The Red Book and insects

Why take offense? On the fact that someone feels pleasure, desecrating the city in which they were born? There's something masochistic about it

Dear friends, I speak Russian (cat. rich, mighty...). "Mukhosransk" -for me (as for anyone, with rare exceptions, "normal" h – ka) - performs the function of an exemplifier (Saltykov-Shchedrin, Dostoevsky, Fyodor Sologub, etc. widely used exemplifiers - with even more biting names, what are they? also "insulted the city"?). Sergey Solovyov "legalized" this "term" (I, a sinner, did not "introduce" it anywhere) in his film "The Black Rose is an emblem of sadness, the red Rose is an emblem of love". Finally, flies (literally) – diptera-are more interesting to me than other insects (don't you believe it? see about diptera in the "Classification..." of this site). If the classics of Russian literature are not "friends" for you, if you don't watch movies, then you can perceive "Muhosransk" as the reservation of a person who is passionate about flies. What's here from Sacher (I'll explain - that was the writer's name; otherwise, it will start again...), kill me, I don't understand?
However, if you are flattered by the role of a censor, I am ready to exclude this term from my operational lexicon to please you (I assure you, it will not become poorer).

DO NOT TAKE CC SERIOUSLY IN RELATION TO INSECTS!

Dear evk, as for the truly scientific aspect, you are 100% right about QC! And who on this occasion here does not agree with this idea of yours?
Moreover, despite the fact that I insisted and will continue to insist that the CC is essentially an official legal document, it absolutely does not work with respect to the protection of insects included in it, and it cannot work. The question is different. Non-working," dead " regulatory acts in the Russian Federation are a dime a dozen. That's just, as they say, and an unloaded gun once a year (well, maybe less often ) it shoots. And it is very possible to imagine that in relation to a single person, the CC may sooner or later work at the absurd level of "fine for catching Papilio machaon". In this sense, it is impossible to treat CC without a proper measure of seriousness. And the people who make it up should also remember this.

Although, as a result, I was once again convinced that there is no point in the CC (both regional and Federal) for scoops, moths (I'm not talking about more complex groups) No! Yes, in principle, they are useless FOR THE REAL PROTECTION OF INSECT SPECIES!
You can use the CC in order to try (it is unlikely to work) to defend a certain plot of land from developers (etc.), you can earn a little money or just practice at government expense ... I repeat - DO NOT TAKE CC SERIOUSLY IN RELATION TO INSECTS!

And in relation to whom, if not to insects, can the inhabitants of this forum consider defending a plot of land? Are CC's basically useless? Time will show. In my opinion, if they are useless now – we should strive to ensure that they are not useless. If you do not demand protection in a stupid anti-scientific sense, if you do not demand too much from the CC, then no "complexity" of the group will prevent the specialist from entering the offices and protesting against the destruction of the biotope, but protested with reference not to the opinions of bespectacled colleagues, who for an official will never be more important than the wishes of the moneybags, but to instructions of the CC, the meaning of which as a legal document is more or less understood by officials. Another thing is that you can spit on any CC, but we spit on everything except money, and if we proceed from this, then what is the conversation about? Then the laws could be fucked up. And to achieve results with reference to the QC, all other things being equal, is still smarter. Just" green " entomological sense should not be engaged (the word is omitted) in relation to insects, not to monitor the butterfly market, but to protect biotopes, and here for them the QC is a good legal aid. There would be a desire. Here, colleagues, even those who have long agreed with the absurdity of legal protection of individual insect individuals, unconsciously slip to the protection of "species" in its old sense, and by inertia they actually make demands on the CC for the protection of individuals; in this case, of course, with the CC for "complex" groups, what is the use, if the rural precinct and up to the level of the squad doesn't always get to the bottom of it. And if we finally remember that we have understood the issue of protecting individuals, then the chain leads not from the CC article directly to the cop who caught the entomologist reading it, but from the CC article to the scientist who wants to protect the biotope of a certain protected species (and distinguishes species), but from the scientist to the official to whom the scientist, taking a horde of "greens" with him for representativeness, he will poke this CC in the nose. In this aspect, if CC is useless, it is only because of the passivity of interested parties, and not "in principle". Moreover, there is nothing legally to replace it with.

  
Non-working," dead " regulatory acts in the Russian Federation are a dime a dozen. That's just, as they say, and an unloaded gun once a year (well, maybe less often ) it shoots. And it is very possible to imagine that in relation to a single person, the CC may sooner or later work at the absurd level of "fine for catching Papilio machaon". In this sense, it is impossible to treat CC without a proper measure of seriousness. And the people who make it up should also remember this.

