Cat Hunting in Wisconsin - Viewing Thread



Username [Register?]: \| Password [Lost Password?]: Save Password?

Bottom of Page

INTL v5.0 > Site Comments > Archives > Archived Forums > Serious Discussions: Too serious to have a double entendre in the title > Cat Hunting in Wisconsin > Viewing Thread
Also Here: 1 guest.
Page: [ 1 2 3 ]	[ Thread Views: 11501 \| Total Posts: 70 ]
Rate This Thread:	Reply to Thread \| Create New Thread \| Create New Poll \| Convert To Poll \| Subscribe To Thread

SmallFry
I think that you should find him on campus and "hawk a loogie" into your hand and then smack him across the face with it

Ballkicks: (+67 / -11)
Posts: 248 (0.039)
Reg. Date: Dec 2002
Location:
Gender: Unspecified

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=662272&page=1

The ethics of cat hunting: discuss

...Seriously though, any thoughts?

Pussy Manifesto!

Snowy
INTL Premium Member

i always try to make a statement with my fashion...thats why today i wore a crop top with a pic of richard nixon captioned: growl at sweat

Ballkicks: (+899 / -313)
Posts: 5399 (0.962)
Reg. Date: Feb 2005
Location: Antipodes
Gender: Female

I love cats, dont get me wrong..but ecologies were never meant to support feral populations of domestic cats. We shoot and kill feral cats here in this country, they are trapped and poisoned. I'm all for cat owners being held more responsible for the wellbeing of their pets, feral cats are a scourge on native bird populations and need to be eliminated. There's also a huuuge distinction between feral cats and native cats like puma and cougar, so please dont think im out to get these magnificent creatures.

Soft hair and a velvet tongue
I want to give you what you give to me

Sunn O)))
INTL Alumni
14 year RP master

Zan-beef

Ballkicks: (+761 / -127)
Posts: 5456 (0.817)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laputa
Gender: Male

Quote:
... but ecologies were never meant to support feral populations of domestic cats.

Ecologies change, thus the whole point of evolution. Human involvement was certainly a cause of the feral cat population, yet it doesn't mean that having a feral cat population is wrong for an ecosystem.

I do not support the hunting of domesticated cats, even if they are feral. I'm not against laws for it, either. I've gone hunting numerous times. I may never hunt a cat, but I certainly hunt animals which other people would be unsupportive of hunting.

"Oh Joe Cocker"
(you like Joe's Cocker, don't ya?)
"It's up where it belongs."

PopRocks

I can buck my hips and suck neck while pinned under 250 lbs of man; I had him do me doggy style so we could both watch "When Harry Met Sally"

Ballkicks: (+233 / -15)
Posts: 1160 (0.183)
Reg. Date: Feb 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Gender: Female

hunting cats for sport seems a little messed up to me, but trapping and nuetering them or putting them down humanely is a pretty good idea.

greenidentity
Disco naps and liquorice Snaps.

It is time for some fine fine wine.....or box wine it's all good man

Ballkicks: (+603 / -81)
Posts: 3891 (0.59)
Reg. Date: Jun 2002
Location: Planet Seeth
Gender: Unspecified

I'm against it because a lot of people out there are stupid and don't even know nor will take the time to know what a feral cat is. Sadistic little kids will have a field day. For some reason, I think if this law gets passed, feral cats are not gonna be the only ones that will be shot. There's too much room for error in a law like this.

If a hen and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half how long will it take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick the seeds out of a dill pickle?

Snowy
INTL Premium Member

Quoted from Sunny:
Quote:
... but ecologies were never meant to support feral populations of domestic cats.

Ecologies change, thus the whole point of evolution. Human involvement was certainly a cause of the feral cat population, yet it doesn't mean that having a feral cat population is wrong for an ecosystem.

If you call decimation of native wildlife due to the introduction of a large number of ultra-predators, then yah ecologies certainly do change. I've seen it happen for real in this country and have also been able to see the positive effect population management causes. The NZ bush was never meant to be silent, but introduced predators nearly extinguished many unique species of birds, which in turn removes a major source of pollination for the native plants that rely on birds to disperse their seed, causing the encroachment of exotics and scrub into the forest that cut off the light and affect the leaf litter in a negative fashion, killing off all manner of insect life and on and on. I think it's a rather facetious argument to call that evolution, it's more an unnatural decimation due to human tampering with the natural proceess of things ( yet again ). You could call it evolution if you consider any change evolution..but it doesnt sound like a strenghtening of the natural environment to me. Evolution is betterment.

