body.
In practical terms: Very unlikely to ever meet an EA licence checker on a canal bank. Possible exception if you're on the end of a match. The controlling bodies, very very few exceptions, do not check that those fishing have permission. Even if they do, they can't fine you if you don't have permission (EA can, and will).
The practical solution: down to the individual. Personally I bought an EA licence and fished where I liked for 7 years without seeing either an EA bailiff, or one from the controlling club.
-
On 15/03/2022 at 08:25, Alan de Enfield said:
It seems strange that Brexit would be affecting the whole world from the USA to Australia & Asia. With pretty much every country experiencing inflationary prices and supply issues.
Do you think that the German inflation rate of 5.1% is because of Brexit ?
Is Germany tetering on the edge of a recession and being called 'the sick man of Europe' because of Brexit ?I was ridiculed last year when I questioned the U.S Federal Reserve and Bank of England's suggestions that signs of inflation were 'transitory'.
Doesn't look so ridiculous now eh.
-
I had stuck rings on a Vetus engine. Not because it hadn't been run. I remains a mystery why it happened. Anyway: I prepped the engine for removal then recommissioned it when the work had been done and it was dropped back in. New rings and head gasket, rocker gasket etc.. The yard charged £45 an hour. The bill came to just under £900 including parts. Vetus parts are very expensive. One set of rings was over 90 quid.
-
7 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:
So it is. I hadn't noticed, just caught it in the new posts list. That explains why racists are allowed to inhabit it and spout their drivel.
I appreciate the correction. As I don't fish, no longer cycle, and walk as little as possible, it's obviously no place for the likes of me. Anyway, the above contributor excepted, I don't like the company much.
Who are these racists you speak of?
-
8 minutes ago, Ianws said:
I dont like the term snowflake, it just seems an lazy put down of someone you dont agree with. The use of woke confuses me. It is used as a dismissive put down in a similar way but a definition includes being alert to injustice in society. I would hope that something we would all aspire to, regardless of any political persuasions
'Woke' describes someone who seeks to gain social credit by unblinking support of any so called progressive liberal initiative. Whether the initiative relates to the colour of someone's skin, their sexuality, where they live or anything else the woke person will automatically agree, without thought. They will support the notion and attempt to denigrate the character of anyone who doesn't agree, even if such a thing defies logic. The social credit comes about via what's known as virtue signaling, that's when the woke person 'speaks out' in support of the liberal notion.
-
4 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:
You will find that it is the 'woke' people that you object to that are most likely to be critical of Israel, since Israel repeatedly re-elect extreme right wing governments, those on the right of the political spectrum tend to be more supportive of their dire treatment of the Palestinians.
I know, left wing hatred of anything connected with Judaism goes back to the Russian revolution. It has nothing to do with the political persuasion of the leaders of Israel.
-
19 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:
Once again your usual attempts to trivialise racism (which invariably fails). Criticism of China has as much to do with racism as criticism of Israel has to do with anti-Semitism,(i.e. feck all). We are all free to offer whatever criticism we may wish of the actions of any Nations's Government, it is only when such as you decide that people of a given country all have the same characteristics (which is clearly a false narrative since every country has people with all manner of 'characteristics' from altruism to base criminality) that racism can be seen to raise it's ugly head.
If I criticise the military coup in Myanmar is that 'racist'? only in the mind of an idiot.
Anti Israel government/ anti Semitism has a dividing line barely thicker than a human hair, mainly down to woke folk who spend half of their lives looking for racism, when none exists.
-
16 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:
I expect an allegation of sexual assault against a high ranking politician in China has about as much chance of success as it would in the UK. Or, in fact, virtually any allegation of sexual assault or rape in the UK. I don't think nationality makes much difference.
Fair enough. I guess the difference is that those making such allegations in Britain don't get porked.
-
9 minutes ago, matty40s said:
I do have to say some of the footage coming out of China showing state sponsored intimidation, bullying and attacks on foreigners is quite sinister. It seems the country is suppressing not only opposition parties, but also any negative story home grown journalists, any foreign journalists, and now anyone speaking out abuse. The amount of state sponsored attack bots on social media now is incredible on Twitter, not needed on Weibo as that is sate run anyway.
Nothing negative can come out, there is no bad in China, but lots in the rest of the world.
I see that Peng Shuai has retracted her allegation of sexual assault by a senior Chinese official. Or perhaps more accurately, someone else has, on her apparent behalf. Still, we shouldn't say anything against China, that would be racist.
-
Just now, Jerra said:
No it isn't as you seem to think Brits are gratuitously violent. For that to be British culture it would have to be something that the majority of the nation indulged in. I suspect there are only a handful of percent of the population which do, ergo not our culture as it isn't something the majority do.
If casual violence is fairly common in one country but vanishingly rare/ totally unheard of in most others, wise man will put two and two together and conclude that this is not random chaos.
-
5 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:
I did not dismiss that notion, I rejected your over-generalised use of the term. You were not talking about cultures, you were talking about lazy stereotypes.
So, again, where did I say culture "doesn't exist"?
Does it exist, or not? It's a very simple question. If you refuse to answer we can only assume you believe that everyone, everywhere, behaves in exactly the same way. After all, you've put up an argument against several examples, each of which was based on significant personal experience.
-
53 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:
Where did I ever say culture doesn't exist?
Don't bother looking, I didn't, so why make this comment?
