|
pjb05
|
PJ the changes introduced in the GBR were not just no fishing zones and it is wrong to attribute the fallout entirely to the no fishing zones. They were designed purely from a conservation perspective. I'm pretty sure we have gone over all this before.
Well what other than the no fishing zones was causing the fallout? Why would the government hand out 300m if the GBRMP wasn't the cause of the fallout? By the way what an admission! You have just supported my point that marine parks in Australia are not designed or intended to enhance fisheries but as a conservation/ preservationist measure. Ie an anti-use philosophy to pander to green groups. It's no surprise that they have never been instigated by a fisheries department. If you look at the statements from various environment minsiters and the relevant acts of parliament you will find that marine parks are designed to 'preserve biodiversity' - not manage fisheries.
The anti-marine park lobby parade their sceptic hats when it comes to marine parks, but when it comes to other fisheries management tools they throw scepticism right out the window. For marine parks, they insist they are bad and accept nothing more than absolute proof of increased catches from each individual no-take zone before it is actually implemented. On the other hand, when it comes to killing the biggest, fastest growing specimens each year and keeping the runts and slowest growing fish for breeders, they insist it is actually a good idea until there is absolute proof, for each species, that it is a bad idea. It obviously has absolutely nothing at all to do with the facts. They maintain their position despite the facts. There are mountains of evidence in support of marine parks.
A nice demonstation of propaganda techniques here. You have ignored all of my recent arguments an put up some of you own which are purported to represent the 'anti' argument. You then proceed to knock down your own red herring or strawman arguments.
There are a few other propaganda techniques used as well, eg:
Oversimplification
Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems.
Black-and-White fallacy
Presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice. (e.g., "You are either with us, or you are with the enemy")
FD grossly oversimplifies the science surrounding marine parks and presents it as a black and white case of other methods involving 'killing the breeders' and 'keeping the runts'. A look at the 'Burdens of Proof' paper will show just how ludicrous this depiction is. These emotive phrases are also examples of:
Appeal to prejudice
Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.
FD also points to 'mountains of evidence' and 'consensus statements' supporting marine parks. Firstly there is no real consensus about marine parks and secondly science is not about consensus - it is about how well theories match and explain what is going on in nature. Such appeals by FD are examples of the following:
Bandwagon Bandwagon and "inevitable-victory" appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of action that "everyone else is taking."
Inevitable victory: invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already or at least partially on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is their best course of action.
Join the crowd: This technique reinforces people's natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their best interest to join.
The 'anti-marine park lobby' tag is another rhetorical device. Those critical of Australia's marine parks and proponents there of, are quite a diverse and often well credentialed group. FD lumps them all under one tag in an attempt to diminish them:
Labeling
A Euphemism is used when the propagandist attempts to increase the perceived quality, credibility, or creedence of a particular ideal. A Dysphemism is used when the intent of the propagandist is to discredit, diminish the perceived quality, or hurt the perceived righteousness of the Mark. By creating a 'label' or 'category' or 'faction' of a population, it is much easier to make an example of these larger bodies, because they can uplift or defame the Mark without actually incuring legal-defamation. Example: "Liberal" is a dysphamsim intended to diminish the perceived credibility of a particular Mark. By taking a displeasing argument presented by a Mark, the propagandist can quote that person, and then attack 'liberals' in an attempt to both (1) create a political battle-ax of unaccountable aggression and (2) diminish the quality of the Mark. If the propagandist uses the label on too-many perceivably credible individuals, muddying up the word can be done by broadcasting bad-examples of 'liberals' into the media. Labeling can be thought of as a sub-set of Guilt by association, another logical fallacy.
|
Forum
Pages: 
Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool (Read 120626 times)
