reply to post by nake13
I do take the view that we are part of the natural cycle. "Society," however, is not. Look at any inner city, then look at any rural area: the city
is dirty, disease-ridden, and full of crime against each other. The rural setting will be cleaner, with healthier people in it, and will have an
almost non-existent crime rate. The difference is that in the city, natural processes have been abandoned because the people there believe they are
too "intelligent" to accept natural processes. In the country, we know we are a part of nature and we adapt to nature instead of trying to redefine
Intelligence is not some number derived from a test; intelligence is measured in reality as the ability to survive and thrive in the conditions one
finds oneself in. In that respect, the very idea that society exhibits "intelligence" is in itself laughable. Society breeds decay, crime, and
disease, none of which are conducive to survival. Ergo, there is little to no intelligence in society.
I would hope that you are aware that we do not simply walk around killing anything we see out here. We don't. We put up fences and many use natural
repellants to try and keep predators away form our livestock and others away from our crops. We use guard animals to scare off potential problems so
they can continue to exist in the wild. But what we do not do is concern ourselves with the supposed right of an animal to live. That supposed right
does not exist in nature... do you think a rabbit has the right to live when it comes under the scrutiny of a hungry fox? No, it does not. It has the
right to attempt to live by escaping, and the fox has the right to attempt to eat it. Which one wins depends on which one is faster and smarter.
If I have a garden that is providing food for my family, and deer want to eat my garden, I have several options: I can try repellants such as cat
urine to keep the deer away, I can keep dogs that will chase the deer away, I can put up fences that make it harder for the deer to enter my garden, I
can shoot the deer when they enter the garden, or I can abandon my garden. If I fail to maintain my garden, especially in a societal breakdown, I run
the risk of starvation. Therefore it becomes not a question of whether or not I have the right to kill an animal, but whether or not I will survive or
the deer will eat my food. In that scenario, the most insane thought process I can imagine is to worry about the deer's right to survive at the
expense of my own.
The situation becomes even more dire when the offending animal is a predator. A deer is not going to eat me, but rather could make it difficult or
impossible for me to have food. A predator can kill livestock affecting my food supply even more so than a deer eating a garden, or could even attack
and injure me, kill me, eat me or my family members. Not to mention the constant threat of rabies.
I realize you believe that your attitudes toward nature are progressive and civilized, but in reality they are inane and ignorant of the realities
that exist. The tigers you want to protect have absolutely no problem taking you down if given a chance, and the only realistic response to that is,
if a direct confrontation cannot be avoided, to retaliate in like manner.
Example: Where I used to deer hunt there was a bear that claimed that particular area as it's range. I found out the bear was there by seeing tracks
and rubs, which identified it as a large and potentially dangerous animal. My response was to go out and purchase a gun that would have the power to
protect me if needed. I still own that .444 Marlin rifle. I had one opportunity to use it. One morning I was watching for the deer to make their
appearance around a watering hole when I hear something rooting around behind me. I turned around, switched guns, and saw, through the scope, a
medium-sized black bear rummaging around in a pine thicket not 200 yards away. I watched him for a few moments to make sure he had no interest in me,
and went back to my hunting, glancing around occasionally just to be sure. I could have easily taken the bear out, but there was no need to do so. Had
there been a need to do so, I would not have hesitated to drill a hole through his chest.
That's reality. Without the gun, I might as well have been an ant struggling against an elephant. The bear had the inherent ability to kill me
easily. It did not have the desire, and so it lived. If it had indicated any intent to do me harm, it would not have. That is the mentality you argue
against: the simple instinctive desire for self-protection.
I ask: would you have allowed the bear to roam around where you were without any type of defensive weapon? Had that bear attacked you, would you have
simply bowed your head and with your last thought, thought "the bear has the right to live"?