Soft hair and a velvet tongue
I want to give you what you give to me

mmac
INTL Premium Member
it's INTL, not the fucking UN - Amphy

3ms will rise again

Ballkicks: (+254 / -35)
Posts: 2339 (0.417)
Reg. Date: Feb 2005
Location: Minneapolis
Gender: Male

Quoted from Sunny:
Quote:
... but ecologies were never meant to support feral populations of domestic cats.

Ecologies change, thus the whole point of evolution. Human involvement was certainly a cause of the feral cat population, yet it doesn't mean that having a feral cat population is wrong for an ecosystem.

I do not support the hunting of domesticated cats, even if they are feral. I'm not against laws for it, either. I've gone hunting numerous times. I may never hunt a cat, but I certainly hunt animals which other people would be unsupportive of hunting.

So you’re telling me that if the released a lion on the Galapagos Islands, and it killed everything on the island, that would be ok because it was evolution? And is the reason you don’t want to kill cats because you think they’re cute and cuddly, or for some reason that’s actually important?

Quoted from PopRocks:
hunting cats for sport seems a little messed up to me, but trapping and nuetering them or putting them down humanely is a pretty good idea.

That sounds like a great plan! After all, it would only cost a few hindered dollars to put that traps out, and then give the cat surgery, and then keep it in confinement until they're healed. In case you're curious, that was sarcastic. Would you really be willing to pay millions of extra dollars to save these cats lives?

Quoted from greenidentity:
I'm against it because a lot of people out there are stupid and don't even know nor will take the time to know what a feral cat is. Sadistic little kids will have a field day. For some reason, I think if this law gets passed, feral cats are not gonna be the only ones that will be shot. There's too much room for error in a law like this.

They've been hunting and killing both wild dogs and coyotes in Wisconsin for the past couple hundred years, how is that any different. I know that personally I've never seen any of my friends in high school go around shooting dogs out of people's yards. When we do shoot dogs is when we're already out in the woods hunting deer and you notice then stalking prey out in the wild. You have to have a small game license to kill coyotes and feral dogs; I would assume a cat would be the same. What's sadistic about a law like this, if you like that cat keep it inside, otherwise a rifle shot will turn it inside out, killing it instantly.

This reply was last edited on 04-30-05 09:03:45 AM by mmac.

greenidentity
Disco naps and liquorice Snaps.

It is time for some fine fine wine.....or box wine it's all good man

Ballkicks: (+603 / -81)
Posts: 3891 (0.59)
Reg. Date: Jun 2002
Location: Planet Seeth
Gender: Unspecified

Quoted from mmac:
like that cat keep it inside, otherwise a rifle shot will turn it instantly.

That's actually a great point.

If a hen and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half how long will it take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick the seeds out of a dill pickle?

mmac
INTL Premium Member
it's INTL, not the fucking UN - Amphy

3ms will rise again

Ballkicks: (+254 / -35)
Posts: 2339 (0.417)
Reg. Date: Feb 2005
Location: Minneapolis
Gender: Male

Sorry I fixed it. Nice to see that correcting my grammer is more important than any valid argument that you could make.

greenidentity
Disco naps and liquorice Snaps.

It is time for some fine fine wine.....or box wine it's all good man

Ballkicks: (+603 / -81)
Posts: 3891 (0.59)
Reg. Date: Jun 2002
Location: Planet Seeth
Gender: Unspecified

Actually....I wasn't correcting your grammar, I didn't even notice it before you pointed it out. I was being 100% serious......

If a hen and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half how long will it take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick the seeds out of a dill pickle?

