Post Reply
Page 28 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 ... 46 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Redneck A-holes with guns
2 years ago  ::  Apr 24, 2012 - 12:10PM #271
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 23, 2012 -- 6:53PM, solfeggio wrote:


You have no compassion for wild animals?  You simply sum up the whole of nature as nothing more than kill or be killed? 


There's more to nature than that, as you are well aware.  And you really are saying that using the lame old excuse of carnivores killing their prey is some sort of raison d'etre for you to kill the prey as well?


Far-fetched, mouse.




Solf, I never said I, personally don't have feelings for wild animals. On the other hand, they have no need for me to patronize them. They are quite capable of doing what they have to do. They are, after all, well... wild animals. So, perhaps "respect" is a better term than "compassion." 


I was merely pointing out, Mother Nature is a stone cold, absolutely utilitarian bitch. Things like "compassion" mean nothing out there. In the greater sceme of things, that's a joke. And if wild critters could laugh at the idea of humans thinking they need our "compassion," they probably would.


Animals do what they need to do in order to make it another day and perpetuate their own species. And, eventually face a death that's almost certain to be unpleasant and painful.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 24, 2012 - 6:39PM #272
solfeggio
Posts: 8,939

arielg -


Whilst I was writing a response to your post, I see that your post has disappeared!


Nevertheless, your comment put me in mind of the philosophy in the beautiful little film you posted, in which the narrator is asking us to think about the fundamental truth of who we really are. 


I believe we can only grow as human beings if we open our minds to new ideas.  In other words, be broad-minded but also always even-handed as well.   


I know this to be true because I am today a very, very different human than I was fifty or sixty years ago, and I hold different views than I had even thirty years ago.  I'm different today than I was yesterday.  Watching your film made me think of things I had not considered before.


Our life journey is, I think, in many ways analogous to the Robert Frost poem, 'The Road Not Taken.'  Those of us who have taken that other road have had our eyes opened to many possibilities not even imagined by those who were afraid to venture into uncharted emotional territory.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 2:11PM #273
arielg
Posts: 9,116

Solf, I never said I, personally don't have feelings for wild animals. On the other hand, they have no need for me to patronize them. They are quite capable of doing what they have to do. They are, after all, well... wild animals. So, perhaps "respect" is a better term than "compassion."


"Managing " is what  patronizing them is. They certainly don't need that. The highest  respect, compassion or whatever is  to leave them alone. As you say, they don't need you.


I was merely pointing out, Mother Nature is a stone cold, absolutely utilitarian bitch. Things like "compassion" mean nothing out there. In the greater sceme of things, that's a joke. And if wild critters could laugh at the idea of humans thinking they need our "compassion," they probably would.


"Utilitarian bitch" is a judgement call. Even the most ferocious killer is a  tender mother to her cubs.


 You  keep  putting  yourself in the same level of the animals in order to justify actions that they may engage in, but with no  malice or desire for personal gain. That is not  how humans act.


 We also have a consciousness that tell us what is right and wrong. You try to ignore that when it is inconvenient.


The greater scheme of things is not a joke. That is what our consciousness should strive to understand, instead of hiding under the pretense of being "just like the animals."


Animals do what they need to do in order to make it another day and perpetuate their own species. And, eventually face a death that's almost certain to be unpleasant and painful


More rationalizing.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 2:26PM #274
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 25, 2012 -- 2:11PM, arielg wrote:


Solf, I never said I, personally don't have feelings for wild animals. On the other hand, they have no need for me to patronize them. They are quite capable of doing what they have to do. They are, after all, well... wild animals. So, perhaps "respect" is a better term than "compassion."


"Managing " is what  patronizing them is. They certainly don't need that. The highest  respect, compassion or whatever is  to leave them alone. As you say, they don't need you.


I was merely pointing out, Mother Nature is a stone cold, absolutely utilitarian bitch. Things like "compassion" mean nothing out there. In the greater sceme of things, that's a joke. And if wild critters could laugh at the idea of humans thinking they need our "compassion," they probably would.


"Utilitarian bitch" is a judgement call. Even the most ferocious killer is a  tender mother to her cubs.


 You  keep  putting  yourself in the same level of the animals in order to justify actions that they may engage in, but with no  malice or desire for personal gain. That is not  how humans act.


 We also have a consciousness that tell us what is right and wrong. You try to ignore that when it is inconvenient.


The greater scheme of things is not a joke. That is what our consciousness should strive to understand, instead of hiding under the pretense of being "just like the animals."


Animals do what they need to do in order to make it another day and perpetuate their own species. And, eventually face a death that's almost certain to be unpleasant and painful


More rationalizing.




I get weary of repeating myself. I don't care a toss about your ideolgy. Your lectures and sermons mean nothing to me. 


My ethics and morality regarding my approach to land and wildlife issues are founded in years of experience and contemplation, as well as the mentoring and advice from people who have dedicated their entire careers or lives to the relevant sciences and fields of effort.


You don't have to agree. But if you are going to discuss wildlife and ecology in general, and the wolf issue in particular with me, you have got to bring some working knowledge and fact-based arguments to the table.


Otherwise, I can't take you seriously, or regard you as anything other than just another ill-informed or willfully ignorant ideolouge with an axe to grind, and you will continue to make yourself look foolish.


I have fended off and shredded extreme, ignorant views about wolves -- from both sides -- for the better part of 20 years now. This is far from my first rodeo, and thus far, you are making this way too easy. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 2:33PM #275
arielg
Posts: 9,116

My ethics and morality regarding my approach to land and wildlife issues are founded in years of experience and contemplation, as well as the mentoring and advice from people who have dedicated their entire careers or lives to the relevant sciences and fields of effort.