Do you seriously suggest that people who draft bylaws should be aware of what might happen as a result? After all, you CAN'T INCLUDE in the regional tax Code a species THAT is ALREADY INCLUDED in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (if it exists on the territory of the region) NIZYA! Yes, you can lower the status, but still ... For example, we have the most banal beauty smelling in the CC of the Russian Federation, mass mnemosyne-in the same place. And most importantly, the procedure for compliance with this legislation is determined WITHOUT specialists, the size, procedure and necessity of collecting fines-WITHOUT specialists.
But there are regions where a rhinoceros beetle, an icarus pigeon, a peacock's eye (daytime), etc. are in the CC! Poor, insect-interested kids. Here's how to start collecting collections that we all started with when we were kids ... One thing saves - the way the laws are observed in our country ...

Dear friends, I speak Russian (cat. rich, mighty...). "Mukhosransk" -for me (as for anyone, with rare exceptions, "normal" h – ka) - performs the function of an exemplifier (Saltykov-Shchedrin, Dostoevsky, Fyodor Sologub, etc. widely used exemplifiers - with even more biting names, what are they? also "insulted the city"?). Sergey Solovyov "legalized" this "term" (I, a sinner, did not "introduce" it anywhere) in his film "The Black Rose is an emblem of sadness, the red Rose is an emblem of love". Finally, flies (literally) – diptera-are more interesting to me than other insects (don't you believe it? see about diptera in the "Classification..." of this site). If the classics of Russian literature are not "friends" for you, if you don't watch movies, then you can perceive "Muhosransk" as the reservation of a person who is passionate about flies. What's here from Sacher (I'll explain - that was the writer's name; otherwise, it will start again...), kill me, I don't understand?
However, if you are flattered by the role of a censor, I am ready to exclude this term from my operational lexicon to please you (I assure you, it will not become poorer).

God help you, what other censor? To do this, we have a moderator , and he has the cards in his hands! I was just responding to your wife's suggestion that I was offended. That's all.
As for the exemplifier, it all depends on the context in which the word is used. In my understanding, an exemplifier is a specific concept or proper name used as an example (exemplification) to denote an unknown place or person. If you say, for example, " ...in some Fly...", regardless of a specific locality, meaning an indefinite town in the middle of nowhere - this is certainly an exemplifier. But if this word sounds in combination "...in your Fly...", " ...in my Fly...", i.e. when it means a specific city, its meaning will be completely different.
However, everyone is free to choose for themselves what verbal expressions are acceptable for them, where and when. If necessary, everyone will be judged by Bolivar.

Do you seriously suggest that people who draft bylaws should be aware of what might happen as a result? After all, you CAN'T INCLUDE in the regional tax Code a species THAT is ALREADY INCLUDED in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (if it exists on the territory of the region) NIZYA! Yes, you can lower the status, but still ... For example, we have the most banal beauty smelling in the CC of the Russian Federation, mass mnemosyne-in the same place. And most importantly, the procedure for compliance with this legislation is determined WITHOUT specialists, the size, procedure and necessity of collecting fines-WITHOUT specialists.
But there are regions where a rhinoceros beetle, an icarus pigeon, a peacock's eye (daytime), etc. are in the CC! Poor, insect-interested kids. Here's how to start collecting collections that we all started with when we were kids ... One thing saves - the way the laws are observed in our country ...

I will only add (the forum has repeatedly mentioned this) that the article in the CC is not legally a basis for a fine for collecting. At least, a different interpretation of it would be an official abuse of the Red Book, and it would be necessary to fight not with the CC, but with this abuse. After all, in the CC itself, the specific article (the new CC is an example of this, despite the relapses associated almost exclusively with one surname) does not have to provide for a "ban on trapping by non-specialists". But in the war for the protection of biotopes, even an imperfect CC is the only legal basis. Therefore, the task is twofold: to make CC smarter and to make them more actively used and really work in their smarter version, i.e., to exclude the possibility of using their articles to harass entomologists, but all the more actively used to protect biotopes.

 
.. the chain leads not from the CC article directly to the cop reading it who caught the entomologist, but from the CC article to the scientist who wants to protect the biotope of a certain protected species (and distinguishes species), and from the scientist to the official to whom the scientist, taking a horde of "greens" with him for representativeness, will poke this CC in the nose. In this aspect, if CC is useless, it is only because of the passivity of interested parties, and not "in principle". Moreover, there is nothing legally to replace it with.

Yes, I agree with you completely - we are talking about one thing, but we should not talk about the "greens"... And in everything and always easier to report the number of fined collectors, than to prohibit the construction of a rare landscape. The trouble is that the CC create the appearance of protection and no more. I do not dispute that, alas, there is no other way, so there is definitely a certain benefit (I wrote the same thing) if there are people interested in extracting it (specialists, citizens); But do not forget that in Russia as a whole (NOW) the situation with the destruction of landscapes (habitats, biotopes) is not so bad it is disastrous as in the near Moscow region and it is not necessary to write deliberate nonsense in the CC in the Volga region, Siberia or the Urals. But it turns out that we write one thing, think about another. But in general, the regional CC's discredited themselves beyond measure. Had the pleasure of reviewing several ... In spite of... they were released in their original form.