Sunn O)))
INTL Alumni
14 year RP master

Zan-beef

Ballkicks: (+761 / -127)
Posts: 5456 (0.817)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laputa
Gender: Male

Quote:
If you call decimation of native wildlife due to the introduction of a large number of ultra-predators, then yah ecologies certainly do change. I've seen it happen for real in this country and have also been able to see the positive effect population management causes. The NZ bush was never meant to be silent, but introduced predators nearly extinguished many unique species of birds, which in turn removes a major source of pollination for the native plants that rely on birds to disperse their seed, causing the encroachment of exotics and scrub into the forest that cut off the light and affect the leaf litter in a negative fashion, killing off all manner of insect life and on and on. I think it's a rather facetious argument to call that evolution, it's more an unnatural decimation due to human tampering with the natural proceess of things ( yet again ). You could call it evolution if you consider any change evolution..but it doesnt sound like a strenghtening of the natural environment to me. Evolution is betterment.

Evolution is not betterment, if anything it's death. To say that human tampering is unnatural is absurd. The land you and I live on has been massively tampered with, yet you do not complain when humans inhibit forest fires from allowing for selective processes, nor do you complain if an introduced bird is decimating a vital, native insect population. There are few ecosystems which have not been tampered with humans. Ecologies do change, they may not be positive or negative changes, but the changes are just as natural if a human began it, or if other animals, locations, or genetic mutations caused it.

I do not agree that decimation is great, but to state that ecologies were never meant to support a feral cat population is incorrect. Ecologies were meant to support any population, the problem is to what extent will the population effect the ecosystem.

Quote:
So you’re telling me that if the released a lion on the Galapagos Islands, and it killed everything on the island, that would be ok because it was evolution? And is the reason you don’t want to kill cats because you think they’re cute and cuddly, or for some reason that’s actually important?

Technically, yes, it would be considered evolution. It's a form of evolution, even if due to human involvement. Ethically, it would not be considered appropriate. The difference between the feral cat population and releasing a lion on the Galapagos Islands is that the lion would be released on purpose (or so you stated), the feral cat population took generations to evolve to where they are at. Likewise, the lion population on the Galapagos Islands would die, another form of evolution, without anything to consume. The population of feral cats has shown to increase in the last few generations, which means that the region's ecosystem is adapting to their presence. I don't want to kill cats because I have personal inhibitions against it. However, I never stated that I'm against the hunting of cats. If you want to hunt the cats in Wisconsin, by all means do it, but I wont support it. Why this is any reason to consider my arguments futilous, I'm not too sure. People may feel just the same against animals they have personal inhibitions in hunting. Those personal inhibitions can be just as varied, not necessarily due to aesthetic qualities.

"Oh Joe Cocker"
(you like Joe's Cocker, don't ya?)
"It's up where it belongs."

Snowy
INTL Premium Member

Quoted from Sunny:

Evolution is not betterment, if anything it's death. To say that human tampering is unnatural is absurd.

Actually you're wrong and by most definitions Evolution is betterment - development, honing of a species or a process to a more refined and efficient state. It is not decimation.

ev·o·lu·tion Audio pronunciation of "evolution" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
1. The process of developing.
2. Gradual development.
3. Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

It is absurd of you to suggest that human tampering always a natural occurance, you might as well tell me next that everything we humans do is as if from the lips of God itself. Evolution is a process of betterment where species develop and refine traits to become more effective living machines. This is quite apart from what you are talking about, perhaps you should be speaking of 'survival of the fittest'. This is not Evolution in itself, it is a subset. Human mismanagement of domestic pets is not 'a set of ordered movements', the sudden introduction of feral cats into a native wildnerness is not 'historical development' it is a sudden sharp shock to the ecosystem. When you do things that disrupt the natural order of nature i'd say that qualifies you as unnatural.

Soft hair and a velvet tongue
I want to give you what you give to me

Sunn O)))
INTL Alumni
14 year RP master

Zan-beef

Ballkicks: (+761 / -127)
Posts: 5456 (0.817)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laputa
Gender: Male

Quote:
Actually you're wrong and by most definitions Evolution is betterment - development, honing of a species or a process to a more refined and efficient state. It is not decimation.

In practice, development or betterment as you call it, is insinuated by death and mutation. Decimation is a cause, not a definition of evolution.

Quote:
It is absurd of you to suggest that human tampering always a natural occurance, you might as well tell me next that everything we humans do is as if from the lips of God itself.