  I don't give a damn about your "experience" or morality.  Even thieves  have  certain  ethics among themselves.  Yours is based on  what you want and like, not on what is obectively better for the totality of life.


I am tired of your repeating yourself also, so don't bother to answer.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 3:16PM #276
rabello
Posts: 20,442

I wonder how it is that human beings came to believe that they, and specifically "man", and even more specifically "some men" are the center of the universe.  It must be religious teaching that creates a need to separate "man" from the rest of nature, including animals.  Funny, too, is the need to disparage nature by likening it to a "utilitarian bitch" rather than, say a bloodthirsty pr*ck -- which I wouldn't agree with anyway, even if it is a more accurate description, in more ways than one.  That "nature" would be described in human terms is, in itself, self-serving, as you've continually pointed out, arielg.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 4:12PM #277
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 25, 2012 -- 3:16PM, rabello wrote:


I wonder how it is that human beings came to believe that they, and specifically "man", and even more specifically "some men" are the center of the universe.  It must be religious teaching that creates a need to separate "man" from the rest of nature, including animals.  Funny, too, is the need to disparage nature by likening it to a "utilitarian bitch" rather than, say a bloodthirsty pr*ck -- which I wouldn't agree with anyway, even if it is a more accurate description, in more ways than one.  That "nature" would be described in human terms is, in itself, self-serving, as you've continually pointed out, arielg.




"My delicate sensibilites have been offended by icky rednecks" isn't really a relevant or sound argument in relation to wolf reintroduction, or the parameters of the states' subsequent managment plans. 


But then again, that's sort of the tone this thread tried to set from the get-go.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 4:37PM #278
rabello
Posts: 20,442

Apr 25, 2012 -- 4:12PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


"My delicate sensibilites have been offended by icky rednecks" isn't really a relevant or sound argument in relation to wolf reintroduction, or the parameters of the states' subsequent managment plans. 




That isn't what I said, therefore, your point is off topic. 


You are unable to argue from any perspective except that which you already assume and take for granted is the only correct one in the whole universe.


Apr 25, 2012 -- 4:12PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


But then again, that's sort of the tone this thread tried to set from the get-go.




No, the thread is about how, once repopulated in significant numbers in order to prevent the gray wolf from being completely wiped out from the northern Rocky Mountain states, they were made into mere targets, again, because of some behind the scenes, and some would say unethical, shinanigans by members of the US Congress, leading to and resulting in the kind of tortures -- by wildlife "experts" no less -- we were informed about in the two articles linked in the OP and further elaborated upon in subsequent references.


I can understand not wanting to talk about THAT, and preferring to talk about the SOP that keeps a certain number of prey available for hunters and calling it "management". 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 4:49PM #279
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 25, 2012 -- 4:37PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 25, 2012 -- 4:12PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


"My delicate sensibilites have been offended by icky rednecks" isn't really a relevant or sound argument in relation to wolf reintroduction, or the parameters of the states' subsequent managment plans. 




That isn't what I said, therefore, your point is off topic. 


You are unable to argue from any perspective except that which you already assume and take for granted is the only correct one in the whole universe.


Apr 25, 2012 -- 4:12PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


But then again, that's sort of the tone this thread tried to set from the get-go.




No, the thread is about how, once repopulated in significant numbers in order to prevent the gray wolf from being completely wiped out from the northern Rocky Mountain states, they were made into mere targets, again, because of some behind the scenes, and some would say unethical, shinanigans by members of the US Congress, leading to and resulting in the kind of tortures -- by wildlife "experts" no less -- we were informed about in the two articles linked in the OP and further elaborated upon in subsequent references.


I can understand not wanting to talk about THAT, and preferring to talk about the SOP that keeps a certain number of prey available for hunters and calling it "management". 




All pure falsehoods and/or hype. 


One forest service employee -- who might or might not even be a biologist -- was involved in a heinously unethical incident involving bragging over the deliberate torment of a trapped wolf. 


That does not refelect or set the tone of the states' managment plans. The plan was not, is not and never will be to wipe the wolves out.


All culling efforts and other managment methods must remain within parameters that will ensure a viable, permanent population of wolves. Otherwise, jurisdiction reverts back to the federal goverment, the wolves are re-listed and all the efforts leading up to the states gaining control essentially go to waste.


The states, therefore, have a vested interest in protecting the long-term survival of the Greater Yellowtone Ecosytem's wolf populaton.


The Act of Congress was needed because, despite biogists and other on-the-ground experts saying, over and over, that the wolf population had far exceeded recovery numbers, special interest groups kept suing to get the de-listing process stopped.


Bluntly, everybody had gotten fed up with their bull***...and asked Congress to please step in and solve the problem. Which is what happened in Idaho and Montana. Similarly, in Wyoming, Gov. Matt Mead and Interior Sec. Ken Salazar struck a deal that was more in line with researcher's findings, rather than lawsuit-happy special interest groups. 


I've proven, over and again, the articles cited in the OP are basically ill-informed, slanted hype. 


So, once again, "Icky rednecks want to kill wolves" is not a good argument. 


This is one of my favorite issues to discuss, and I love to discuss it. But, given my extensive knowlege, you simply must bring sustantive facts to the table. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 5:12PM #280
rabello
Posts: 20,442

Yeah, it's all so above board that they (the few Congressmen involved) had to put thier override on behalf of special interests in a rider on a non-related appropriations bill. 


Your facts are opinions that serve special interests, including hunters.   There are most certainly biologists, ecologists, conservationists, wildlife experts who do not agree with "management" policies or the special interests.


Your "those who are against hunting and wildlife management are ignorant...blah blah blah....who think its all just too 'icky'" is as unconvincing as you find the moral objections to repopulating wolves just to shoot/snare/trap them unconvincing. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 28 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 ... 46 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook