Post Reply
Page 20 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 ... 46 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Redneck A-holes with guns
3 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 10:17PM #191
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Apr 13, 2012 -- 9:50PM, arielg wrote:


In any case, intelligence or what man is the apex predator on the planet and barring a cosmic disaster or a man induced disaster that is unlikely to change.  In fact man is such a powerful predator that he has to both control his numbers and his predatory behavior to avoid wiping out his prey and causing his own failure.



It is precisely this superior intelligence that allows man to rise above his animal nature and have a perspective of life beyond survival. And to know right and wrong.


Animals do not know about empathy, love, forgiveness, right and wrong.  They just follow their instincts which are aimed at survival and procreation.  Because they follow instincts, they do not have free will and  personal desires.  And because of this, they act automatically in harmony with a larger scheme of things and cannot do wrong, because wrong is a creation of the self awareness or the  ego of man.


There is nothing supèrior about the  intelligence of a predator.   It is just part of the  animal nature.  It is not just to a be a more successful predator that man developped this intelligence: it is to go beyond it. That is the message of the sages of all ages.


Unfortunately, most humans never develop beyond their animal nature, so they remain very sophisticated animals.  They have the option. Free will in a nutshell. 





I'm not one bit sure about your analysis about love and empathy from our pet dogs, often. Two years ago my little Malti-poo spent all his time with me when I had a nasty flu. He now stays with my daughter because of stringent ranch-condo rules. She tells me he knows when she is close to our neighborhood.


He loves to visit and visit all of his foraging haunts. Dogs are absolutely fascinating. When he lived with me he always tried to choose where I would be and get there before I did. He knew that when the music from the second MASH came on it was time for dinner and when the theme for GOLDEN GIRLS came on we would retire. I bought a second 32-inch flat screen so we could "do" late-night tv together.


We love our dogs and they love us in their world.


And many humans develop well beyond the animal stage. I've lived with them all my life in very intellectual households.




 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 12:26AM #192
solfeggio
Posts: 9,352

In order to grow past the primitive stage, humans must develop empathy and sensitivity for all life on this planet. 


Some humans who have moved past this supposedly 'animal' stage would include, of course, Albert Schweitzer, who said:


'Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace.'


And Issac Bashevis Singer:


'Even in the worm that crawls in the earth there glows a divine spark.  When you slaughter a creature you slaughter God.'


The Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy:


'A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food.  Therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite.  And to act so is immoral.'


Ghandhi said much the same thing:


'I do feel that spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily wants.'


Thomas Edison sums it up very nicely:


'Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution.  Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 11:12AM #193
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 13, 2012 -- 7:36PM, solfeggio wrote:


Hunting is savagery in the name of tradition.  It is hypocrisy in the name of conservation.  And it is killing in the name of sport.  People who kil for sport are despicable human beings.


So, yes, I would like to see an all-out ban on hunting.  And there are very good reasons for this.


1 - It is not an effective method to manage and control wildlife.


2 - Hunters kill the strongest animals, changing the genetic balance in the group. 


3 - Hunters kill mature males, leaving a disproprotionate number of females, impacting the social structure of the group.


4 - Large numbers of animals are wounded but not killed, and they run off to die a slow, agonising death.


5 - The vast majority of people do not need to hunt in order to provide food for their families.


6 - Animals, like wolves, that mate for life and live in close-knit family units, are devastated when a member of this unit is killed by hunters.


www.peta.org/issues/Wildlife/why-sport-h...


76.74.242.170/~anima810/wp-content/uploa...


Hunting is simply a socially-accepted way to kill something.  More often than not, hunters kill for fun.  What makes hunters think they have the right to take another creature's life?





Solf -- Points 1-5 are either outright false, half-truths, or true only in specific circumstance, never in general principle.


Point 6 is something I have discussed with biologists and other wolf experts. It's a matter of concern, and their are varying views on exactly what the effect of wolf hunting might be on pack structure.


However, one biologist I spoke with raised a good point -- wolves lead very hazardous, relatively short, unpredicatble lives anyway, regardless of human intervention. Therefore, they are naturally very adaptable creatures, with a fluid social structure and mechanisms in place to deal with the loss of any particular, or number of, pack members -- including the alpha animals. Or, in simpler terms, if the loss of any particular pack member or members would "devestate" the entire pack -- the species never would have made it this far anyway.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 11:17AM #194
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

"Do you think 150 animals statewide, out of over 1,000 that got repopulated is good "management" practice?   Why have that many been killed?"