It is always a natural occurance. We are just a part of nature as any other organism. Our actions work for and against certain organisms. We relate our actions as being detrimental, only when humans seem to deem them detrimental. Whether or not this is your definition of a God, humans, just like every other animal, helps determine the way ecology works. To state what we do as an unnatural occurance is more so an argument for claiming that we follow in the lips of God. Humans have and never will be outside observers, nor our we the most important factor in every ecosystem. Yet, our actions assist in any negative or positive factors of the ecosystems we inadvertently or purposefully involve ourselves in.

Quote:
Evolution is a process of betterment where species develop and refine traits to become more effective living machines. This is quite apart from what you are talking about, perhaps you should be speaking of 'survival of the fittest'. This is not Evolution in itself, it is a subset.

No, I do not speak of 'survival of the fittest.' I refer to the general process behind evolution, not how evolution relates to a species. Not all processes of evolution are for the betterment of a certain species, nor are all forms of evolution negative for a certain species. Betterment is relative to the ecosystem and the species involved, not to the processes behind the ecosystem.

Quote:
Human mismanagement of domestic pets is not 'a set of ordered movements', the sudden introduction of feral cats into a native wildnerness is not 'historical development' it is a sudden sharp shock to the ecosystem. When you do things that disrupt the natural order of nature i'd say that qualifies you as unnatural.

Ah, but you see it is exactly what you stated. Introducing feral cats into an ecosystem is a set of ordered movements. The domesticated cats have adapted to living within the ecosystem - certainly you're not suggesting that the feral cats - several generations in fact - have not gone through a set of ordered movements to arrive to where they are currently at? Historical development refers to atleast one generation succeeding another, not that one species must be in an ecosystem for a select number of years. If that was so, European mice would be historically developed, even though they started off just the same as domesticated cats. The cats in question have survived a number of generations, and if the cycle continues, may very well adapt to the society within the ecosystem. The other animals in the ecosystem will adapt (or not), and the ecosystem will absorb the feral cats into it. If it hasn't already done so.

Historically, it's no surprise when a sudden shock occurs in an ecosystem. What do you think occured after the climatic events of 65 and 200 million years ago? On our time scale it may have been a slow and tedious process, yet it's just as shocking if you compare the sudden shock of those periods with the rest of ecological history. Granted human involvement has increased the speed of evolution, or even stunted it in some places; however, to state that it is a disruption of natural events that humans are involved would be placing humans on a pedestal in which everything we do is unnatural. We're not, nor is the introduction of a new species into another ecosystem unnatural. Unlikely to have occured through standard evolutionary means, yes, unnatural that the actions of humans are not a part of the standard evolutionary means, no.

"Oh Joe Cocker"
(you like Joe's Cocker, don't ya?)
"It's up where it belongs."

bicentennialman

LBH was here.

Ballkicks: (+29 / -16)
Posts: 179 (0.028)
Reg. Date: Dec 2002
Location: Annapolis, MD
Gender: Male

Sure, go ahead and hunt them. But you'd probably want to use a .22, or a 5.56mm, to avoid exploding the cat with, say, a .308.

Snowy
INTL Premium Member

I think it's ridiculous that people consider a plague of feral cats to be natural and something that is to be left alone, especially when they will hunt other species. Death to the cats, and off with their balls.

Soft hair and a velvet tongue
I want to give you what you give to me

PopRocks

Quoted from mmac:

Quoted from PopRocks:
hunting cats for sport seems a little messed up to me, but trapping and nuetering them or putting them down humanely is a pretty good idea.

That sounds like a great plan! After all, it would only cost a few hindered dollars to put that traps out, and then give the cat surgery, and then keep it in confinement until they're healed. In case you're curious, that was sarcastic. Would you really be willing to pay millions of extra dollars to save these cats lives?

But that's what we already do. It isn't new or innovative, the spca or whatever catch strays, nueter them and after a while puts them down. It sounds to me as if yes, they do need more funding and attention in this area.

Ms PT
INTL Premium Member

:)

Ballkicks: (+123 / -10)
Posts: 221 (0.039)
Reg. Date: Mar 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Gender: Female

I hate cats...they shed and they're so tempermental. G'head get rid of 'em all! I will shed my tear another time for another cause.

Sunn O)))
INTL Alumni
14 year RP master

Zan-beef

Ballkicks: (+761 / -127)
Posts: 5456 (0.817)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laputa
Gender: Male

Quote:
I think it's ridiculous that people consider a plague of feral cats to be natural and something that is to be left alone, especially when they will hunt other species. Death to the cats, and off with their balls.

Well, what are cats supposed to hunt - water? All organisms seek to hunt or affect other species. Stating otherwise would be 'unnatural.' A 'plague' of feral cats is 'natural' considering that they have adapted to their ecosystem, and the ecosystem has adapted to them. If one species betters because of it, or another does worse, it's a 'natural process.'

Also, what's up with the attacks against the male gender lately? In the castration thread, and now in the 'cut off their balls' statement. Off candid, perhaps, but I wouldn't call the women cats or sex offenders any less involved. LOL IM SUCH A FAG!!

Quote:
Sure, go ahead and hunt them. But you'd probably want to use a .22, or a 5.56mm, to avoid exploding the cat with, say, a .308.

It would be the same general process of hunting rabbits.

"Oh Joe Cocker"
(you like Joe's Cocker, don't ya?)
"It's up where it belongs."

Snowy
INTL Premium Member

You realise many ecologists would dispute your claims... just because it happens doesnt mean it's natural. The ecology adapts in a manner that doesnt serve to strengthen the natural order, it weakens the structure of a forest to have the leaf litter dispersed, this is a negative process if anything de-evolution. I'm sorry but I consider your argument incorrect and rather strange that you are a hunter and yet do not seem to understand that a plague of cats is something to be hunted and controlled rather than left to run rampant while you and Uncle Jeb go out huntin' bear.

Soft hair and a velvet tongue
I want to give you what you give to me

Sunn O)))
INTL Alumni
14 year RP master

Zan-beef

Ballkicks: (+761 / -127)
Posts: 5456 (0.817)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laputa
Gender: Male

Quote:
You realise many ecologists would dispute your claims, just because it happens doesnt mean it's natural. The ecology adapts in a manner that doesnt serve to strength the natural order, it weakens the structure of a forest to have the leaf litter dispersed, this is a negative process if anything de-evolution. I'm sorry but I consider your argument incorrect and rather strange that you are a hunter and yet do not seem to understand that a plague of cats is something to be hunted and controlled rather than left to run rampant while you and Uncle Jeb go out huntin' bear.

Wow. I said I've hunted, not that I hunt with Uncle Jeb.

While there would be ecologists who disagree, there are likely ecologists who agree, as well. However, the issue isn't whether or not it's natural, the issue is whether or not the ecosystem has evolved to allow it to be natural. When an introduced species reproduces, and can continually sustain the ecosystem, the species introduced has technically become part of that area of nature.

Considering you like definitions, consider this definition of 'nature:' " The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world." Are humans not a force which contorts and helps control the material world? Irregardless of how it effects the ecosystem, evolution speaks of adaptation. An ecosystem gradually (over time) adapts to the situation of having feral cats. Do a few species disappear or move to another area? Sure. Does the vegetation change? Sure. Do other organisms adapt to the situation? Yes. In the case of several generations of feral cats, has the ecosystem started to adapt to them? Yes. Consider it a form of de-evolution, (although that statement in itself is an oxymoron - how can something evolve to dis-evolve?) yet, natural processes ensure that ecosystems learn to adapt irregardless of the causes or factors behind the introduction of a species.

While I find your theories just as strange, I will not go so far as to say they're incorrect. I have no intentions of swaying your decision, or proving to the rest of INTL that I am right and you are wrong. I have intended to inform. To state one side of the story which previously had not been considered in this thread, just as you are doing.

"Oh Joe Cocker"
(you like Joe's Cocker, don't ya?)
"It's up where it belongs."

This reply was last edited on 04-30-05 09:34:35 PM by Sunn O))).

Snowy
INTL Premium Member

I usually consider a debate forum a place where people spar intellectually and information is passed on via that..im not here to teach so much as to try and throw opposing views down on the mat.

There's plenty of Earth that hasnt adapted to the impact humans have on the environment, we could look at the effects of deforestation, toxic waste dumping and nuclear test sites as prime examples. Or we could look at Africa and see what devestation elephants were causing due to the encroachment of humans on their natural territories, this greatly exacerbated the effects of natural drought and required that human gamekeepers cull herds so that the environment could support both human and animal.