I will only add (the forum has repeatedly mentioned this) that the article in the CC is not legally a basis for a fine for collecting. At least, a different interpretation of it would be an official abuse of the Red Book, and it would be necessary to fight not with the CC, but with this abuse. After all, in the CC itself, the specific article (the new CC is an example of this, despite the relapses associated almost exclusively with one surname) does not have to provide for a "ban on trapping by non-specialists". But in the war for the protection of biotopes, even an imperfect CC is the only legal basis. Therefore, the task is twofold: to make CC smarter and to make them more actively used and really work in their smarter version, i.e., to exclude the possibility of using their articles to harass entomologists, but all the more actively used to protect biotopes.

HERE under THESE WORDS I will subscribe with pleasure!!!

Do you seriously suggest that people who draft bylaws should be aware of what might happen as a result? After all, you CAN'T INCLUDE in the regional tax Code a species THAT is ALREADY INCLUDED in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (if it exists on the territory of the region) NIZYA! Yes, you can lower the status, but still ... For example, we have the most banal beauty smelling in the CC of the Russian Federation, mass mnemosyne-in the same place. And most importantly, the procedure for compliance with this legislation is determined WITHOUT specialists, the size, procedure and necessity of collecting fines-WITHOUT specialists.
But there are regions where a rhinoceros beetle, an icarus pigeon, a peacock's eye (daytime), etc. are in the CC! Poor, insect-interested kids. Here's how to start collecting collections that we all started with when we were kids ... One thing saves - the way the laws are observed in our country ...

What's so surprising about that? It seems that this is not the case when "we are not given to predict how our word will respond." After all, both the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation have articles providing for liability for the destruction of organisms included in the Red Book. A specialist starting to write a CC should first familiarize himself with the regulations on this document, with the laws in relation to which the CC will be a bylaw, with the articles of the same Criminal Code and Administrative Code referring to the CC. But how else?
And in general, a person who does something should always think about what might happen as a result. This is my opinion.
However, I would like to emphasize once again that I personally do not know of any cases when someone was brought to administrative, and even more so, criminal responsibility, for the destruction of cranobook insects. There are several reasons for this (by the way, one of them is in the field of psychology - for our "administrators" beetles are beetles, even if they are in the CC, this is not serious for them). But this is theoretically possible, and there is a regulatory framework for this.

Ehhh... It's a pity my fingers don't hit the keyboard anymore...

Ehhh... It's a pity my fingers don't hit the keyboard anymore...  

And sleep!

I will only add (the forum has repeatedly mentioned this) that the article in the CC is not legally a basis for a fine for collecting. At least, a different interpretation of it would be an official abuse of the Red Book, and it would be necessary to fight not with the CC, but with this abuse. After all, in the CC itself, the specific article (the new CC is an example of this, despite the relapses associated almost exclusively with one surname) does not have to provide for a "ban on trapping by non-specialists".

HERE under THESE WORDS I will subscribe with pleasure!!!

Not exactly. The mechanism of occurrence of legal liability is modeled in such a way that an article in the Criminal Code can become the basis for bringing a person to responsibility under a specific article of the law. An example? You are welcome.
According to Article 8.35 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, the destruction of rare and endangered species of animals or plants listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation,... or the extraction, collection, maintenance, purchase, sale or transfer of these animals or plants, their products, parts or derivatives without proper permission or in violation of the conditions provided for by the permit or in violation of any other established procedure-entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of one thousand five hundred to two thousand five hundred rubles, with or without confiscation of tools for extracting animals or plants, as well as the animals or plants themselves, their products, parts or derivatives. So much for swallowtails, podaliris and their ilk!
This applies to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. There are also examples for regional CC, see the link:
http://www.nashgorod.ru/news/news20760.html
So, by itself, the inclusion of a particular species in the CC already means that a person who extracts and collects copies of this species will be subject to a specific provision of the law referring to the CC.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 18.10.2009 21: 41

CC article

Please specify "article" in what sense?

So, by itself, the inclusion of a particular species in the CC already means that a person who extracts and collects copies of this species will be subject to a specific provision of the law referring to the CC.

Yes, I do not argue! Only this is a concussion of the air! And easier-flood, though on a narrow topic, started. Well, hers is empty. In Russia, there were two troubles before, and now ... Here's another CC
Well, what do you want-to include REALLY rare species in the CC? So what? Should and will they be fined for their capture? The point is not in the CC, but in the LEGISLATION (which you correctly cited in the previous post) and which is the same as for hunting elk, what for catching a rhinoceros beetle or an Icarus pigeon included in the CC of the Astrakhan region, which clearly spelled out almost the ONLY protection measure for all types of insects - a ban on catching! Well, there is no protection from a FOOL!

Please specify "article" in what sense?

Article - in the sense of a short story dedicated to a specific type. Maintaining the Red Book provides for periodic changes (including additions) to the list of species included in it, and, consequently, writing new articles on these species.

