From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue May 06 2003 - 11:30:20 MDT
--- Greg Jordan <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 May 2003, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
> > Just curious, how many millions of acres of coca would you imagine
> would be
> > planted in the US?
> >
> > I'd day, not enough to force even a single deer out of business.
>
> I don't see how, since these coca fields would be in addition (I
> suppose) to the ag fields. Plus if all drugs were legalized, there'd
> be the marijuana fields, etc. Where would all these acres/hectares
> come from?
There are already a huge percentage of tilled land which is not used to
produce food. Farmers are paid not to grow food on that land by the
gummint.
I'd be more concerned by the likely increase in demand for corn chips
brought about by legalization, with so much more of the population
getting the munchies more frequently... ;)
>
> > ### You suggest sterilization not as a policy, but merely as an
> > exercise in imagination and rhetoric, never to be the basis of
> > your voting or lobbying?
> > Somehow I can hardly believe it.
>
> Yep. In response to the hunters' claim that their hunting (which they
> have always done anyway) is the only "rational wildlife management"
> that can prevent overpopulation & starvation of wild animals. The
> existence of an alternative (which some have implemented, not me,
> and not officially that I know of) disproves their point.
That you are full of it disproves your point. Outside of a few islands
denuded of vegetation by deer or sheep, there is noplace where
sterilization has been practiced, and it only worked there because it
was so easy to trap the animals. Imagine the torture these animals went
through getting trapped. In fact, a significant percentage died from
fear induced heart attacks, overdosed anesthetics, or infections from
sterilization.
>
> > >> ### What kind of evidence would you like to offer in support of
> > >> this claim?
> > >
> > > What evidence would you expect? I have a cousin who is a hunter
> > > and I've never heard him exclaim, "Wow, I caught a really
> > > scrawny, young, lame one today! Me big hunter!"
> >
> > ### Hearsay!
>
> So you are telling me all hunters deliberately try to catch the most
> inferior animals?
Yes, we try to catch the dumbest animals. Intelligence matters far more
than size in a successful hunt. Most hunters never get to pick and
choose their game, they generally shoot the first legal animal that is
dumb enough to get in their crosshairs. Only the most skilled and
patient hunters will intentionally overlook such game in search of
trophy animals. Trophies are not always guaged by weight. Most tropies
are guaged by the score of the antlers, which generally has little
relationship to the size of the animal and instead reflects the animals
maturity and hormone levels, except in the case of atypical antlers
(the type that squirly all over the place wildly) which are thought to
be caused by a virus or parasite, or possibly mineral deposits in the
animals habitat.
Most bucks that are shot have rather inferior antlers.
>
> > ### If enough people are really concerned about the welfare of deer
> > and truly want to help them by sterilization, you will be able to
> > gather enough funds. Of course, it's easier to ask the local
> > congressman to do pay for it
> > with other people's money, but I think I might be digressing here.
>
> People don't know what they want.
Ah, yes, the old liberal "The uncultured masses need we educated and
enlightened elites to tell them what to think and do..."
> Hunters know they want to hunt, and the political system is
> designed to match their intentions. Animal lovers are
> too disorganized, politically naive or unconnected, have no political
> system (machine) in place. What people *want*, and how many of them
> want it, is of only partial relevance to what happens. People don't
> want smog in their cities, either, but there it is.
>
> > ### Me an agitator for the Endloesung of Earth's living problems?
> > That couldn't be true!
>
> There are the super villains - Gnostic types dedicated to the
> extermination of everything in order to end all suffering - all human
> life, animal life, and even inanimate matter. :)
>
> > ### If you were to say that hunters actually are *not* like child
> > molesters, I could retract my assessment of your beliefs.
>
> I don't have to retract something I didn't say. I said *remunerating*
> hunters for not being able to hunt would be like remunerating child
> molesters for not being able to molest children. I suspect hunters
> would be rather above being bribed anyway - they want to hunt - no
> amount of money would satisfy them to give up hunting. And there is
> an analogy to that for child molesters, too. And to my position - I
> would not accept any payment from hunters to compensate for their
> devastation, because that would be utterly irrelevant.