For everything I say there is of course an opposite argument, 'these' are useful and of course we are animals and as such are a part of 'nature'. But I have enough evidence to support my claim that humans can also be and act outside of nature and what is good for the ecosystem..in the short term and the long term. The incidence of feral cats invading an unprepared ecosystem is one such event and I fully support the killing of such creatures so that their influx wont decimate the natural order of things.

I find it strange that someone who hunts would only recognise a personal need to do so and not to control feral populations of creatures that might very well impact on ( finding somethuign that might upset a hunter )natural game reserves via sudden changes in the ecosystem..but it seems you are more of a sit back and watch kinda personality and I am more guns blazing.

Soft hair and a velvet tongue
I want to give you what you give to me

Sunn O)))
INTL Alumni
14 year RP master

Zan-beef

Ballkicks: (+761 / -127)
Posts: 5456 (0.817)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laputa
Gender: Male

Quote:
I usually consider a debate forum a place where people spar intellectually and information is passed on via that..im not here to teach so much as to try and throw opposing views down on the mat.

I don't intend to teach either, only to inform. I speak through knowledge and understanding gained, and I like debating as it allows me to gain the understanding of another person. I like attempting to understand the opinions of others.

Quote:
There's plenty of Earth that hasnt adapted to the impact humans have on the environment, we could look at the effects of deforestation, toxic waste dumping and nuclear test sites as prime examples. Or we could look at Africa and see what devestation elephants were causing due to the encroachment of humans on their natural territories, this greatly exacerbated the effects of natural drought and required that human gamekeepers cull herds so that the environment could support both human and animal.

What about the cases where what you would consider 'nature' impacted the environment to which the adaptations are very slowly adapting (in terms of a human timeline), as in the case of glaciers, excessive heat, elemental physics, geographic boundries, and so on. I do not deny humans have caused both slow and fast occuring impacts on the environment; however, deforestation, toxic waste dumping, and the other incidents you pointed out will slowly be adapted to by other organisms. Certainly, organisms will become extinct, while other's profit from their demise, but adaptation (while it may be long) will occur. Humans tend to speed things up, yet we are still acting under 'nature.'

Quote:
For everything I say there is of course an opposite argument, 'these' are useful and of course we are animals and as such are a part of 'nature'. But I have enough evidence to support my claim that humans can also be and act outside of nature and what is good for the ecosystem..in the short term and the long term. The incidence of feral cats invading an unprepared ecosystem is one such event and I fully support the killing of such creatures so that their influx wont decimate the natural order of things.

This is perhaps the part of your argument which I find strange. You claimed earlier that to state that humans commit actions which are 'natural' is to claim that humans are speaking from the lips of God itself; yet, you now claim that humans are outside of nature, and are therefore 'special' in some way or form. If humans are outside of 'nature' but can still effect nature, wouldn't that justify as speaking from the lips of God? How can you be both a part of nature, and yet remain ultra vires to it? Either you're a factor which effects, contorts and helps control the material world, or you're not. If you're not, then what do you currently think you are doing? Asserting omnipotence?

Quote:
I find it strange that someone who hunts would only recognise a personal need to do so and not to control feral populations of creatures that might very well impact on natural game reserves via sudden changes in the ecosystem..but it seems you are more of a sit back and watch kinda personality and I am more guns blazing.

I've never stated I'm against the hunting of feral cats, only that I wouldn't support it. I've hunted not for sport, or to control a feral population, but because a few friends decided it upon themselves that they'd like to go hunting. Hunting in itself is another form of an effect on the ecosystem. By hunting, we are inflicting what we want on the ecosystem, asserting our influence on it, yet we are still under the power of 'natural processes.' If we either hunt or sit back, even for the sake of controlling a feral population, the ecosystem will adapt through 'natural processes,' even without our added influence. Hence a reason why we are still a part of 'nature,' yet not outside it.

I'm guns blazing, yet I'm guns blazing after consideration. Like I said, I'm not against it, I won't be the first person on the ride out ready to get me some kitties. It has been more about whether or not feral cats 'belong' than whether or not we should hunt them like we do with deer, bears, rabbits and other animals.

"Oh Joe Cocker"
(you like Joe's Cocker, don't ya?)
"It's up where it belongs."

Snowy
INTL Premium Member

Quoted from Sunny:
You claimed earlier that to state that humans commit actions which are 'natural' is to claim that humans are speaking from the lips of God itself

Quoted from Snowy:
It is absurd of you to suggest that human tampering always a natural occurance, you might as well tell me next that everything we humans do is as if from the lips of God itself.

