Saturday, May 17, 2014

My Debate with a Liberal on the Equity Between Animals and Humans with Regards to Free Range of Land

Topic: My Debate with a Liberal on the Equity Between Animals and Humans with Regards to Free Range of Land:

This is the second debate I have found myself in over the past three days, this one over the issue of humans being responsible for destroying the land and hunting animals to extinction, as well as deforestation. The subject was introduced based upon a friend of mine from Ohio who is a model posting this photograph of Ted Nugent along with his commentary on why the best means to practice conservation is to find measures to preserve the natural balance and order of an ecosystem. For my new readers, I will inform you that my full name is Jonathan Henderson, and it will be under my name that you may read my answers in reply to the gentleman named Steve Lenneville, who posited how mankind is responsible for the imminent destruction of all nature and the extinction of scores of animals.
***
Lisa Zee (Model) shared Ted Nugent's photo.
21 hrs · 
THE most beneficial conservation practice for healthy wildlife is trapping, it is the only system to control mange, distemper, rabies & other dangerous diseases...
See More
Unlike ·  ·  · 39030
  • Top Comments
    You and 389 others like this.
  • Jonathan Henderson
  • Jonathan Henderson Ladies and gentlemen, Ted Nugent is absolutely correct to say what he did. Animal rights activists who know nothing about the general order of how nature is balanced cannot tell you why it is imperative for the population to be not too densely populated by wolves where there might be a large total of elk, for example. If too many wolves are concentrated in an area of elk - assuming that both coexist in these areas - the latter animal, the herbivore, may be hunted to extinction. Likewise, should there be too few wolves, the elk proliferate, the wolves become mired in calumny, and the flora in the general vicinity upon which the elk feed as well as other herbivores will quickly become scarce in supply and those who feed upon it have to migrate elsewhere or starve. If people are to become chapped in the ass due to the false security of overreactions in emotion over reason and scientific facts, perhaps they need to be conditioned as if the mongrels caged by Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936) due to utter ignorance and unwillingness to learn simple biological facts.
    Like · Reply · 7 · 20 hours ago · Edited
    • Steve Lenneville Not saying you're entirely wrong but what about natural selection?? Way before dumb humans fuck it all up there was something called natural selection to "naturally" do excatly what you are talking about!! So who are we to decide how we control this thing?? Stupid humans just do it cause some animals have become a nuisance?!?! A nuisance for who? We,re the the ones who stole their habitat and destroyed their hunting ground!! We have no rights to mess with nature!!
      Like · 19 hours ago
    • Jonathan Henderson And if humans are so stupid, Steve, then why are we considered mammalia like animals? Did not the first humans subsist as nomads, where they lived off the animals in a general region until they were hunted to extinction, and then migrated to another area, or ecosystem? The Plains Indians in Montana and the Dakotas lived in much the same manner, and yet not one biologist I have read so far has condemned them. And if mankind does feed off of animals, just who is equal to whom or what, and why do carnivores like wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc., get free range over their chosen prey and yet when a human shoots a buck for venison, it is consider inhumane and cruelty to animals? Are humans not mammalia, as I stated, and therefore prone to not merely tend the land to grow agriculture, but still most eat meat? And finally, if the nature of mankind was to initially subsist off of meat, why suddenly are we to be legally banned from continuing to act within our own nature? 

      And Steve, with your logic behind the diatribe of how horrible we as a species are, would this mean to you that if it meant the proliferation of these different species of animals and the preservation of land to not be tilled due to soil erosion and deforestation, do you believe that mankind should not exist, to go extinct? If this is your definition of natural selection, this would imply that a policy of genocide would be the proper remedy since we are the scourge of the earth! For if all of God's creatures (or whatever you believe) are equal, then why does mankind have to be wiped out of the equation entirely when we were created to live off it as with any other creature or plant? Would that not entail that since you are not God or the law of Nature, your choice to implement a final solution for mankind when that law of Nature has not provided for the conditions for one man or an oligarchy of one percent comprised of false prophets to first pontificate as if educated beyond the possible comprehension of the remaining 99%? For one to be considered a populist political activist or ideologue, it is a rather poor policy to convince the masses to exalt them to lord and server and then slaughter them and justifying this act as if they were like Bob Jones in Guyana serving cyanide-laced Kool-Aid that to kill off the entire human race due to this evil, which would be your answer by dent of your logic, would free us from our evils and save the animals of the world.

      It is akin to what I read a professor say, which was how all white people should commit suicide due to their inherent evil. For a left-wing political ideologue who believes in equity to the point of Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat, it sure appears more of an Orwellian reference to "Animal Farm" where the sign stated to the animals:

      ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
      BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
      Like · 4 · 18 hours ago · Edited
    • Steve Lenneville Man you're serious?!?! How much time have you lost writing all this shit?? It's FB not discovery channel!! Come on go on and buy yourself a life!! I jsut don't have time to answer all your question!! I will just say that I think we mesed up with natural selection in a way that we destroyed the balance of nature!! We use more ressource than earth could provide us and I truly think taht we should thin the herd for the benefit of the human and all other living species but not to a point where we completely become exctinct!! And once again as a human you value yourself so much that you seem to think human Worth more than animals or plants!! I would never agree with that sorry!!
      Like · 17 hours ago
    • Jonathan Henderson Steve, first, I type very fast, over 140 words per minute. Second, your logic infers that you would consider an option for the entire human race be destroyed ideally because if you read what you stated, you mentioned in so many words that we are the cause for the world's demise, for the world's ecosystems being destroyed, and through all of your ranting, you never once mention that mankind as hominids are believed to have its beginnings in present day Ethiopia about 11,000 years ago, or what once was called Abyssinia as nomadic hunters and gatherers, and as they migrated from continent to continent, they evolved to where at some point, the initiation of agricultural harvests came to pass, which required land to be cleared, while still hunting for meat. Humanity is just as naturally prone to live off the earth in the same manner as the animals you claim we kill in many case indiscriminately. Yet if we are human beings and we value our own lives, why place a moratorium on any hunting or raising of livestock, or if we used that logic, why would the governments of the world not do that? Your assertion again infers how mankind is morally unequal to the rest of the world's animalia who live based upon their instincts' dictating their modus operandi, while we critically reason. There recently was a report from the Obama-run EPA that proposes a series of regulations and a tax on the levels of carbon dioxide expelled within bovine flatulence! If that happens, when does the next domino fall that initiates the coup de gras of the chain reaction? It is akin to what I told Lisa Zee (Model) in her other post from today about a full ban on the killing animals for their fur to mass produce fur clothing in that while I believe more needs to be done to protect these animals, where does the next domino begin to topple atop of the adjacent ones? There is an entire series of issues to consider. This was what I replied to her with, and since she posted her article as its own post, you may need to refer to the post itself for information:

      "The situation involving animal cruelty laws is one I would imagine your father would say is very difficult to define in terms of differentiating what and why one issue may be regulated or banned while others are not. I imagine that one test question would be to define what "animal cruelty" actually is. For instance, to harbor animals under the guise that they are lab testing specimens would entail that the legal statutes issue a very rigorous, strict statute of the criteria for what may be defined as "testing" and to the contrary, what is not. There is the issue Lisa Zee (Model), too, of how the legal codes would deal with animal deaths during lab testing and then if those corpses are "disposed of" and the process so happens to be skinning the fur from them, how best that is to be addressed. Does government then ban the testing of all animals for laboratory experiments as this is considered to be the acceptable alternative by a general consensus to doing the same on humans?

      The next controversy if this is dealt with by banning all animal testing and the manufacturing of animal skin or fur clothing, do we then see animal rights activists so extreme as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) sue to ban the raising of livestock in order to be slaughtered for food? If the Second Amendment plus the First, Fourth, Tenth and perhaps even the Third are to be targeted for a full repeal, the millennia old practice of raising livestock for food could be next. It is like the issue with the U.S. Supreme Court last year in June striking down Proposition 8 in California which now is about make legal in all 50 states for same-sex marriages in that this is possible, there were three women in I believe New York who married each other, and still another man who is suing to marry his computer as he is highly addicted to pornography, and I already have liberal friends calling for the rescinding of the prohibition on polygamy as they claim, ironically, that it is repressive for such religions as Islam and Mormonism to practice that portion of their faith's tradition while they attempt to cripple the capacity for Christians to exist based upon their beliefs. The cliche of "give them an inch and they will take it a mile" is most apropos when describing what setting one precedent by turning back what had been centuries worth of tradition. If you play dominoes and tip one so that it will knock back the adjacent one, the rest will quickly topple. As I am being objective regarding this issue, it certainly begs the question of how far we as a society are willing to go and how we will apply any limits or breaks to what could be a very troublesome series of consequences from a legal perspective"