  
Well, what do you want-to include REALLY rare species in the CC? So what? Should and will they be fined for their capture? The point is not in the CC, but in the LEGISLATION (which you correctly cited in the previous post) and which is the same as for hunting elk, what for catching a rhinoceros beetle or an Icarus pigeon included in the CC of the Astrakhan region, which clearly spelled out almost the ONLY protection measure for all types of insects - a ban on catching! Well, there is no protection from the FOOL!

Oh, come on! I am just against the fact that there is even a theoretical possibility of bringing to justice a collector who is detained "at the scene of an offense" with a net in his hands! And to do this, you need to change the very principle of building the CC section dedicated to insects. However, many people have already expressed everything about this (the need for priority protection of biotopes, and not the fight against "unauthorized trapping"), including you. Unfortunately, this problem cannot be solved at the regional level. Still, we have to focus on federal legislation, and that's what we would like to change. But, but, but...

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 18.10.2009 22: 06

My colleague Dmitrich is right. Of course, when talking about official abuse of CC articles, I did not make an exception for abuse on the part of the legislator. But this abuse should also be dealt with as far as possible. Therefore, as" escorts " of specialized Committees of the State Duma and similar offices, specialists should think with their heads no less than when writing the CC. The CC itself, of course, cannot guarantee the absence of illiterate use of its articles by the legislator. So there is a certain Gordian knot of the CC and the law, which is impossible to deal with in parts. And the CC should get rid of paranoia, and the legislator should not concoct articles about punishing the collection of herbs entered in the CC or at least in the quack herbalist... However, if there were actually laws in force here, an illiterate legislator might sometimes choke on his own product. After all, an illogical law is powerless by definition. Judge for yourself: Article 8.35 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation refers to the destruction of animals or plants. But how exactly should annihilation be understood in order for entomological collection to be considered annihilation? Mortification – I would understand. But also who exactly killed the specimen I found, no one will establish today, here you need to graze with witnesses directly in the field of the unfortunate entomologist and shoot the bug's brain biotopes before and after the "collection" (articles 8.29 and 8.30, for example, are more quickly compiled, they speak not only about destruction; thank God that they are not dedicated to individuals). Destroy riders, birds, bats, spiders, leatherworms. We, on the contrary, perpetuate it.

Further, the article uses the disjunctive "or "when choosing between animals and plants and in other contexts, but not in relation to the characteristic of the animal (plant) itself, where the conjunctive"and" is used. This means that the article, strictly speaking, concerns destruction (not collection!) not either rare, threatened, or included in the CC of animals (plants), but only those that have all three characteristics – that is, they are both rare, endangered, and included in the CC. However, the CC provides for the categorization of protected objects. So, in the CC of the Ministry of Defense, out of the available six (from 0 to 5) categories, only 1 (endangered species) and 3 (rare) are associated with this article of the Administrative Code. On the contrary, types of the other four categories (if the law is observed) are not protected by the letter of the Administrative Code article. And those that belong to categories 1 and 3 are also not protected, because the article of the Administrative Code protects only those that are both rare and threatened, and not rare along with the threatened ones. And immediately in the 1st and 3rd categories, no species is included in the CC! So we already have something to cling to today, but whose legal awareness in the Russian Federation will overcome such difficulties?

Therefore, I consider the price of preserving insects in the CC (without which there will be no legal basis for protecting the biotopes of insect species) to be the introduction into the law of an unambiguous reservation that it is a question of" destroying", etc., only those species included in the CC that the CC itself requires to be protected at the level of individual individuals. And there to treat the CC in its entomological part from the baiting of the "collection". We need specialists to carry out a slow but steady offensive in this direction. CC is getting smarter, but you don't need to stop there, it may turn out to be a temporary success, you need to form the opinion of the entire entomological community, this is not for one year, you can shit quickly, but you need to clean for a long time; and what complaints can there be today to the legislator, even if other experts are still fixated on " uncontrolled collection". The legislator in these matters and at one time did not harm from nothing to do, but only reproduced those green prejudices that were imposed on him by the most emotional specialists and which are quite adequately described in the subtitle of the topic.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 19.10.2009 04: 41

A. J. Elez, bravo! An excellent analysis of the current legislation and a sensible proposal on the merits, a little refinement - and the legislative initiative will easily pull!

In my understanding, an exemplifier is a specific concept or proper name used as an example (exemplification) to denote an unknown place or person.