 


I just posted the proposed 2012 wolf hunting regulations -- straight from the Game and Fish.


I was also there, in person, at the meeting, when the biologists announced the latest and best available data relating to the numbers and distribution patterns of wolf packs in Northwest Wyoming, adjacent to Yellowstone Park and the surrounding wilderness areas, National Forest and BLM lands.


What part of a maximum mortality quota of about 50 animals -- measured against an estimated population of well over 250 in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone National Park (where hunting is not allowed) and the Wind River Indian reservation did you fail to understand?  


What part of there are only about 27 wolves ever known to even stray into "the rest of the state" did you fail to understand?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 2:32PM #195
rabello
Posts: 21,719

Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:17AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I just posted the proposed 2012 wolf hunting regulations -- straight from the Game and Fish.


IWhat part of a maximum mortality quota of about 50 animals -- measured against an estimated population of well over 250 in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone National Park (where hunting is not allowed) and the Wind River Indian reservation did you fail to understand?  


What part of there are only about 27 wolves ever known to even stray into "the rest of the state" did you fail to understand?





LOL. You seem to think talking down to people proves your opinion!


Read the articles.  Do some research.  You are talking about proposals.  The information we're talking about is what has transpired since the Congresspersons gave the states the go-ahead to do a "bait and switch".   Address the points!  And don't do a cop-out (easy way out) saying that the information in the articles (numerous ones, if you do some research) are ALL lies


Do you want the websites to petitions that demand that Josh Bransford be fired?   What do you think should be done about rogue hunters/government employees who would torture wolves because it's now A-OK to do so?  You haven't said yet. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 4:00PM #196
mindis1
Posts: 7,933

Apr 13, 2012 -- 3:57PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 3:41PM, mindis1 wrote:


Well, I am not aware that kids are told that "dumb animals" do not feel pain or were put on earth to serve humans.  I was never taught any such thing; I don't know any kid who was ever taught any such thing.  (Of course, it is true that a buffalo's hide is not in any way as sensitive as human skin; even a cat's dermis is not as sensitive as a human's.  I once took care of friend's nearly-blind diabetic Pug who had to get daily insulin injections.  It was a very short needle, but all you had to do was get behind the dog and poke him with the syringe, and he never knew anything happened.  I definitely would have known if someone had stuck a needle even that short into my skin anywhere.)  And I definitely don't think the average intelligent adult believes that animals don't feel pain or were put on earth to serve humans.




Actually I do agree with you, but where I grew up I heard both that animals don't feel pain and are lower than humans because god said so....also that animals are dumb.



My parents didn’t give us much instruction about what God said--we went to church, like, twice a year when I was a kid. And I guess our family and social group didn’t have much to say on religious topics, either. The odd thing is that I do not perceive myself as having been raised in an usual atmosphere, especially as it concerns beliefs about animals. Everyone I knew was a meat-eater.  But my dad was not a hunter--I recall he did go duck hunting with his brother one time, but I don't think he shot any ducks; at least he didn't bring any dead ones back.  No one in my family was a hunter, nor were any of my parents' friends.


Anyway, obviously you didn’t swallow the stuff about “dumb animals” not feeling pain or being morally inferior to humans. Why didn’t you?


Actually, one time when I had my cat fixed, I asked the vet about giving her something for pain. The vet told me that “animals do not feel pain like we do.” Of course, that’s probably kind of true, but I think my cat definitely felt that surgery for a long while afterwards.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 4:01PM #197
mindis1
Posts: 7,933

Apr 13, 2012 -- 4:09PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 3:52PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 3:02PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 2:54PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 12, 2012 -- 5:49PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


[Mindis1:]  "Obviously, unless the purpose of the wolf re-introduction program was to provide a blood party for human animal-killers/hunters/trappers, then something has gone very wrong with this program. It’s a shame that the animal-killing advocates here are not willing to condemn such hideous practices. "


Once again.. and pay carefull attention this time, because I'm getting sick of repeating this:

  • It was never the understanding or intention that federal protection of wolves would go on forever. Or, that no wolves would ever be killed. Federal agents have been killing wolves for years.
  • It was agreed upon, the second the wolf-reintroduction program began, that the end goal was to establish a population viable enough to delist the wolves, and hand managment over to the states, and the states' plans would include some hunting and/or trapping. 