      http://www.animallaw.info/.../tabbed%20topic.../spusfur.htm
      Fur Production and Fur Laws
      www.animallaw.info
      Michigan State University College of Law. When complete, this site will contain ...See More
      Like · Remove Preview · 17 hours ago · Edited
    • Jonathan Henderson
  • Andrea Stapleton Gah... I hope he ate the meat. Only real reason to hunt. If u want the fur then eat the meat. No reason to waste 
    Unlike · Reply · 9 · 20 hours ago
  • Andrea Stapleton Um I read it... it refered to fur.... so as I said before.... I HOPE HE ATE THAT PUSSY
    Like · Reply · 4 · 18 hours ago
    • Jonathan Henderson
  • Tony Shinaberry A slow, painful death to anyone who harms any cat, regardless of breed!!!!!
    Like · Reply · 2 · 16 hours ago
  • Michael Foulkrod bullshit creating excuses to kill
    Like · Reply · 2 · 17 hours ago
  • Yvon-pat Travailler-Gref See the picture of this big MORON
    Like · Reply · 1 · 20 hours ago
  • Mike Paradis kill em all brothah!!!!!!!!!
    Like · Reply · 1 · 20 hours ago
  • Vaughn Dohmeier Too bad the wrong animal got killed.
    Like · Reply · 3 · 20 hours ago
  • Aubrey Justin Jonah Smith The only thing I pay attention to about Ted is his Guitar playing.. He is great at writing songs and playing guitar... Everything else he says is CRay CRAY.. A lot of famous musicians are CRAY CRAY ..actors as well... I find it far safer to pay attention to their art... cause that's why I know whom they are. That dead Bobcat makes me very sad. The only reason for that is when they come right at you ... then there is no choice. If you have herding dogs you will never have to shoot a Coyote,Wolf,Lynx,Bobcat,or Cougar..or a bear for that matter... I have watched 5 dogs contain and move off a lean Hungry Kodiac Grizzly....A group of dogs is as bad ass as it comes in the natural world.
    Like · Reply · 1 hr
  • Victor Oswaldo Rutti que lindo gatito See Translation
    Like · Reply · 8 hrs
  • Colin Volckman Ted You are fat useless excuse for a human!!! Karma is coming for you!!! And I hope it's very painful when it does! And your music is shit too! Prick!!
    Like · Reply · 9 hrs
  • Lucky Zain wawoooo great
    Like · Reply · 10 hrs
  • Ilonka Johnston hey kitty
    Like · Reply · 13 hours ago
  • David Pickett Why are you listening to anything a balls to the wall racist misogynist homophobic extreme rightwing draft dodging pedophile wanna be asshole prick has to say about anything?
    Like · Reply · 15 hours ago
  • Tony Shinaberry And for the record, this military service dodging, unpatriotic, far right wing nutjob POS is the only animal in this pic that deserves to be shot!!!!
    Like · Reply · 16 hours ago
  • Ryan Hayes Man,I hate that guys music.
    Like · Reply · 16 hours ago
  • Carlos Hernández No hay k matar a los animales pendejoSee Translation
    Like · Reply · 17 hours ago
  • Andrea Stapleton Then I have no complaints. As long as it was eaten....
    Like · Reply · 18 hours ago
  • Creative Lord good catch 
    Like · Reply · 18 hours ago
  • Miichael Menges Dinner time
    Like · Reply · 19 hours ago
  • Sonnyballs Wolowitz Hoang Dunno why people still use real fur 
    When technology has given us synthetic materials that performs equal or better than it. ..

    Oh waith hillbilly murica that's why
    Like · Reply · 20 hours ago
  • Charles Hartley I played a couple shows with him years ago and i have to say he was one of the biggest ass holes i have ever met
    Like · Reply · 20 hours ago
  • True Monolith Was just thinking about Lynx today... irony eh? 
    Like · Reply · 20 hours ago
  • Kevin McShane Fuck Ted Nugent
    Like · Reply · 6 hrs
  • Write a comment...
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)