One more example of how it is impossible for lefties to be guilty of ad
hominem, since their cause is so just and right and good, and their
opponents so wrong and evil and stupid and perverted, that making any
sort of comparison, no matter how libelous, is entirely appropriate.
Yet they howl like banshees when the tables are turned...
>
> > ### As in: "We just voted that you can't hunt, here or everywhere.
> > It makes us quite happy to vote, you know."
> >
> > I noted before that your ethics is incommensurate with mine, but I
> > think the difference lies not in the superficialities of money but
> > in the value of freedom - this is the bedrock of my ethics, but
> > not yours. It leads to happiness, too.
>
> IMHO freedom is a means to an end, not an end. Freedom not exercised
> well,
> thoughtfully, beneficially, with other goals in mind, is just a blank
> check of power. It can be abused, lost, sold to the highest bidder.
i.e. If the ignorant masses don't use their freedoms in only prescribed
ways, prescribed by we, the educated enlightened illuminated elites of
the loony left, then what you have is fascism...
>
> > ### Blowing a hole in the brain isn't painful. Being shot in the
> > chest with a large caliber hunting rifle for a human is hardly
> > painful at all in the beginning (there are descriptions of
> > survivors), so animals couldn't feel much pain, either. Much
> > less than the pain of being eaten alive by a wildcat.
>
> Any pain caused by humans is pain the humans are responsible for, and
> if unnecessary, it is their fault, and its meaning and significance
> is well known to humans, and cannot be blamed on instinctive nature
> (such as wildcats).
Momentary pain is always less bad than an hour of torture or years of
age induced pain and disease. Whether a wildcat can be blamed or not is
entirely irrelevant to the deer.
> I would remind you that not all hunted animals
> are killed with a single shot to the head (pace hunters'
> intentions), or killed in a single instant. It's my understanding
> that many hunters actually enjoy trailing the wounded animal.
One more instance demonstrating your ignorance. Beyond the actual care
hunters have for the pain of their prey, trailing a wounded animal is a
royal pain in the buttocks, especially if it extends beyond nightfall.
> Also,
> it is illogical to argue that any wild animal not shot by a hunter
> would immediately then otherwise be eaten alive by a wildcat. There
> is such a thing as living a longer life, having more enjoyable
> experiences, that are not insignificant
> to the animal and should not be insignificant to us.
Longer life as a wild animal only means more pain, more suffering.
Freezing winters, rain, parasites gnawing at your guts, your brains,
and your hooves, sucking your blood, as well as falling prey to
predators, getting chased to exhaustion by the idiot dogs of idiot
people.
>
> > ### You can have fun doing the rational thing, too.
> >
> > Only Puritans though anything that feels good must be bad.
>
> Oh no, I am sure feeding and sterilizing wild animals is quite fun.
> And I bet it also makes a person feel good inside, proud of
> themselves and their compassionate relationship with the animals.
So, this is something you've never done, have absolutely no experience
in, and are just blowing smoke out your rear end.
>
> > ### But deer are fungible automatons, not irreplaceable individuals
> > or sentimentally important works of art.
>
> Here is the proof of the incommensurability of our philosophies. This
> statement is the exact opposite of what I believe.
Proof only that you are a fruitcake.
>
> > ### The developers have only as much money as their clients are
> > willing to pay. If clients become rich enough to dream about
> > unspoiled nature, they will build it, too. It's all a question of
> > demand and supply. If human happiness demands the last inch to be
> > built up, or every inch to be turned into a forest, the market
> > will provide. Really.
>
> "The market will provide" has almost a religious ring to it. The
> market will not provide me or anyone else Tasmanian wolves or woolly
> mammoths, no matter how much I would be willing to pay for them (and
> believe me, there are people in this world who would and could pay
> vast fortunes for them).
>
> Some stupid mistakes are irrevocable. And wiser folks cannot always
> be everywhere and rich enough to buy off fools.
I have come to the conclusion that you are nothing but a luddite troll
surveilling this list who couldn't take it any more and had to butt in
with your fruitcakery.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
"Pacifists are Objectively Pro-Fascist." - George Orwell
"Treason doth never Prosper. What is the Reason?
For if it Prosper, none Dare call it Treason..." - Ovid
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 06 2003 - 11:41:13 MDT