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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (94053)	1/19/2005 4:15:17 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

Here's a strange little story: Shrieking Frogs Unnerve Hawaiian Island By B.J. REYES, Associated Press Writer HONOLULU - A tiny frog with a huge shriek has invaded the Big Island and won't shut up. Mayor Harry Kim is looking for $2 million to begin controlling the spread of the nocturnal coqui frog, a beloved native in Puerto Rico but considered an annoying pest in Hawaii since hitching a ride over in shipments of tropical plants around 1990. The frogs have been mating easily — and shattering quiet island nights — ever since. Aside from the noise, the frogs have a voracious appetite for spiders and insects, competing with native birds and fauna. And coqui frogs are adaptable to many ecosystems and breed heavily in Hawaii, experts said. Kim said the Big Island, the local name for the island of Hawaii, will once again ask Gov. Linda Lingle to declare the coqui frog infestation a state emergency to help clear the way for state financial assistance. The $2 million is needed to launch a combined state, federal and county program to combat the frogs, Kim said. He made his plea Tuesday before state lawmakers, who will consider the request later this year. Kim said he declared a county emergency in April over the frogs, but the state waited to see if the federal government would offer assistance, which it did not. Spraying of a citric acid solution on the islands of Oahu and Kauai have curtailed coqui populations there, but limited spraying on Kim's island has done little. "I think the response from all of us has not been timely enough," he said, noting that experts suggest he focus on controlling the coqui's spread, rather than eradicating it completely. "I kick myself in the back every day for not getting started more aggressively," Kim said. More than 150 communities on the Big Island are now infested with the coin-sized frogs, named after their high-decibel "ko-KEE, ko-KEE" chirp. ___

To: Grainne who wrote (94053)	1/19/2005 4:31:38 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

"Circular or not, there is an ACTUAL argument to be made in favor of, or against, animal rights, and I do not believe I understand your position." I too bore quickly with lawyer-like word play, so why don't you address all the other points I made instead of obsessing over what I did or didn't call silly and making up arguments to assert on my behalf so that you can attack them. My position is simple and I don't think I was being unclear about it at all. But I'll try to clarify for you nonetheless. 1) Arguing over whether animals do or don't inherently possess rights is pointless - unless your hope is to assert later that, having found that they DO have rights, that those rights include a right not to be eaten. 2) What is NOT pointless (or silly) is to assert that, based on human values alone (or even rational self-interest), we should not be unduly cruel to animals, whether wild animals, pets or livestock. And I qualify it with "unduly" because it is generally necessary to kill an animal to eat it and some will surely argue that killing is, by definition, cruel. What constitutes undue cruelty is another judgement within the capacity of humans to make and doing so does not require determining that they have "rights".

To: Grainne who wrote (94053)	1/19/2005 4:59:16 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

There is actually a connection between Darwinism and animal rights. Darwin's theory opened the door to the notion that since humans are the result of cosmic chance and random mutations, the behavior of any given human is solely the product of their particular genetic makeup (which is in turn purely an accident of nature). Thus, we cannot hold any human responsible for their actions. We might collectively as a society make up rules or laws and enforce compliance for the common good, but outside of the law we have no right to pass judgments on what others do. So with the animals, you need to contrive some legal way to protect them. Given that so many disagree it seems an unlikely prospect. Religion could really help you out here by giving you a moral ground to stand on. But I do realize that is not an option for you. Too bad. Too bad for the animals, too.