I did not ask you, dear Dmitrich, what an "exemplifier" is (so you will rewrite the entire dictionary, as "comments" on the words I used ; for whom do you try so hard? here-on the forum-people are all literate ; well, you know the meaning of this word, - honor to you and praise, "why break chairs"?). I was asking (sorry, not very specific, probably) about what Sacher, who by the name of Masoch, has to do with it
The only positive conclusion, unfortunately. I came by reading your, dear Dmitrich, messages, is of a practical nature. Now I will ask every law student on the exam: "Is the Red Book an official and legal document?" And in case of an affirmative answer, I will put " no."by submitting it for retake. Of course, explaining at the same time: "If the Book (Red, Green, White ect.) in some part is not" O. dok-m", then it is not such in general". A book in the modern sense of the word (I am not talking about incunabula) often has a preface, illustrative material, comments, notes, etc., but it always has a title page and a colophon (look in the dictionary, it is now at your fingertips, judging by the "exemplifier"). So, this very "colophon" (output data, to put it simply) is not an "official document" (the preface to the CC, and the so-called maps with so-called areas, etc., are equally not an "official document"). If some part is not, then and the whole – is not (as stated above). Some part of the book may contain an "official" document (as in our case with the CC containing the notorious list-list), but this does not give the status of an "official document" to the entire book (Red or otherwise). This, in fact, was the beginning of the" polemic " (if it can be called such).
Please, in advance, do not be angry, even if, och. I want to, because! If Jupiter is angry, then Jupiter is wrong. I mean those evaluative invectives, cat. they are contained in your posts addressed to me: "you should not talk about what you don't understand much"; "you must first have an idea of the subject, learn the terminology"; "how is everything running at you"; "militant amateurism"; " you can't help anyone in understanding the question on the correlation of concepts"; "you don't understand anything"; "you are trying to prove the unprovable with fervor"; "your inherent but inappropriate sarcasm"; "to assert after you"...> as stupid as assuring that<...>"; "Your statements on the forum are often not just sarcastic <...> They border on rudeness"; "masochism" and a number of others. The transition to "personalities", I note, is evidence of the lack of arguments; tsum baishpil, - if you are disgusted with Latin, - I tell him- "You are wrong", and he responds to me: "And you're wearing glasses (option: bald). Actually, so (as the absence of arguments) I perceived all this, thus not allowing myself to go beyond tact and answer in the style of a "bazaar" dialogue: "I am like this, I hear from this person. "
I, on the other hand, will also not (get angry), and instead, I will go and distract myself (get busy) with something. Well, for example, I'll go and straighten (after soaking) a couple of copies. (not a "century" for them to lie on mattresses) belonging to the species listed in this very CC, and then I will put them in the "Classification" (did I make a mistake, they say, is it really those species from that very CC?), This is a good way, believe me, to find peace of mind comfort; I recommend it. In the context of this topic – the very thing!

Here (and not only in this thread), it has often been said (and probably rightly) that you should not talk about what you don't know much about. In particular, Ireasonablytold that I was "not Copenhagen" in nondescript scoops .

Mind you, I'm talking primarily about myself.

previously, it made sense to at least look in the lexicon (dictionary) of some kind (I have no medicines, they are in the pharmacy).   If you really can't handle using the dictionary, I'll help you.  
Everyone can "competently declare", the trouble is that the level of" competence " in different cases is often significantly different. Well, as in our case, when it is clearly directed to zero.
If you, dear Dmitrich, do not understand the meaningful difference between the words "official" and "legal", then, alas, I can't help you in any way. So what is the level of "competent assurance"?

  
If this is your personal "contribution" to science, then there will be no award 

Here are all these quotes that I had to answer, called by you: "... thus, not allowing yourself to go beyond tact "

I did not ask you, dear Dmitrich, what an "exemplifier" is (so you will rewrite the entire dictionary, as "comments" on the words I used ; for whom do you try so hard? here-on the forum-people are all literate ; well, you know the meaning of this word, - honor to you and praise, "why break chairs"?). I was asking (sorry, not very specific, probably) about what Sacher, who by the name of Masoch, has to do with it
The only positive conclusion, unfortunately. I came by reading your, dear Dmitrich, messages, is of a practical nature. Now I will ask every law student on the exam: "Is the Red Book an official and legal document?" And in case of an affirmative answer, I will put " no."by submitting it for retake. Of course, explaining at the same time: "If the Book (Red, Green, White ect.) in some part is not" O. dok-m", then it is not such in general". A book in the modern sense of the word (I am not talking about incunabula) often has a preface, illustrative material, comments, notes, etc., but it always has a title page and a colophon (look in the dictionary, it is now at your fingertips, judging by the "exemplifier"). So, this very "colophon" (output data, to put it simply) is not an "official document" (the preface to the CC, and the so-called maps with so-called areas, etc., are equally not an "official document"). If some part is not, then and the whole – is not (as stated above). Some part of the book may contain an "official" document (as in our case with the CC containing the notorious list-list), but this does not give the status of an "official document" to the entire book (Red or otherwise). This, in fact, was the beginning of the" polemic " (if it can be called such).
Please, in advance, do not be angry, even if, och. I want to, because! If Jupiter is angry, then Jupiter is wrong. I mean those evaluative invectives, cat. they are contained in your posts addressed to me: "you should not talk about what you don't understand much"; "you must first have an idea of the subject, learn the terminology"; "how is everything running at you"; "militant amateurism"; " you can't help anyone in understanding the question on the correlation of concepts"; "you don't understand anything"; "you are trying to prove the unprovable with fervor"; "your inherent but inappropriate sarcasm"; "to assert after you"...> as stupid as assuring that<...>"; "Your statements on the forum are often not just sarcastic <...> They border on rudeness"; "masochism" and a number of others. The transition to "personalities", I note, is evidence of the lack of arguments; tsum baishpil, - if you are disgusted with Latin, - I tell him- "You are wrong", and he responds to me: "And you're wearing glasses (option: bald). Actually, so (as the absence of arguments) I perceived all this, thus not allowing myself to go beyond tact and answer in the style of a "bazaar" dialogue: "I am like this, I hear from this person. "
I, on the other hand, will also not (get angry), and instead, I will go and distract myself (get busy) with something. Well, for example, I'll go and straighten (after soaking) a couple of copies. (not a "century" for them to lie on mattresses) belonging to the species listed in this very CC, and then I will put them in the "Classification" (did I make a mistake, they say, is it really those species from that very CC?), This is a good way, believe me, to find peace of mind comfort; I recommend it. In the context of this topic-the very thing!

