Jump to content
Maestronet Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by miles

  1. quote: Originally posted by: dfxlr That's exactly what I said. Miles has been using it a lot recently, but I don't know what it is. (seriously inquiry) Hi dfxlr, Sorry for the belated reply; I am still trying to beat the bidding frenzy on camcorders/top cameras on eBay...No sign of sucess... I meant Homo sapiens. My apology for the spelling mixed up (there was/is a software company called Sapient??? And my fingers weren't "thining" when I typed, especially when at the same time I was searching for video camera/camcorder... ) The reason for using Homo sapiens was to put human back in the "earth/universe" without dealing with emotion, which I've long suspected not to develop too well in my brain. I wonder whether there's an emotional IQ test or something... Happy New Year, everyone! Now I am off to my camcorder/video camera hunting.
  2. quote: Originally posted by: brokenbow Two issues in this thread that are not being distinguished The first is an ANIMAL WELFARE issue that addresses how animals, regardless of their rarity should be treated by humans. These are the concerns of PETA, Humane Society, etc. Again, rarity of the species is not a concern here. The second is a CONSERVATION issue that addresses the importance of preserving species. Note that this concern has little to do with how an individual animal is treated. A conservationist will quickly agree to the culling (killing) or hundreds of (individual) common whitetail deer to reduce their population to protect a plant species that is about to be eaten by the deer to extinction. These are concerns of organizations such as Audubon Society, Sierra Club, etc. The reason that Conservationists are typically opposed to the use of accidentally killed rare and endangered species is that their use can and often does lead to faddish demands for the animal part being used. That is, other people see the tortoise shell frog and want one too. This can create a market demand, illicit or not, that results in further endangerment of a species. This is why it is illegal in the USA to buy and sell taxidermy or predatory birds (eagles, hawks, owls) even if they were just hit by a car. A few people displaying these mounts could lead to further demand, and illegal killing. Excellent summary, brokenbow. The problem with all the disagreement, unfortunately, lies in the perception of "the Homo spaient in relation to Nature, and thus to other species". And most of the rationale given is based upon the supremacy of the human species to others, which I sincerely found quite laughable. Take the US for example, it is no doubt in such a capitalism country, and from I gathered, the social status is more or less based upon ones earning power or the size of ones bank account. If my perception is correct, then let's see just how many well-established intellectuals have the ability to commanded higher earning power than so-called stars? Let alone these "unknown" intellectuals. How many violins does Sam Z. have to make in order to match Kidman's Chanel commercial or Zeta-Jones's T-mobile commercial? We are not even talking about their earnings from movies they participate(d). A friend of mine got a ticket to Madona's concert in Chicago, which cost over $200.00. How many classical musicians can command such ticket price? All things considered, are humans as intelligent as we want to believe? There are some articles regarding global warming, which gives an interesting response to some posts: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/s...arctic.ap/index.html# The video section and the related topic (Drilling into the past...) are worth visiting.
  3. I'm back after fruitless "hunting" on eBay for a camcorder--I cannot believe people are bidding more for a used than for a new one! Maybe mad cows phenomenon has gone beyond what we previously thought. :shocked; Now talking about intelligent Homo spaient. After serious stomach flu, the die-hard raw fish and sushi fans are still the die-hard: http://www.thestandard.com.hk/..._id=34854&sid=11506043 (the scope of the stomach flu) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6189975.stm (Lessons learned?) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6108414.stm (Who said that my comments that trees will be "endangered" if treand continues was a "slippery slop" fallacy?) Who said earth cannot survive without humans? Nature neithers care nor not cares about humns. Period. Who said human's intelligence can outdo the power of Nature? Only a few second seaearthquake can get a big region all worked up! http://www.thestandard.com.hk/...id=34988&sid=11526954 "So we should live and let live, as best we can." Well said, Bean_fidhleir! And kill only for good reason.
