|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 9th, 2003 02:14 PM | ||||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
 Did I slip into some mirror universe and not realize it or what?
|
|||
| Jul 9th, 2003 01:06 PM | ||||
| CaptainBubba |
"OH MY GOD. IT'S IMMORAL TO POINTLESSLY DESTROY PEOPLE AND CREATURES" You added "people" and "pointlessly" in there so that would be true. You're as shady as the proposed bill. moron. |
|||
| Jul 9th, 2003 08:14 AM | ||||
| VinceZeb | The three main spirtual groups in the world (Christanity/Judaism/Islam) teach that the world is for humans do what we will, but we must take care of it and the animals as well. There is no polar opposites when it comes to capitalism/conservation. The only people that see that there is a problem is the wacko-enviromentalist and the super greedy objectivist. | |||
| Jul 9th, 2003 06:20 AM | ||||
| FS |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
| Jul 9th, 2003 01:33 AM | ||||
| kahljorn |
"If they didn't then how could you morally justify forcing others to pay for the species protection?" Um, how could I morally do it? By morally stating that removing animals and slaughtering innocent creatures so some dimwitted guy like you can have a mini-mall to buy the latest linkin park cd is rather Immoral. OH MY GOD. IT'S IMMORAL TO POINTLESSLY DESTROY PEOPLE AND CREATURES? JEEBUS. Who would have thought  Besides, it doesn't cost people any money to stop cutting down trees and destroying habitats. It only costs as a matter of Revenue. |
|||
| Jul 8th, 2003 11:39 PM | ||||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, perhaps it is we who are driving ourselves to extinction . The destruction of one species, even one which has little direct importance to humanity, impacts ecosystems as a whole and may have unforeseen and undesireable consequences for humanity. Wantonly destoying nature amounts to playing God, in my opinion. |
|||
| Jul 8th, 2003 10:31 PM | ||||
| CaptainBubba |
If they didn't then how could you morally justify forcing others to pay for the species protection? Ethics before desires. |
|||
| Jul 8th, 2003 10:10 PM | ||||
| kahljorn |
"if they don't really serve a nessecary purpose for all of humanity" . |
|||
| Jul 8th, 2003 09:49 PM | ||||
| CaptainBubba |
I still think its silly. The forests will not be eradicated. Thats ridiculous. There is no such danger, and its a lie perpetuated by nature people that I actually despise. As for species, well, if they don't really serve a nessecary purpose for all of humanity then its up to the individual to protect them in my opinion. If you feel that strongly about it I think you should do something about it yourself instead of asking the government to use my tax dollars for it. Just so you know though, I'm somewhat of an animal lover, so this is in no way a biased opinion. Merley part of my principals. Something I stay true to despite my inner and external turmoil over it. This is a highlight of being a true Libertarian. Though I'm sure Vince would argue its more about your strength aquired through vigorous masturbation. And will power? You can't even muster up the will to admit your own defeats and mishaps. |
|||
| Jul 8th, 2003 08:23 PM | ||||
| VinceZeb | FS, that whole "abormality" (sinc) you see in humans is what 95% of the world likes to call a "soul" or "divine creation or purpose". | |||
| Jul 8th, 2003 08:02 PM | ||||
| kahljorn |
Of course they do... Catfish are attracted to shiny objects. That about sums up the Human Existence. "No species of animal gangs up on another species to kill it" Wolves, pirhana, lions, tigers, bears oh my. |
|||
| Jul 8th, 2003 05:31 PM | ||||
| FS | Personally, I see human sentience as a freak of nature. So, most of our undertakings and accomplishments, I see as unnatural. That may seem weak, but when you look at the main drives behind all of nature, you'll find that they don't match with the average human's priorities (of one living in the "1st World", anyway). | |||
| Jul 8th, 2003 12:22 PM | ||||
| Bennett | If that would be what we choose to do, then yes, it would be nature taking its course. The repercussions of that, and nature taking it's course further would not be pleasant, however. | |||
| Jul 8th, 2003 11:07 AM | ||||
| VinceZeb | But, if everything is from the same pool of ooze, and everything is evolved, arent we just a part of nature, and thus are just nature taking it's course? | |||
| Jul 8th, 2003 11:03 AM | ||||
| FS |
I don't think so. No species of animal gangs up on another species to kill it, or kills them on a mass scale. In nature, animals live and hunt in small groups or alone. Once you've acquired sentience, it actually doesn't take much effort to cause great change - or damage - to nature. However, I'm not so sure if that would be the case with an endangered species. I think that the disappearance of a species of already a low count would not have a very significant impact on the ecosystem they live in. That's not to say that I don't find it a great pity when a species of animal vanishes, because they can't be brought back. Arguably, human interefence to preserve can be just as damaging as negative human interference, but not if people simply decide to withdraw and let nature handle itself. |
|||
| Jul 8th, 2003 08:04 AM | ||||
| VinceZeb |
Bubba: You are too weak-willed and limp-wristed to be a libertarian. But your vote counts the same (unfortuantly). FS: Isnt human beings wiping out a species of animals just nature taking placE? I mean, if we are no more important than the apes or tigers or lions, isn't that just nature taking it's course, except on a much larger scale? |
|||
