Here is Robert's response:
What a crock of extreme right Christian fundamentalist horse shit. No, humans don't have the right to decide which species should stay and which should go...natural selection (baby)?!I feel like there's a lot wrong with what was said there, and I wrote a lengthy response. So here is how I responded to Robert (who I hope still visits and criticizes me).
Are you, perchance, on medication?
Robert,
Thanks for visiting Christian Fearing God-Man. I always welcome new perspectives and readers.
First of all, I think it's clear that you haven't read much of my work here, or else you never would accuse me of being a "extreme right Christian fundamentalist." I don't even have the slightest of inclination towards that persuasion. Maybe you ignored the title of my blog?
Secondly, what is fundamentalist about the notion that if a population of ravenous beasts is starting to kill off your livestock that you have no right to defend it?
Your statement "humans don't have the right to decide which species should stay and which should go" is a logical fallacy. If we don't get to decide which should die, why do we get to decide which should stay?
Answer me this. If you're a livestock owner, lets say cows, and those cows are your livelihood, would you simply stand by and let the wolves tear your cows apart, essentially destroying the things that make you money and put dinner on your table?
Let me guess, you're John Rambo, right? You'll go out and hunt the specific pack of wolves tearing your shit apart.
Oh, you're not Rambo? You're not a hunter? Well then how will you deal? Just get a "real" job right? No, you'd probably ask the government to help you out, just like these livestock owners have done. Pretend you're in charge, and a bunch of the citizens of your town are coming to you asking you to help control the wolf population ravaging their livestock and making it unsafe to go out at night. What do you do? Do you ignore them and tell them that their livestock must die to serve some sort of higher moral principle?
Here's a question. Are you pro-choice?* I bet you are. If so, then how can you tell me a human has the right to decide whether or not another human is allowed to be born, but a human is somehow not allowed to (A) decide whether a vicious animal lives or dies and (B) is not allowed to protect his the lives of his livestock?
*Disclaimer: I'm pro-choice, before you go lumping me into the "extreme right" category.
8 comments:
Great job taking down that sack o' crap!
Don't you just hate it when someone staggers into your site and makes such ignorant pronouncements about you when they haven't even taken the time to read your other stuff and put it all in context?
To steal one of your phrases, Robert Felton is a douche bag...
My, you've been rather acerbic lately, haha.
I wouldn't go so far as to call him a douchebag (and not just because I want him to keep reading). I've grown used to people taking things way out of context, and reverting to soundbites and preconceptions.
I mean yes, I'll admit I was a little ticked when I read what he wrote, but I try to be understanding.
Robert, keep reading!
Well, as we've both found out, a blog post is not a doctoral thesis, but are usually tossed off in a hurry, so we sometimes don't get our point across completely.
There's nothing natural about our selection to kill these wolves. To think otherwise would display a complete ignorance of evolutionary science.
We do need to manage wildlife issues when they come into conflict with civilization, and that should be a role of government, as this involves the management of our American environment. We have to balance a healthy ecosystem, for all our sake, with a healthy economy.
Sometimes all this gets lost in the battling wills of hunters and environmentalists. Really, this should be worked out between the government of the people and the interests effected, like agriculture and development. We should have professional taxpayer funded culling when necessary, not a bunch of drunk yahoos running around killing willy nilly for shits and giggles, pretending it is wildlife management, and not a bunch of environmentalists issuing purely heart-thought demands on peoples' valid economic interests.
JMJ
JMJ, I would have a hard time supporting the idea of adding federal employees, making high five to low six figures, plus full bennies and defined pensions plans do our hunting for us. This is not a rhetorical question: do people who live in the city think people who live in rural areas have less of idea of what is right and wrong or do both sides not give a hoot what the other thinks and want to impose their will. If it is the second option, we have going to have to move to greater state's rights and a lesser federal government. Would you agree?
The biosphere doesn't know state boundaries, KP. We don't need some massive federal agency to handle this. We already have the departments in place. In other countries professional cullers are contracted by governments to carefully thin down over-populations, capture and remove wayfarers, etc. The way we do it doesn't work! How many hunts do we have to have? What does it accomplish? At what point do we try something else? Face it, this is just an excuse for sociopaths to murder animals!
JMJ
As always, thanks for the thoughtful answer. More than not, you provide a kernel(s) in your posts that make me think.
Kill off all the species and let god sort them out I suppose.
I don't think Bobby will be back.
I like it when I get a live one but it sadly happens rarely.
Post a Comment