Yes, how accurately is the subtitle of this topic chosen - " what are the origins of this nonsense?"
Justus, no matter how much you want me to get angry, offended, etc., you will not be able to achieve this in the way you have chosen. Your latest reasoning only made me laugh, if you'll excuse my bluntness. However, it's not a very good laugh: poor students!
Your last post is a flood in the cube. I'm not going to participate in this. I sincerely wish you to find peace of mind.

Now I will ask every law student on the exam: "Is the Red Book an official and legal document?" And in case of an affirmative answer, I will put him " no.", sending him to retake. Of course, explaining at the same time: "If the Book (Red, Green, White ect.) in some part is not" O. dok-m", then it is not such in general". A book in the modern sense of the word (I am not talking about incunabula) often has a preface, illustrative material, comments, notes, etc., but it always has a title page and a colophon (look in the dictionary, it is now at your fingertips, judging by the "exemplifier"). So, this very "colophon" (output data, to put it simply) is not an "official document" (the preface to the CC, and the so-called maps with so-called areas, etc., are equally not an "official document"). If some part is not, then and the whole – is not (as stated above). Some part of the book may contain an "official" document (as in our case with the CC, which contains the notorious list-list), but this does not give the status of an "official document" to the entire book(Red or otherwise).

Where does this correlation of part and whole come from? Is it possible that if the legs, arms, and skull are not thinking beings, then man as a whole cannot be considered a thinking being? "War and Peace" is a novel, but any single phrase from it is not a novel, but only a part of it. Can War and Peace now be considered only a phrase, a part of a novel, if none of the phrases included in it is a complete novel? The dialectic of whole and part knows the concept of an emergent property (an emergent function). This is the name of a property that is absent from any part of the whole, but belongs only to the whole itself. (I will say in parentheses that the concept of an emergent property applies to both the whole-part relationship and the system – element relationship.) None of the molecules of our body is a living object, and the body itself is a living object, life is an emergent property for it.
Otherwise, there are no official documents, legal documents, or even novels in the world, since they are made up of letters, and each letter individually is neither a novel nor an official document... After all, are you, as a complete human individual, the author of your messages, if not only is not each of your organs the author of your messages, but even none of them individually is the author?
As for the fact that the CC includes both output data and illustrations, etc., I believe that the law refers to a book as an officially established legal text document, and not a book as a printed product, which also has no legal meaning (and has not been officially approved) printing ink, paper, fabric, illustrations, and even a leaflet with the output data of this particular publication... All these little things may change from edition to edition, as well as the color of the binding of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but you can safely consider official editions of the Criminal Code official. Say that you have read the entire book "War and Peace",without omissions, you can with a clear conscience, even if you have not read the output data in the tail and the preface of some head of the administration at the beginning... Yes, even if you read it in a high-quality electronic version... The fact that the list was originally approved does not change the fact that the article of the Administrative Code refers to the CC as such, although the illustrative material in the CC is not important for its legal use. However, if the illustrated edition is marked "Official edition", then the sergeant is quite entitled to be guided by the pictures in the book to distinguish a swallowtail from a non-swallowtail...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 19.10.2009 15: 14

Where does this correlation of part and whole come from?

Dear A. Y.! Do not step on the rake that I have already received on the forehead , do not give in to provocations. The flood is already more than enough. In the end, the status of the Red List is clear to the vast majority of participants in the discussion. Well, one of the participants does not want to see the obvious, he likes to practice sophistry - and God be with him!