You really should brush up on your "fallacious argument" techniques. You have used most of them several times.
Dismissing the notion that different groups of people exhibit different tendencies of behaviour is dismissing the very notion of culture.
So, do you accept that culture exists (beyond buildings, dress, arts and food) or not?
-
1 minute ago, Machpoint005 said:
If a position is presented factually, rationally and logically it's easy for it to be persuasive. If it isn't presented in that way, why should anyone bother to consider it seriously?
That's OK, you're free to believe that culture doesn't exist. People are free to believe in Gods, that the world is flat, that there's no such thing as culture, we're all free to do this.
-
4 minutes ago, Jerra said:
It isn't to do with style of presentation it is to do with being rational, factual and logical. All things your side of the discussion aren't.
So you accept something if it's presented factually, rationally and logically but reject the same argument when it's made in a different way. That sounds neither rational nor logical but if you do that at least your rejection is factual.
-
2 minutes ago, tree monkey said:
Can you see the difference between what you post with the sly digs and the rational well argued post from Thomas
The substance is the same though. Surely you wouldn't be swayed into believing in two opposite things merely because of the style of presentation?
-
Just now, Thomas C King said:
We're more or less the same genetically. However, it's obviously not true to say there is no such thing as culture. Culture can be defined in terms of artefacts like food, tools, etc. I don't think that's what you're disuputing. But also those social ones, like norms, which I think you're disputing. Specifically whether someone can behave differently, because of norms and values from the culture handed down to them or the one they've adopted over time.
Norms over crossing roads independently of there being any legal requirement are an easy observation to make. More rigorous are things like the world values survey. If there were no such thing as cultural norms and values, we wouldn't see the clustering that we do see in those two cases.
I'm afraid that many people have been programmed into believing that any discussions around differing behavioural tendencies/ norms across different groups imply racism and therefore must be closed down. Humanity is much poorer for this, in my opinion. The irony is that many such people celebrate multiculturalism on one hand, then deny that culture exists on the other.
-
3 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:
For those interested, one of the most famous categorisations of culture are Geert Hofstede's. I knew his son, also called Gert Hofstede (ffs). The dimensions, widely criticised but nevertheless interesting, can be found here: https://geerthofstede.com/culture-geert-hofstede-gert-jan-hofstede/6d-model-of-national-culture/
Thanks for that. I've skim read it, it's nice to read a more scientific appraisal of differences I've noticed during my travels. I'm looking forward to my bedtime reading later.
-
2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:
I lived 25 years in Birkenhead or thereabouts. Burgled once. 15 years in Macclesfield, no crimes. I'm not sure you can extrapolate from any one person's experience, and anyone trying to define cultural differences needs to be very careful of their own views unconsciously affecting the data they include or ignore. That's why anecdotal evidence is unreliable, and why statistics lie. Even the available data is dodgy, because that which the authorities don't regard as important for their purposes is unrecorded.
So everyone is the same, cultural difference is limited to food, drink, clothes, the arts and buildings, right?
-
43 minutes ago, tree monkey said:
But to extrapolate your experience of violence to a countrywide conclusion is wrong, it's as valid as me saying I've not encountered any violence therfore the UK has no violence
I understand that but I was talking about crime in general, rather than casual violence. I'd guess the latter is higher in the cities too, but that's only a guess. My family have all suffered from crime in the area, as have many of my friends. I've only lived where I do for a year I've either seen nor heard of a crime of any description. I'm told the cluster of around 50 houses which have stood for 200 years, one of which I live in, have never suffered a break in. That would be totally out of the question around Manchester, thee would be one or two a year. Random chaos?
-
2 hours ago, john.k said:
Of course,if you put up "Cities" with the highest crime rate,then Manchester would be near the top......in any case ,to return to the submerged bicycles,tossing yer bike int' canal is not a crime but sport in those regions,and to score top points ,someone should be riding it .
I've spent most of my life living around Manchester. The crime total against me is 23. From random street beatings to car and motorbike theft, a total of 7 car windows smashed then radios stolen, house break ins and attempted break ins. I guess this is just random chaos, exactly the same could have happened in a sleepy Wiltshire village.
-
I'm not sure who might have suggested that Britain etc. had a high rate of crime. The scope of crime doesn't end at casual violence, we all know this.
-
8 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:
Dunno, 32,000 North Americans seem to engage in casual violence each year by shooting and killing one another, but I suppose that doesn't fit your narrative, does it?
I'd suggest that shooting someone tends not to be casual violence. Also that British people tend not to do this. A difference. Culture?
-
1 minute ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:
Since we seem to be into asking pointless questions I'll throw one in of my own, what percentage of the British population would you assess indulge in violence? just a ball park figure will do. I would suggest that less than 50% would mean that it isn't an 'national trait'. Since only 1.16 million offenders were convicted in the year to March 2020 for all offences (or about 1.7% of the population) I would suggest you are going to struggle to get over the bar to show that violence is a British 'national trait'.
OK if you're unhappy with the word trait let's try something else: British, Irish, Australian and New Zealanders are much more likely to engage in casual violence than those from other nations.
Gay community
in New to Boating?
Posted
I'm straight myself, despite having considered the possibility of being otherwise, twice in my life. I know there is more than one 'gay lifestyle' but the one I've experienced (from a slight distance) knocks the spots off the young free and single straight hetero lifestyle.
I felt slightly jealous on occasions.