  4. quote: Originally posted by: andrew weinstein you must concede there is a difference between wolves picking off the the slowest weakest members of a herd of deer and the slaughtering of a species into extinction for decoration. If the you refers to miles or includes miles, I think you missed at least one post that I do agree with falstaff on such point. There are certainly many other alternatives why driving a species into extinction evennot just for other decoration. Mother nature is not cruel or otherwise. The point is that there is no way to get around it. When you go to a pig slaughter house, do you think it is cruel or not cruel? Pigs are certainly raised to be slaughtered, and will have seeming unlimited supplies. quote: Originally posted by: andrew weinstein Certainly if there is one lesson that can be learned from history, it should be that people have the uncanny ability to find a way to justify to themselves morally dubious activities when money is involved. Our treatment of the environment is one example, as is slavery, as was the European approach to America, north and south, upon " discovering it". That is one of the purporses for studying history, isn't that? Whether slavery was committed by Europeans or "Americans", it was part of history so was feet binding. But can both be classified as "culture"? The point to bring out slavery is not for anything else, but to say that culture is not just involved "men did/do something". Without proper understanding other nation's history and psychology, the original comments are doomed to be challenged. quote: The scarcity of pernambuco was brought up. My understanding is that this results more from clearcutting to make way for sugar cane crops for ethanol than from bowmaking. The end result is the same as slaughtering if it is not intervened. My point was not that we should not intervene, but that what makes "slaughter" wood not disgusting in response to "disgusting, legal or not". The thread as I view it: (1) Law, legistration is a matter of fact, like it or not. (2) Human emotion is involved in the discussion (3) Posters have diverse background and experience (4) Posters speak with a sense of "authority even on issues they only knew the surface or very little of it. (5) Therefore, a lot of posters were not on the same page. Adding to Glenn's post, Allan also pointed out that ivory frog might not be authentic, either. Again, if a species is known to be "endangered", there is no need to drive them into extinction. But attaching moral value or personal emotion to it might not be necessary, either. =========== Banzai, Thank you for your new school of reasoning--a moral consideration should be part of logic deduction. I will take mental notes.
  5. quote: Originally posted by: dfxlr Perhaps, perhaps not. quote: Originally posted by: dfxlr It is true that the issue brought up by me isn't that simple. But the reality remains: it was something done by the men (part of the culture). Just because we can look back at it and see that it was a structure of masculine oppression doesn't make it any less of a past reality. Why isn't slavery American culture since "men" were involved? I think your second post already defined what "culture" was. According to your definintion of culture, slavery should be classified as American culture, not "perhaps, or perhaps not". "Perhaps, or perhaps not" sounds very hypocritic in your own view. "Double standards" has contributed to global anti-Americanism.
  6. quote: Originally posted by: dfxlr It is true that the issue brought up by me isn't that simple. But the reality remains: it was something done by the men (part of the culture). Just because we can look back at it and see that it was a structure of masculine oppression doesn't make it any less of a past reality. Would you call slavery American culture? Someone pointed out that "It is no secret that American was long on cash, short on culture." What does it mean by "culture"? There were no men (or women for that matter) in the US when the stereo type was formed?
  7. quote: Originally posted by: Banzai My, these grapes are sour. To wit: I wrote an extremely short post of two simple sentences to express a preference. I wrote much longer ones to illuminate an invalid refutation...an effort which is not inherently, I suppose, combative, but rather an effort at great academic lengths to effectively say "your point is...?" My point is what you said made no sense; You failed to understand what you tried to criticize in my post. And that all come down to justifying your view or preference. To me, that's quite amazing how one can keep going with that line of thinkng. That is certainly not my cup of tea or coffee these days. Life is not simple unless ones mind is simple. I cannot say any better than what other posts have always said, and at least one if not more, which did not seem to agree with your "logic" at all. As I said before, if you feel using turtle shell as a frog is disgusting. You are entitled to, but I don't think it is disgusting. You can illustrate the whole world as your time afford you. You failed to convince me that using turtle shell to make a frog is disgusting. ====================================== Allan, Actually David Tseng in another thread in pegbox mentioned that the sea turtle was killed for food and the shell was practically useless until used in something, say bow frogs. I don't know whether fiddlecollector or Tseng's account for the turtle thing is the real story. But I still cannot understand why people would only want the shell and dump the "warm body" back to sea instead of selling the meat as well. Something is certainly missing. If David Tseng's account is indeed correct, I would actually using T-shell to make forgs is a means of recycling. What is the solution? I don't know. Maybe instead of cloning dogs, we can sea turtle?
  8. Do you konw when the so-called "culture' started? Under what era? If you are familiar with our founding father Dr. Sun Yat-sen's work, most likely you would not ask such question.
  9. quote: Originally posted by: dfxlr Keep in mind that this is the culture that bound women's feet. (said by me, a Chinese American) Not so. It was men's complex that bound women's feet.
  10. Thank you very much for the clarification, Andres and Guy. Guy's illustration eases my worry over my bows. Phew!
  11. quote: Originally posted by: Banzai One cannot have a "laissez faire" near religious faith in the ability of Nature (I note the use of proper noun or honorific here as well) to simply correct for all of our excesses , when we are altering nature itself. Apparently, you did not understand what you wanted to criticize: Nature will rebound to a re-equilibrium doesn't mean that it will "simply correct for all of our excesses, when we are altering nature itself. My hat off to you for your effort to write up long posts to justify your personal preference. It is certainly a gift I was not born with and have never been taught. ========= Here's a book review, which may give some perspective to questions asked by ymkim: http://www.nyu.edu/fas/institu...e/allAfricareview.pdf Here's also a link to the interview of the Noam Chomsky Comments on the Iraq Study Group Report: http://www.middle-east-online....lish/opinion/?id=18938
  12. quote: Originally posted by: Jeffrey Holmes My experences are commercial. In these cases, permits were required from source country and destination country. This may or may not be the case for household goods. Jeffrey, Would you please clarify whether bow belongs to household goods or commercial? From fiddlecollector's post, I am under an impression that T-shell for a bow is actually commercial. Am I mistaken? In addition, how about a wood frog bow with ivory tip? Is it also illegal to import and export? That question was raised in one post, but I don't think I saw a specific answer to it. Thanks a lot in advance.
  13. quote: Originally posted by: Jeffrey Holmes CITES states that any items in the category of ivory and tortoiseshell, made OR ALTERED after the treaty was put into place in the 70s, cannot be imported or exported from a signatory country. In addition, no item made from those materials or altered within 100 years can be imorted or exported for commercial reasons... and as I understand it, tightening of those restrictions is ongoing. The list and categories are regularly being updated... Thank you very much for the clarification, Jeffrey.
  14. quote: Originally posted by: falstaff The original question was about the legality of posting a tortoise shell frog on an American company's auction site. It is not. Well said. So now, what are we going to do as responsible US citizens? It is eBay that is violated the regulation, whose customer in turn violated his. Where do we go from here?
  15. quote: Originally posted by: Banzai The logical fallacy committed is that of the slippery slope...an invalid form of argument or logical proof. Unfortunately, your illustration did not enlighten me with the specific statements/argument where fallacy/fallacies was/were committed in my posts I am afraid to say. On the other hand, it is barnd new to me that moral consideration also plays a big role in reasoning. Although I would caution the usage of the qualifiers, every or no, (PEER REVIEWED science/paper), I don't think I ever argued "human kind is having a signficant and unbalancing impact on the environment". [Or maybe I have been fed with too many pig brains and bird brains when I was a child, and now I am suffering from it???] My point has been human's impact cannot compete with the force of NATURE. Just think about the aftermath of Katrina for example. quote: To simply sit back and believe that "nature will work itself out" is a comfortable place to hide from the terrible responsibility our species shoulders. A species that can render itself extinct with the push of a few buttons, or can step on the moon, is certainly not a species that conforms any more to a "natural" cycle of predator and prey, of seasons and changes. We are now weather makers, and potentially the obliterators of life as we know it on this planet. Again, no PEER REVIEWED science will dispute the terrible truths we are discovering. Would you please shed some more light on the alluded PEER REVIEWED science? I have no doubt that we are "potentially the obliterators of life as we know it on this planet". However, NATURE will continue its re-equilibrium course with a very different landscape of species, which may or may not include Homo sapient any more. That is a consequence human as a species need to think about. BUT can anyone conclude from my view on NATURE/Biology that I encourage irresponsibility or hiding from performing good deeds? Personally, I don't find T-shell, ivory or ebony frogged bows appealing. My favorite is actually snakewood frogged. On the other hand, I don't find T-shell or ivory frog disgusting, either. That is the reason why I don't understand why you make such a statement "disgusting, legal or not". Of course, you are entitled to your preferrence.