| Jul 8th, 2003 07:19 AM | ||||
| FS | If nature itself decides that a species of animal has to go, then yes, the void is filled up by nature. If humanity decides to wipe out a species of animal, they might be wiping out an entire food chain and possibly an entire ecosystem. | |||
| Jul 8th, 2003 12:15 AM | ||||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
Besides, it takes a long time for a competing species to evolve into the niche that the extinct species filled. |
|||
| Jul 7th, 2003 10:49 PM | ||||
| kahljorn |
"Nature adapts. Thats what it does. Its the natural order of things. If we wipe out a thousand species, then one thousand niches have just opened up for 10,000 other competing species to evolve into" Yea, ironic as it sounds nature does have a way of fixing things. It could be by PEOPLE WITH COMPASSION TRYING TO SAVE THINGS. Or it could be by "human-proof" things evolving. these, "Competing species" won't have much to evolve into if we keep destroying them everytime they come around. I'm sure it takes alot to sum that up though, right? I mean, destroying an entire ecology and filling it with a military base, they would learn how to like, live in the oil spots. And the toxic waste dumps. Cute little toxic fishies. |
|||
| Jul 7th, 2003 09:55 PM | ||||
| CaptainBubba |
For the hopefully last fucking time. Vinth is NOT A LIBERTARIAN. He is a perfect example of why I will no longer refer to myself as Libertarian though. Something about the party is just irresistable to political psychos and I won't be associated with guys like Vince. Its good this wasn't passed, in my opinion simply because of the shadiness and general sleeziness. As far as endangered species laws go... Its kind of silly on a large scale. Nature adapts. Thats what it does. Its the natural order of things. If we wipe out a thousand species, then one thousand niches have just opened up for 10,000 other competing species to evolve into. All that really matters is how and why we are eradicating them. Senseless slaughter is never justified. |
|||
| Jul 7th, 2003 08:30 PM | ||||
| kahljorn | Ruining the ecology is fun though. It's like what Southern California did to the "Sierra Mountains" area. | |||
| Jul 7th, 2003 08:12 PM | ||||
| Jeanette X |
http://www.nwf.org/enviroaction/inde...202&issueId=25 Senate Rejects ESA Exemptions Small Victory For Wildlife In a dramatic and unexpected victory for the environment, the Senate in May denied the Bush administration's request to grant the military a far-reaching exemption from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In a narrow vote of 51 to 48, the Senate passed an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that gives the Defense Department some flexibility to obtain waivers from the ESA's critical habitat designation requirement on a case-by-case basis, but denies the broad ESA exemption requested by the administration. The amendment, offered by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jim Jeffords (I-VT), Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT), was supported by nearly all Senate Democrats. Four Republican senators, Lincoln Chafee (RI), Arlen Specter (PA), Olympia Snowe (ME) and Susan Collins (ME), also voted in favor of the amendment. "In a victory for people and wildlife, the Senate chose to adopt a flexible case-by-case approach to species protection on our nations military bases, rather than the rigid nationwide exemptions sought by the Department of Defense," says NWF Senior Counsel John Kostyack. "This vote recognizes the military's already longstanding approach of working through ESA compliance issues on a case-by-case basis-a tactic that has proven successful for both wildlife and military preparedness." Unfortunately, the House version of the defense bill, which also passed in May, grants broad exemptions from not only the Endangered Species Act, but the Marine Mammal Protection Act as well. The bill also includes language (not even requested by the Defense Department) exempting the military from responsibility for off-base water withdrawals from Arizona's San Pedro River. Excessive water use and ground-water pumping by the Army's Fort Huachuca is threatening the river, which supports 400 species of birds, 180 species of butterflies, 87 species of mammals, and 68 amphibians and reptiles. The San Pedro has the highest diversity of vertebrate species in the inland United States, the second highest diversity of land-mammals in the world and is one of the state's last free-flowing waterways. The House leadership denied environmental champions any opportunity to offer amendments to remove these exemptions when the defense bill was debated on the House floor. The Defense Authorization Bill now moves to conference committee, where members of the House and Senate will be tasked with ironing out the differences between the two bills. Copyright 2002 National Wildlife Federation. All rights reserved. The above article may not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, without prior written consent of National Wildlife Federation. 
|
|||
| May 30th, 2003 05:33 PM | ||||
| GAsux |
... "didn't know pussies were allowed in our fine Armed Services... " Yeah I know! I mean, after all, they turned YOU down. You might have a case there Vinny. You are your submarine letter, along with documentation that the military did allow SOME pussies in, and you might be in the money. Why, they might even let you sign up! |
|||
| May 30th, 2003 02:28 PM | ||||
| Zhukov |
Quote:
As Ali G said 'we all come from the punani' 
|
|||
| May 30th, 2003 02:22 PM | ||||
| Bennett |
Quote:
|
|||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||||
