Protection of the wolves in the rockies
-
wolf4life
- Legendary
- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 9:16 pm
- Custom Title: booooooooooored.....
- Location: The dark forests of my mind
- Contact:
Protection of the wolves in the rockies
"Es gibt nix, was es nicht gibt", translated "There's nothing which can't exist."
"Choose a good path....because you only get to choose once"-Wolf4life
"TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!"-Gir
"Choose a good path....because you only get to choose once"-Wolf4life
"TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!"-Gir
-
cumulusprotagonist
- Legendary
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:53 pm
- Custom Title: Possessed by the Ghost of Cumulus
- Location: Another Place
- Contact:
How bad is this law?
You need to understand however what I mean by "how bad".
Is it protest bad or is it civil war bad?
If the bill made genocide possible then it would be civil war bad.
Civil War bad means it is time to get physical, but it would also mean that you need a wide array of viewpoints to help people understand the extreme significance of the tyrannical crime that is taking place.
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC!
Don't let the law pass is the first step regardless, but be prepared to respond if it does.
The world needs to know that they don't know enough to justify such behavior no matter how they spin it and there is no way that they could know. More importantly the fact that there is no way they could know anything that would justify it, means that it is wrong. This is my "don't know" philosophy. They say that animals do not have a soul or some such illogical rhetoric, when there is no way they could possibly know that. To not be a hypocrite I have to admit that this also applies to bugs considering the same "don't know" principle applies. Using the same logic they should then find out there is no way to know if it is the same as killing a human being. They must now pause for a second and realize that this can not be used in their favor. Because of an inability to communicate there is no way to know for sure either side of the issue. Which side should they now choose, the one that does not kill because they do not know, or than one that does kill because they do not know? This is good versus evil at a very deep level.
Wolves have souls but there is no way that I could prove that. Killing off all of the wolves because some of them have attacked a few humans would be the same as killing of all of the muslims because of 9/11. However, there is no way I can prove this either, which is why I must resort to the "don't know" philosophy.
If it is a law that allows hunters to kill wolves for pleasure then the hunters must be made to realize that there is no way they could know that it is any different than killing a human. If they know and believe this and still hunt for pleasure then it is a matter of good verses sadistic. This is truly when it is time to get physical.
You need to understand however what I mean by "how bad".
Is it protest bad or is it civil war bad?
If the bill made genocide possible then it would be civil war bad.
Civil War bad means it is time to get physical, but it would also mean that you need a wide array of viewpoints to help people understand the extreme significance of the tyrannical crime that is taking place.
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC!
Don't let the law pass is the first step regardless, but be prepared to respond if it does.
The world needs to know that they don't know enough to justify such behavior no matter how they spin it and there is no way that they could know. More importantly the fact that there is no way they could know anything that would justify it, means that it is wrong. This is my "don't know" philosophy. They say that animals do not have a soul or some such illogical rhetoric, when there is no way they could possibly know that. To not be a hypocrite I have to admit that this also applies to bugs considering the same "don't know" principle applies. Using the same logic they should then find out there is no way to know if it is the same as killing a human being. They must now pause for a second and realize that this can not be used in their favor. Because of an inability to communicate there is no way to know for sure either side of the issue. Which side should they now choose, the one that does not kill because they do not know, or than one that does kill because they do not know? This is good versus evil at a very deep level.
Wolves have souls but there is no way that I could prove that. Killing off all of the wolves because some of them have attacked a few humans would be the same as killing of all of the muslims because of 9/11. However, there is no way I can prove this either, which is why I must resort to the "don't know" philosophy.
If it is a law that allows hunters to kill wolves for pleasure then the hunters must be made to realize that there is no way they could know that it is any different than killing a human. If they know and believe this and still hunt for pleasure then it is a matter of good verses sadistic. This is truly when it is time to get physical.
Maybe I am wrong...
DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK!!!!!!
Avatar Cited Sources:
Photography by ___________
Photo Manipulation by Z
DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK!!!!!!
Avatar Cited Sources:
Photography by ___________
Photo Manipulation by Z