  16. Thanks a lot, fiddlecollector. That was very informative. quote: Humans have a privilaged position on earth and i think everyone should have some respect for other creatures that inhabit it. But in reality people as a whole are remarkably selfish and the majority couldnt care less which species becomes extinct and which doesnt.Almost every thing a person does will have a small but cumulative overall effect. Yes, humans should have respect for NAURE, and the players in it as well. However, if we put things in perspective, how can the majority of humans care which species become extinct and which doesn't? As intelligent as humans, we have overwhelming personal and sociall problems that we cannot handle. I still remember an article talking about Susan Sarandon (actress) critizing that US government didn't do enough for Mexican school children near the US-Mexico boarder. At the same time, there was a report stating that more than three schools in MA were finally closed down due to chronicle financial troubles. Why should US government care for Mexican children's education and yet neglect its own? It might sound heartless to some, but Mexicans are not obligated to pay taxes to the US government...Echoed by more social "injustice" (I don't know how to call it) is the retirement package to the former Exxon CEO. When everyone felt the hard squeeze due to gas price increase...Sorry, I cannot bear to type any more. The bottom line is did/do you have any say in war in Iraq, for example? Although we humans like to think how intelligent we are, we are not intelligent enough for the most part to get out any mess we created in the first place. And the majority of humans are ignorant or helpless in one way or another if we want to get serious about it. Again, I am not arguing with the view or advocating that we should make less effort. But I don't think it is a realistic expectation if we put things in their due perspective.
  17. Fiddlemaker on the roof? Doing what?
  18. quote: The chances of survival without a shell are zero. I would think so too. So why throw them back to the sea? Just curious. quote: Fish and shrimp are a lower order of animal than a sea-turtle. It is debateable if they even have the capacity to feel pain. Feeling pain is a mechanism to avoid "danger". If fish and shrimp have nervous system, I suspect they would be able to feel pain. Admittedly, their system may not be as complicated. My concentration was human system, and I cannot say it for sue. quote: But the point is even for legal resources taken from the animal world there should be some attempt to minimize cruelty I don't see there is any argument on minimizing cruelty. But my point is, is there always a way to get around? Even with human raised cows and pigs, inflicting pain on them is invetible. Someone people therefore call it or meat eating disgusting, which I disagree with. quote: The issue isn't use of an animal resource, it is OVER use of a resource the point of extinction, and profit motivated cruelty without management and regulation. In general, I don't see a problem with it. But the original argument was sprung off Banzai's statement -- it is disgusting legal or not. I did not understand why it was disgusting. Then again, the frogs are not big, and not all frogs are made of sea turtle shells. I am interested in knowing how much harm T-shell frogs has done to this species. That said, watching too many nature programs on TV and studying physical anthropology, I tend to think regardless what people do or not do, nature will rebound to a new equilibrium, like it or not. Humans are such a small force in the nature let alone in the universe. When humans have done enough harm to nature, it would not be a surprise to me that the landscape of nature will be very different. [edited] Allan, You just beat me by 1 minute? Now I am discovering the reason why I enjoy your posts as always. Just my own preference, I would like people to make more effort to wipe out cocroaches, and rats etc, especial rats. Their bio-waste if taken in by humans could cause death.
  19. Thank you for the information. Chinese makes distinguishing in turtles by adding a preceding word, "black/dark turtle" and "sea turtle". The T-shell on bows look dark to me--wasn't sure which one is which. Talking about legalities on eBay? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/a.../0,,2-2510018,00.html quote: Do people realise that these turtles are literally boiled (whilst still alive)to remove the shell and then thrown back in to the sea often still alive. When crabs (fish and shrimp sometimes) are cooked, if I am correct, they are usually still alive. Other fish food could be done the same way if they can survive out of water. I don't know whether there's a way to get around it. Regarding the shell-less turtle, I wonder what their chances of survival are. If the boiling does not hurt them, they may not need the shell as a protection any more [i don't know that.] I know sea turtles tend to have very long life, say 300 years is not uncommon for sea turtle. Will they die in the sea or out of water? Maybe cloning can be a choice for endangered species after all.
  20. quote: Originally posted by: Allan Speers -Except it isn't. This stuff is pure white. I don't know where it comes from... Hmmm, didn't you say it was sent from China? [Gotya! Sorry cannot resist, either.} There is a shortage in real ivory as I am told by an Italian bow maker. These days he (and I suspect Chinese bow makers as well) used some "alternative" ivory frog. Whatever that was he would not sell it to me lest I would chew him out.
  21. Talking about ivories, I was watching a video with my Thai friend. In the video, they've got too many elephants in Bangok where the elephants actually slept on the streets with their owners, very much like our homeless people here. It was quite comic. So is elephant endangered species or not? By the same token, if turtles are farm-raised, how can they be endangered as well? I don't know whether I made myself understood or not. Before talking about hunting endangered species being disgusting, shouldn't we establish whether the species of interest are endangered or not? I totally agree: "Hunting any animal to the point of extinction is plain stupid." The same concept applies to plants as well. quote: Originally posted by: GMM22 I had no idea that snapping turtles could be as nimble and powerful as he (or she?) was. I was later informed that this was somewhat foolhardy. That's why I only played with the little ones--they were as dumb as I was.
