Re: Hold the deer killers to account
- From: amacmil304@xxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 11:24:25 +0100
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:48:58 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <oolgf2d51b29au3f9s11f43fbanivkd0u5@xxxxxxx>
amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 11:26:09 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:[snip]
It really is impossible to live on this planet without in some way
killing animals, either directly, or indirectly. It's all too easy in
this country, and at this point in time to sanitise issues and develop
distorted perspectives. We have an expectation of long healthy lives and
many of us don't personally and directly experience death on a daily or
weekly basis. But in order to live that long and healthy life, and to
buy all those commodities in the supermarkets and shops, to build those
roads and houses, to cloth ourselves and furnish our homes, we are all
indirectly causing the deaths of other animals and the destruction of
habitat. It's how the planet works, it's one big ecosystem, we're not
separate from nature, and any concept of leaving nature alone is the
ultimate in naivety.
I agree entirely. But the difference is that the so-called
conservationists are being dishonest and kill wildlife to support
their agendas. Likewise, the hunters are killing for fun and
recreation. They don't travel from overseas and pay up to £1000 a day
for food.
I'm surprised you can't see that.
I think the problem is that whilst both of us might have some agreement
on how animals should be treated and also how people should behave
towards wildlife.
I've not really noticed this but perhaps so.
We clearly have a fundamental difference over the best
way forward, and who is the real enemy that needs tackling.
In my view that could be laid at the door of the dishonesty of the
fake conservationists and the shooting industry.
No organisation is perfect, and everyone can have the label of
hypocrisy leveled at them.
Sure, but not everybody is soliciting for money of that basis.
I don't agree with everything that
organisations such as RSPB or WWT or Greenpeace, or Amnesty do, but on
the whole I think they're achieving more good than harm.
In what way?
Certainly I'veWith respect, that's about the craziest analogy I've ever come across.
got more faith in them than the oil and arms industries.
I became a vegetarian when it was clear to me that we were exhausting
fish stocks by exploiting them in an unsustainable way. I also objected
to the protein supplements used in domestic farming.
Good.
But I'm not going to agree with you on your chosen targets or you're
chosen actions.
That's your choice.
They're simply disproportionate and way-off target.
That's your subjective opinion.
In my view you're wrong.
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hold the deer killers to account
- From: Mike Clark
- Re: Hold the deer killers to account
- References:
- Re: Hold the deer killers to account
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Hold the deer killers to account
- From: Mike Clark
- Re: Hold the deer killers to account
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Hold the deer killers to account
- From: Mike Clark
- Re: Hold the deer killers to account
- Prev by Date: Re: Lidl walking boots
- Next by Date: Re: The Countryside Playground
- Previous by thread: Re: Hold the deer killers to account
- Next by thread: Re: Hold the deer killers to account
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|