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 about the Let’s Talk About Our -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (2164)	4/10/2005 12:04:47 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5290

You had to do that, right? Just had to get me started, right? Jeesh! This is not even fair, the pickings are so easy over there! And we used to think the Jackass Hotel was good! Granny should be waxed and have loudspeakers installed and preserved as a national treasure, she's so good! The fact that most people live in cities now does not mean that farmers get to decide exactly how they will degrade the land. Why not? They own it, not you. You want to say what happens to it, you buy it. Nor do hunters or trappers have that right. All people have a vested interest in not degrading the land or making species extinct. Does that include the anopheles mosquito or the polio virus? As compassionate beings who are evolving, we all have should have a right to vote on issues that affect animal rights and rules governing wildlife. HUH????? For starters, the last other distinct species of the genus homo died out at least 25,000 years ago. Compassion? Some poor slob raising GM rice in Burma and still barely making it hasn't got time to worry about "compassion". He's got a sick baby to tend to because some "compassionate" first world liberal outlawed the manufacture of the insecticide that would have killed the mosquito that bit it. We are not going to be able to go back to caveman days, I'm glad to hear that. You had me worried. Because doing so would mean at least a 99% kill-off. I'd sure hate to have 5.95 BILLION deaths on my conscious. or to say that since some people live in cities let's ruin all the wilderness! You're a little late. As usual. All that midwest farmland used to be grassland and forest. The CA central valley was the same. Same for the Asian rice fields. Or are you promoting that 99% die-off again? Cities function in ways that benefit people who live in the country. Medical specialists are in cities Yeah, and the country folk constantly complain about a shortage of doctors. as well as seats of government The country folk really appreciate them. They contain people like you. art museums Yeah, let me tell you about all those ranchers who are abstract art connoisseurs some time. Cities provide markets for products produced by rural enterprise. Pretty obvious. That's why American farmers do well financially and can afford that abstract art: they produce much more than they need for family consumption. Of course, they "degrade the land" doing it. All the city people I know are very concerned about keeping the wildlife we do have, like squirrels and birds and deer, healthy and happy. Yeah. Did I tell you about the 3 squirrels I shot this morning with a BB gun? Easy pickings. Good looking too. Although there was that 'coon that stealing my corn and put me out of business. Never did catch it. I wish a plague of avian flu on it and its family. Cities are alive with wild animal life, just like the country. The animals are just smaller, for the most part. If they're bigger, they make better targets. To assert that because cities exist, a family group of wolves that provides scientific knowledge and brings income to a national park does not deserve some protection that could be easily provided makes no sense at all to me. Two comments: 1. Straw man argument- -nobody said eliminate national parks. 2. If the national parks need protection, WTF are we paying the rangers for? They're going to do a lot better against people with guns than those wolves will. Just based on the ethical dilemma itself--man caused these wolves to be less cautious of humans and is benefiting from them--they deserve some accommodation. Skydiving caused people to be less cautious about jumping out of planes and keeping their parachutes closed for long periods. By extension, does this mean we should accommodate that pristine, nicely folded 'chute and never open it? Would help with that human population reduction she wants though. Message 21214707 More nonsense from Granny for those interested: Message 21213689 I wish to thank Granny for banning me. I get to shoot at her and SHE CAN'T SHOOT BACK! LOL!!!!