It is a great honor for me to get a rake on lobeshnik after T. Dmitrich. But seriously, I agree one hundred percent, but I wrote not in a personal account to my colleague Justus, but directly to the branch, therefore-not to convince only one opponent, but to be read by everyone interested in the topic. In addition to the participant to whom you answer, there are others who have not yet been disgraced by the flood, you need to think about them. If a statement that I believe is incorrect has come to light and remains unanswerable (no matter who or how it is expressed), there is a danger that at least one of my colleagues will take it seriously (and also misunderstand our silence); this danger is all the greater because we are discussing the issue here where every ally is dear and every misguided person is potentially dangerous for the common cause. So it is better if there is a counterargument, bring it to the attention of the participants, and then let everyone think for themselves. You can see that I try to pick out the grain that deserves an objection in the material, and to avoid the emotional (provocative, non – business, etc.) component, without which there are no forums. Let's hit the rake with a massive offensive! Compatible with the ability not to succumb to provocations is not the ability to remain silent, but the ability to calmly argue on specific points, ignoring other people's lyrical digressions (and for the profanity, in which case, there is someone to follow)!

Otherwise, all the branches would go deaf, only tripping over someone's shocking fludtsa and with the victorious phrase of the ignoramus " Uh, but you're angry, so you're wrong..." Who and when established that the one who is right, should only get a kick out of pleasure when he is flooded with nonsense?.. The main thing is for us to keep the appropriate level of discussion, but only while the opponent still expresses some provisions on the case amid the flood and emotions. You see, and the opponents will become more cold-blooded. One should not argue with a person, but with the stated position, and its content does not change from the fact that its author is the same one who simply made a rude remark in the next phrase... At the same time, our patience should not be rubbery, and if the opponent does not add new things, but only doldonit already refuted, only louder and more cheeky, and the rest of the audience is clearly in order, it will be quite possible to smoke... So I, following your advice, will try not to abuse my own patience too much...

Is it possible that if the legs, arms, and skull are not thinking beings, then man as a whole cannot be considered a thinking being? "War and Peace" is a novel, but any single phrase from it is not a novel, but only a part of it.

This is already - "philosophy", probably, begins? The
quotation marks in the word philosophy mean that philosophy, without quotation marks, has logic as its "toolkit" (from the time of Aristotle). I tried to make out syllogisms behind your words , but I couldn't .
Your very assumption "if the legs, arms, and skull are not thinking beings" (is it really possible for someone in a sober state to say the opposite? does it make any actual sense (if the opposite is not possible)? But even if it does (for you), what does "man" as a "thinking being"have to do with it? This series of "hands, feet, skull" is incorrect in this context. If a person as a "thinking being" is deprived (this even in thought seems cynical, well, yes, your example...) of not only "hands", but also "legs", he will not cease to be a "thinking being", but if he is deprived of a "skull", then a " thinking being"it will stop being there . And in your statement "hands, feet, skull" - separated by commas… I don't think you've only read War and Peace. And the "Headless Horseman" (if you really want to turn to hood in a conversation about QC). literature) or " Head of Prof. Dowell" read?
Or did you mean the ditty " hands, feet," etc.?
I thought, I thought, I thought.
And when I thought about it, what was I "thinking"about?
I'd rather not "think," I thought.
Do I understand you correctly?"
With "War and peace", by the way, your " for example "is even more mysterious in meaning than the example with" legs", which are not"thinking beings".
I, dear A. Y. Elez, tried to talk about KK (and this is "flood", in your assessment), and you-about "hands, feet", and "War and Peace"...
This is already – "philosophy" begins, for sure. Then I wisely keep silent... Unfortunately, there are no such words in my operational vocabulary that kotbegemot used in his 114 post.

But now it's a different matter, Comrade. Dmitrich! Thanks to the skull of Justus for allowing me to leave for a smoke break with a clear conscience (and other colophons) even earlier than I might have expected with his twice-repeated and flowery "prudent silence". I'll just unhook the rake...

But now it's a different matter, Comrade. Dmitrich! Thanks to the skull of Justus for allowing me to leave for a smoke break with a clear conscience (and other colophons) even earlier than I might have expected with his twice-repeated and flowery "prudent silence". I'll just unhook the rake...

Quod erat demostradum

I was looking for an image of Pseudophaenops tauricus on the Web, and I came across
Pseudophaenops jacobsoni-in the lists of Red Book insects
of Ukraine.

http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=z0627-09

So, it's informative...

I was looking for an image of Pseudophaenops tauricus on the Web, and I came across
Pseudophaenops jacobsoni-in the lists of Red Book insects
of Ukraine.

http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=z0627-09

So, it's informative...

Well, there is also Eurythyrea aurata. Also informative.

Another source of "this nonsense", it seems to me , is that in the methodology for compiling" scientific " lists of CC-g, a fair part is made up of the philistine division of species into "harmful" (as an option – "nasty", "disgusting") and "useful" (as an option - "not harmful"). I mean that in special works it will not be difficult to find an indication of the degree of rarity of a number of insects belonging to bedbugs, for example, or diptera (mosquitoes, woodlice, horseflies, flies; the entire list of CC is limited to two "useful" ctyrs?), I do not mention spider mites not at all; their what? don't need to be guarded? Where are they in KK-x? All beetles, yes butterflies… So, the roots of Chukovsky next century may remain without " heroes "(spider, fly and "mosquito")…
But even if these "nasty and vile" bloodsuckers in particular are protected by the law, I will not ask the relevant authorities for permission to kill a mosquito that sucks blood.