This was sarcasm.

Quote:
yet, you now claim that humans are outside of nature, and are therefore 'special' in some way or form.

You use technicalities an awful lot, yes that would make us unique. I have said that humans can and do act outside of nature, making them be and cause unnatural additions to the environment.

Quoted from Snowy:
For everything I say there is of course an opposite argument, 'these' are useful and of course we are animals and as such are a part of 'nature'. But I have enough evidence to support my claim that humans can also be and act outside of nature and what is good for the ecosystem..in the short term and the long term.

Quoted from Sunny:
If humans are outside of 'nature' but can still effect nature, wouldn't that justify as speaking from the lips of God?

An ignorant willful childish God, perhaps. Or just an orgamism that doesnt belong and ought to learn to get along better with what was already here before us if we want to continue being here for very much longer.

Quoted from Sunny:
]How can you be both a part of nature, and yet remain ultra vires to it?

By being human. There is no divinity to be found in finding yourself outside of nature, on the contray I think this might indicate some inbred ignorance of how to subsist on this planet in the longterm. Not terribly omnipotent of us.

Quoted from Sunny:
Either you're a factor which effects, contorts and helps control the material world, or you're not.

You can quite easily be both or neither, it probably has a lot to do with asserting free will. Or displaying ignorance. Or innocence. Or willfullness. Being human.

Quoted from Sunny:
If you're not, then what do you currently think you are doing? Asserting omnipotence?

I'm sure a lot of Hollywood producers would nod their head.

Soft hair and a velvet tongue
I want to give you what you give to me

Sunn O)))
INTL Alumni
14 year RP master

Zan-beef

Ballkicks: (+761 / -127)
Posts: 5456 (0.817)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laputa
Gender: Male

Quote:
This was sarcasm.

It may be sarcasm, but you still imply it among your arguments.

Quote:
You use technicalities an awful lot, yes that would make us unique. I have said that humans can and do act outside of nature, making them be and cause unnatural additions to the environment.

While we do inflict and influence nature, we are still slaves to 'natural processes.' "How can we be both a part of nature, and yet remain ultra vires to it?"

Quote:
By being human. There is no divinity to be found in finding yourself outside of nature, on the contray I think this might indicate some inbred ignorance of how to subsist on this planet in the longterm. Not terribly omnipotent of us.

Quote:
An ignorant willful childish God, perhaps. Or just an orgamism that doesnt belong and ought to learn to get along better with what was already here before us if we want to continue being here for very much longer.

So a bad parasite, in other words. Bad parasites are still part of 'nature,' even if by their actions they are inflicting damage upon themselves.

Quote:
You can quite easily be both or neither, it probably has a lot to do with asserting free will. Or displaying ignorance. Or innocence. Or willfullness. Being human.

Outside of a psychological reaction, or humanity, technically humans do effect and exert control on the material world. There is no case where people don't, despite what they may believe or attempt to assert on themselves. Everything you and I do, while it be sitting on the internet consuming energy or even being unwilling to go out right now to save or destroy what we believe is 'nature,' is still exerting some effect on 'nature.'

Quote:
I'm sure a lot of Hollywood producers would nod their head.

Psychologically, yes, they have reasons to say so or ignorance to support. 'Naturally,' no, it would be a form of divinity.

"Oh Joe Cocker"
(you like Joe's Cocker, don't ya?)
"It's up where it belongs."

Snowy
INTL Premium Member

I for one will take up hoe and shotgun and fight against the alien invaders from Mars. Their destructive influence is not natural to this planet and need not decimate the happy biosphere of a billion years.

In the meantime im going to hone my technique on feral cats.

Soft hair and a velvet tongue
I want to give you what you give to me

Quick Reply

Page: [ 1 2 3 ]	Reply to Thread \| Create New Thread \| Create New Poll \| Convert To Poll \| Subscribe To Thread
[ Thread Views: 11501 \| Total Posts: 70 ]

Server Time: 07-06-20 01:39:02 PM
Load Time: 0.275 seconds.
- PHP: 0.178 seconds.
- SQL: 0.097 seconds.
- Queries: 27

Top of Page