Therefore, nothing has "gone wrong" with the progam. 



So, you’re saying that the re-introduction program from the beginning was intended to provide hundreds wolves to be killed and tortured by sick human animal-killers/hunters/trappers who get their jollies by torturing and killing wolves.


Obviously, relocating hundreds of wolves into an area merely so that sick human animal-killers can have the opportunity to trap, snare and shoot them is not related to any ecological benefit. It’s a shame the animal-killers here are not willing to condemn such a hideous program.




Do you have anything intelligent to offer to this discussion?



I merely pointed out that obviously there are two possibilities:  either (a) the purpose of the wolf re-introduction program was to provide a blood party for human animal-killers/hunters/trappers; or (b) something has gone very wrong with the program.  You responded that it is not (b).  Therefore it is (a).


If you have any intelligible rebuttal to any of that, I'm sure you would have given it.




First, sheer ignorance. Second, false dilemma. 



You haven’t provided any alternative option than what I stated.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 4:06PM #198
mindis1
Posts: 7,933

As a general comment here (so that everyone will hate me equally): I think it’s unfortunate, and treacherous, for this discussion to veer off into philosophizing about the motives of the average hunter and whatnot. After all, the people engaged in hunting, trapping, snaring and torturing these re-populated wolves are not the average hunter. And after all, the factory farmed animals that will be on most Americans’ plates tonight, or that the average American will serve to his/her pets from a can tonight, would undoubtedly have loved to have had the lives of the animals that the average hunter kills. After all, the single deer that the average hunter kills probably prevents hundreds of chickens from having to endure unimaginable horror in a factory farm.


It seems to me the important issue on this thread is that the wolf re-introduction program has merely provided the opportunity for a bunch of sickos to engage in the completely unnecessary and reprehensible killing and torture of re-introduced wolves--which will continue to happen as long as wolves remain unprotected in these states. If the purpose of the re-introduction program was not to provide the sickos the opportunity for this blood party, then something has gone very wrong with the program. It’s a shame that the animal-killers and animal-killing advocates here do not see fit to condemn this situation, because it is in every way condemnable. There is no ecological benefit to merely providing sickos the opportunity to torture and kill hundreds of wolves--which, again, will apparently continue as long as wolves remain unproctected.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 6:54PM #199
christine3
Posts: 7,371

Apr 14, 2012 -- 4:06PM, mindis1 wrote:

After all, the single deer that the average hunter kills probably prevents hundreds of chickens from having to endure unimaginable horror in a factory farm.



Not that many, probably 20 chickens to a 4-year-old deer in what parts a human would eat.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 7:07PM #200
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 14, 2012 -- 2:32PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:17AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I just posted the proposed 2012 wolf hunting regulations -- straight from the Game and Fish.


IWhat part of a maximum mortality quota of about 50 animals -- measured against an estimated population of well over 250 in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone National Park (where hunting is not allowed) and the Wind River Indian reservation did you fail to understand?  


What part of there are only about 27 wolves ever known to even stray into "the rest of the state" did you fail to understand?





LOL. You seem to think talking down to people proves your opinion!


Read the articles.  Do some research.  You are talking about proposals.  The information we're talking about is what has transpired since the Congresspersons gave the states the go-ahead to do a "bait and switch".   Address the points!  And don't do a cop-out (easy way out) saying that the information in the articles (numerous ones, if you do some research) are ALL lies


Do you want the websites to petitions that demand that Josh Bransford be fired?   What do you think should be done about rogue hunters/government employees who would torture wolves because it's now A-OK to do so?  You haven't said yet. 





I adressed the matter of Congressional intervention -- as well as the deal worked out by Gov. Matt Mead and Interior Sec. Ken Salazar. Re-read previous posts accordingly.


I'm not talking down to anybody. I'm simply presenting the facts. Those "proposals" are most likely to go through.


The "150" you keep griping about is a hypothetical, absolute bare minimum. Wyoming intends to keep a buffer of wolves well above that number. I know that -- because I was present, in person, at the meetings when those issues were addressed and those population and wolf pack distribution figures were cited. You obviously were not -- and neither were to people doing the "research" for the articles you keep citing.


I don't care about Josh Bransford. He probably should be canned. So what? He's essentialy a red herring. As are your rhetorical questions about animal torture.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 20 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 ... 46 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook