Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (137184)	6/20/2004 7:14:11 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No. I am not projecting. Your aim is obvious, and for such a partisan to deny it, looks...well...I'll be nice, and say disingenuous. I thought of a fascinating hypothetical (does not apply to me, let's be clear on that). Would a quadriplegic's opinion on the environment have any meaning to you if they had not been able to see the lovely things you mention? If they could not rise from a hospital bed, but could still read all about the environment, and the laws pertaining to it, would you find their opinion less valid than someone who had caught a trout with their bare hands, or seen some wildflowers? Would you dismiss anything they had to say out of hand because they had not "actually experienced the wilderness yourself. " I'm just wondering why the "experiencing" is important to the points about the legal protection of the parks. Call me crazy, but I don't see the connection. I'm sure people who strip mine can walk through a valley of wildflowers- but it doesn't make them conservationists.

To: Neeka who wrote (137184)	6/21/2004 10:08:02 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

Are you not interested unless it's personal? ............. I thought of a fascinating hypothetical (does not apply to me, let's be clear on that). Would a quadriplegic's opinion on the environment have any meaning to you if they had not been able to see the lovely things you mention? If they could not rise from a hospital bed, but could still read all about the environment, and the laws pertaining to it, would you find their opinion less valid than someone who had caught a trout with their bare hands, or seen some wildflowers? Would you dismiss anything they had to say out of hand because they had not "actually experienced the wilderness yourself. " I'm just wondering why the "experiencing" is important to the points about the legal protection of the parks. Call me crazy, but I don't see the connection. I'm sure people who strip mine can walk through a valley of wildflowers- but it doesn't make them conservationists.