  22. quote: Originally posted by: Banzai Miles, you're making, essentially, the logical fallacy of a "slippery slope" argument. By the course your logic is running, if I eat meat, why isn't it okay to also slaughter and eat people? If my house (and violin) is made of wood, why should I find wholesale destruction of rainforest to be disturbing (to put it mildly.) First of all, the reason for humans not to eat humans has its practical purpose. If the subject humans are eaten, any disease generating agents will be transferred to the person, who eat that human. The same concept applied to other same species eating practice. That is the only reason based upon biology I can think of. The other reason is human emotions, which forms the civilization. Thirdly, there might be a law banning such practice, but I don't know it for sure. By the way, during Zhou Dynasty (before 600 BC) marriage between the same last name was banned in China. The practical reason came before the "civilzed" reason, if I recalled correctly. How do you know that during severe condition there was no human eating human incident? It was done for survival--the survived ate the dead body. However, I am not advocating it. Secondly, which fallacy did I commit? quote: Originally posted by: Banzai I find killing an endangered species to provide an ornamental luxury to be repugnant. That's it, no equivocating. I found it repugnant as well. Who wouldn't? By the way, I found it was even more disgusting that Exxon's former big's retirement package was $400 million (if I recall correctly, it's past 2:00 AM my time). Where are the advocates? quote: Originally posted by: Banzai I eat hamburgers. I find veal to be repugnant, and that's where I have decided a line of cruelty and unnecessary suffering has been reached. I don't understand this statement. Maybe it's too late? quote: Originally posted by: Banzai Native Americans killed buffalo for food, white men killed them wholesale for sport and genocide. Can you see the line, or does the "slippery slope" eliminate all such distinctions. Not that fast. Regardless the purpose is, when the demand exceeds the supply, the supply will eventually disappear from the surface of the earth let it be animal or plants. My so-called "slippery slop" theory focuses on the end result. quote: Originally posted by: Banzai Though life is not black and white, and rather shades of grey, there comes a point where you have to decide whether or not it may be perhaps too shady. I agree. In fact, my view on life since I was in high school is "life is a series of choices/decisions". However, it depends upon how one draws ones conclusion. quote: Originally posted by: Banzai I say that sea turtle frogs is too shady, whilst ebony frogs and hamburgers are not. You, evidently, have decided that rationalizing to absurdity can mitigate the "darker" greys whilst equivocating them to the "lighter" greys. I don't think I decided anything yet in my previous posts. I was asking why would T-shell frogs any more disgusting than ivory or wood frogs or meat eating if legality was involved (as you said). quote: Originally posted by: Banzai I will point out, in closing, that this form of argument is indeed a logical fallacy. The reason for it was because I was asking a question. Then you took my argument out of its intended context into yours. I wonder how that would go well as an argument for I don't know what your argument is except for you found T-shell disgusting. quote: Originally posted by: Banzai I personally say it's disgusting. That is my stand, and I hope I have in this brief post illustrated a little bit of why. I have no problems with a person's believe/stand/opinion. Let me put it this way. As I stated in my post, I know for a fact that turtles can be "farm raised" (just don't know the details). If it is true, to me it is no difference in raising fish, pigs or chicken for food. Logically, if a turtle is gone for food, why cannot one utilize the shell for something useful. If wood for a musical instrument is "noble" (in GM22's term), why cannot T-shell frog shares some glory as well? I personally like the T-shell frog because it reminded me of those good old elementary school days. In addition, I wonder just how many frogs one turle shell can make. quote: Originally posted by: Banzai Not to be too hostile miles...I think from previous posts that perhaps I like you, but there it is. No worries. I don't think either you (or GM22 for that matter) were trying to be hostile. Rather, I don't think we are on the same page on this T-shell issue. While I don't advocate or like slaughtering for non-essential purposes, I tend to view the world as a whole from the standpoint of evolution--Nature will reach a new equilibrium one way or another.