This post was edited by Justus - 10/22/2009 10: 33

I mean that in special works it will not be difficult to find an indication of the degree of rarity of a number of insects belonging to bedbugs, for example, or diptera (mosquitoes, woodlice, horseflies, flies; the entire list of CC is limited to two "useful" ctyrs?), I do not mention spider mites not at all; their what? don't need to be guarded? Where are they in KK-x?

In the Red Book of the Kaluga region - Argiope bruennichi, in the Red Book of the Moscow region - Lycosa singoriensis, and even a millipede (also not the most pleasant object for the layman) Schizoturanius dmitriewi. In addition, there are 6 dipteran species in the Red Data Book of the Moscow Region, and not only ktyr is among them. You can also find other examples.

Another source of "this nonsense", it seems to me , is that in the methodology for compiling" scientific " lists of CC-g, a fair part is made up of the philistine division of species into "harmful" (as an option – "nasty", "disgusting") and "useful" (as an option - "not harmful"). I mean that in special works it will not be difficult to find an indication of the degree of rarity of a number of insects belonging to bedbugs, for example, or diptera (mosquitoes, woodlice, horseflies, flies; the entire list of CC is limited to two "useful" ctyrs?), I do not mention spider mites not at all; their what? don't need to be guarded? Where are they in KK-x? All beetles, yes butterflies… So, the roots of Chukovsky next century may remain without " heroes "(spider, fly and "mosquito")…
But even if these "nasty and vile" bloodsuckers in particular are protected by the law, I will not ask the relevant authorities for permission to kill a mosquito that sucks blood.

But I was interested. Do you maintain this branch for its very existence? Everything seems to be clear to everyone? This message of yours does not add or subtract anything, and everyone's point of view is clear. Provoke another argument/response. And why?

But I was interested. Do you maintain this branch for its very existence? Everything seems to be clear to everyone? This message of yours does not add or subtract anything, and everyone's point of view is clear. Provoke another argument/response. And why?

M. B., I don't understand something, but it seemed to me that "points of view" are collected in topics that are marked with the "survey" sign, and in topics that do not have such a sign, they are discussed… And sometimes, arguing, they discuss what is reprehensible in that?

M. B., I don't understand something, but it seemed to me that "points of view" are collected in topics that are marked with the "survey" sign, and in topics that do not have such a sign, they are discussed… And sometimes, arguing, they discuss what is reprehensible in that?

An argument for the sake of an argument?

What's the question? For me-no, of course! I'm not an ancient Greek .

This post was edited by Justus - 10/22/2009 16: 25

What's the question? For me-no, of course! I'm not an ancient Greek .

Well, well, well!

Well, well, well!

Well, if only you could hear the intonation of this "so-so", and there would be complete order.
And so...
You asked me, " Is an argument for the sake of an argument?" Why was I asked, exactly? And not the other-who?
Don't understand the question? Let me explain: someone is arguing with me (post 149) about the permissibility of the term "Muhosransk".
For the sake of argument! Why do I think so?
Because, in other topics, the author of this post freely introduces "some district Zadyrishchinsk "(about Sibentomologist No. 47). A double standard? Or an argument for the sake of an argument?
Does your question apply to me?

This post was edited by Justus - 10/22/2009 18: 17

Well, if only you could hear the intonation of this "so-so", and there would be complete order.
And so...  
You asked me, " Is an argument for the sake of an argument?" Why was I asked, exactly? And not the other-who?
Don't understand the question? Let me explain: someone is arguing with me (post 149) about the permissibility of the term "Muhosransk".
For the sake of argument! Why do I think so?
Because, in other topics, the author of this post freely introduces "some district Zadyrishchinsk "(about Sibentomologist No. 47). A double standard? Or an argument for the sake of an argument?
Does your question apply to me?

Ryabyata! Figure it out for yourself - I'm not interested in idle chatter on the Internet. When I got to this thread, I was interested in the conversation, because it was related to CC and I had my own opinion about them. After watching (reading) the level of exchange of opinions, the desire to communicate in this branch disappeared. Sorry. Nothing personal.

Ryabyata! Figure it out for yourself - I'm not interested in idle chatter on the Internet. When I got to this thread, I was interested in the conversation, because it was related to CC and I had my own opinion about them. After watching (reading) the level of exchange of opinions, the desire to communicate in this branch disappeared. Sorry. Nothing personal.

Eugene! I'm really, really sorry. Justus wants to practice his rhetoric, and I need your (I mean you and all the Forum members) opinions for further work.
Well, Justus still got his way - even managed to get a branch... mmm... crop...

Red Data Book of the USSR, Russia and International.The insects section.Listed in the Red Book of Papilio machaon and Iphiclides podalirius.Swallowtail dill cracks.They served me a plum.I met a handbook on pests of fruit crops-they gave me an Example.What should I do-wet the pest or vice versa?