  23. quote: Originally posted by: GMM22 I think it is a noble purpose for wood to be used for musical instruments. I wonder whether the tree, which was cut down would care how it was going to be used. quote: Originally posted by: GMM22 In addition, the quantity of wood used for instruments is so minuscule compared to the other uses it is hardly worth mentioning. Deforestation is not driven by musical instrument makers. Do you have stats from an independent study? Not to pick on you, but unless there was an independent study, I can say either way. From what I read, the shortage of wood for musical instruments (including bows) is getting worse and worse everyday. However, to what degree in relation to the total deforestation, I don't know. quote: Originally posted by: GMM22 Regarding predators not acting humanely toward their prey, I have heard many similar sentiments as yours before, being that nature is herself cruel. However, just about any act of cruelty can be justified if one wants to look for examples in the wild animal world. You missed my point. I am not asking you to look for examples in the wild animal world, but to look at NATURE itself. quote: Originally posted by: GMM22 Evolving as an intelligent species means elevating humans from being merely an equal participant in the animal kingdom. We do not need to act cruelly just because other animals do. To what extent does Nature allow Homo sapient to be free from the burden of being animal? Just because you are intelligent, you don't need to eat like any other beings (plants and animals)? Are you free from diseases and death? If not, there are certain rules of nature even the most intelligent Homo sapient has to follow. As stated, I am not advocate cruelty. But not all killings should be labelled as cruel. As far as, endangered species is concnerned, species come and go regardless whether Homo sapient knows it or not. Nature always has its way of rebouncing to a new equilibrium with or without human intervention -- Adaptation and speciation are as old as life itself. quote: Originally posted by: GMM22 Many great thinkers expressed similar sentiments, and certainly said it much better than I can. I claim no originality in such ideas save for adopting thoughts those that I most admired. Thoughts, opinions are not equal to facts. As such, they are always subject to debate/dispute, great thoughts or not. There is always a new school thought born in response to a particular time/era. Then when the trend later is reversed, there is always an opposite school of thoughts to reflect such change in time. In literary histories and theories, there are abundant examples.
  24. One of my classmates from elementary school whose father had a turtle (or another kind, but looks like it?) business. They raised turtles for a living. I always enjoyed playing with little turtles, and was given as many turtles as I desired. I was a little busy kid, in fact, too busy playing with turtles to ask. I suspect that turtles used in the turtle soup might be farm raised. I might be wrong about the farm-raised turtles, but if eating farm-raised salmons are not prohibited, I do not know why farm-raised turtle should carry a stigma even though the wild ones (or close cousins) are endangered.
  25. quote: Originally posted by: GMM22 Wood is obviously different as it is inanimate. As for the others, (ivory and the meat), I happen to be a vegetarian (although I was a meat eater for many years) so I can relate there as well. To some the disgust is equivalent. Thank you for your answers, GM22. Just FYI, from a biological standpoint, trees also have "life" although they cannot move. The common way to obtain wood is to cut down trees unlike ivory teeth and T-shells. Admittedly, human can slaughter elephants or Sea turtles to obtain their teeth or shells, these material can also obtain when the animals die before humans get there. quote: Originally posted by: GMM22 The wholesale slaughter of endangered species for the most trivial of purposes (like fine dining or violin bows) is in discord with sustaining the planet or its inhabitants. How about cutting down all that trees to make instruments/accessories, furniture and constructions so on and so forth? You think it is justified just because some people happen to be vegetarians? quote: Originally posted by: GMM22 The truth remains that humans are very efficient at massacring everything that moves. Being a realist, I am aware that a certain amount of "culling" of animals for their uses is inevitable, especially since animal products often offer advantages that modern materials cannot exceed. I totally agree with you on the massacring point. However, humans also "massacre" things that don't move. More and more environmentalists are crying out loud for the loss of trees, which in turn affects the holding of the dirt especially on the mountain slopes. quote: Originally posted by: GMM22 For me, the boundaries are easy to define. Any culling should be done as humanely as possible, and only of species that are abundant. Of course such criteria is often not met. In fact, many nations or societies do not even recognize the importance of such things and atrocious acts occur everywhere, culminating in the enhancement of pain for animals prior to death in order to satiate some bizarre stream of thought. When I was growing up, one of my favorite TV programs was animals in the wild. In the natural habitat of wild animals, they fed on other animals for their own survival (and their off-springs, of course). I had not seen any predators perform "humane" act on their preys. Although I don't advocate undue cruety to animals or other humans for that matter, I tend to feel that some groups are out of line. Just my opinion. Since I was so turned off by Bush-Kerry debate and the 911 hearing etc, I have not turned on my TV for a couple of years. Maybe I am too out of date in my knowledge of animal life. Wild animals might have learned from humans to be nice to each other even in a predator-prey relationship since I turned off TV a couple of years ago.
  • Create New...