Guest Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 The word that hangs me up is "require"...would they benefit from protection? Probably. I'll even stipulate that they would. Do they have any right enforceable on humanity to it? No. I don't want to risk killing off what's left of our timber industry by seeking protection for an animal that is in no way essential to human survival on Earth. I want them documented in the spirit of intellectual honesty and the truth, not so that they can be used to ruin more human families' lives (and experience teaches me that is EXACTLY what would happen). Cold? Maybe...but that's how I feel. Per the ESA, protection needs to be required, i.e., justified, in accordance to at least one of the listing criteria defined by the statute. It does not allow for protecting a species simply because it would be nice to do so. Discover them because that is what we, Homo sapiens, knowing men, do -- we are innately curious about our world around us. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Once we have that, then we can afford to discuss what, if anything, should be done to protect them.
Guest Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 It's a hard tight rope to walk, balancing our needs with nature. It's not that hard, man is part of nature. Regarding DDT, for example, I would have scored that one man 1, mosquito 0, and opted to keep using it.
Guest rockinkt Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 It's not that hard, man is part of nature. Exactly! Also, nature is never "in balance". That is a pseudo-scientific fallacy. Regarding DDT, for example, I would have scored that one man 1, mosquito 0, and opted to keep using it. Especially since it was banned due to outrageous lies, poor science, and political grandstanding.
Guest Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 How can see say that Bigfoot is in need of protection if we now hardley anything about them. Does it do more harm than good to give a protection to a species that we need a typespecimen before it is reconignized by science? Dr Gover S. Krantz said "We have no idication that the sasquatch is ab endangered species. It population probably in the thousands, and maybe tens of thousands. This is far certain, however, and this idea might have to be revised when we know more."
Guest Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 I recommend getting your facts straight about DDT. There is no valid, non-fallacious, scientific evidence that DDT caused bird egg shell thinning or in any other way endangered the health of birds. DDT was arbitrarily and capriciously banned by the EPA administrator, and the only thing that action accomplished was the unnecessary death from malaria of one-hundred-million people, mostly in Africa. Remember, environmentalism kills. Sincerely, Pteronarcyd Not to derail the thread, but PLEASE give some info...Can you provide perhaps a link or two to a politically unbiased scientific study/paper or site (no obviously right wing sources, please) that exonerates DDT as a dangerous chemical. There is no doubt that it was banned in what was a charged political climate, but current thinking (from Duke and many, many other universities) seems to point out quite a few possible dangers... and effects ... Convince me...I can understand being on one side of the fence or the other regarding the use of DDT and the eradication of malaria (i.e., deciding that the possible environmental damage from DDT is worth eradicating malaria), but claiming that DDT is not a dangerous chemical is a very different argument, I think.
Guest Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) I just posted my latest blog article a few days ago which relates to this (and many other) threads. (Its a long one) So figured I'd make note of it here in case anyone is interested. Always available in my Sig Line. the Sasquatch Voice Edited October 31, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist
Guest KentuckyApeman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 ****, when I saw the thread title I was thinking heavy boots and a fur lined parka.
JDL Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) That's better than what I was thinking. I suppose size would be an issue in either case. Edited October 31, 2011 by JDL
Guest Jodie Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 FYI- I can stretch one over my shoe, I believe he could handle the standard.
Guest Jodie Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 How do you get a glove over a shoe? Give it a try, if you have problems, PM me, I'll send you directions.
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 I just posted my latest blog article a few days ago which relates to this (and many other) threads. (Its a long one) So figured I'd make note of it here in case anyone is interested. Always available in my Sig Line. the Sasquatch Voice Outstanding blog! I just saved the link and will follow your posts with interest. Yes, your point regarding the upcoming market for sasquatch body parts once the species is recognized is a chilling and true concern. Some of the first illustrations of Yeti or Almasty are in ancient Asian texts dealing with which parts to consume for various health benefits. Your question regarding how many sasquatch have been maimed in attempts to "proof their existence so we can protect them" is also very valid, given the recent Sierra and Echo incidents.
Guest Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 I,, honestly believe they need to remain undiscovered!! And they dont need protection from anybody!! to SHARE my ideas,To anybody who cares?.. should listen to the latest internet radio show: [bigfoot tonight show] 10-30-2011 the guest"s name is Bill Blueman.. I appologize that i cant give links to the show,, cause I dont know how! However its at the blog talk raido show website as im shure 90% of y"all already know.
Guest Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Can you provide perhaps a link or two to a politically unbiased scientific study/paper or site (no obviously right wing sources, please) that exonerates DDT as a dangerous chemical. You advertize your bias by refusing to look at a so-called obvious right-wing source. What is to stop you from labeling whatever sources I provide as right wing and then ridiculing them? That's a typically elitist tactic. Let me clue you in -- no one is free from biases. It is fallacious to judge a proponent's argument on the basis of the proponent's beliefs (argumentum ad hominem); one should judge the argument on it's validity and soundness. There is no shortage of close-minded so-called skeptics here. Educating the close-minded is a hopeless exercise. If you can convince me that you will examine the documents I can provide in an open-minded and logical manner without resorting to Alinsky tactics, I'll be happy to provide them. Otherwise, I'll leave it to you to search for them yourself. current thinking (from Duke and many, many other universities) seems to point out quite a few possible dangers... and effects ... All substances are hazardous -- if the dose is high enough. They teach you in Toxicology for Jocks that the dose makes the poison. Inhale too much dihydrogen oxide and you will die. Feed too much pure dihydrogen oxide to an infant (feeding one any at all is unwise) and it will die. Your Duke link fails to mention the dose at which the mentioned adverse effects occur. I could write a similar blurb describing some of the lethal effects of exposure to water that would be just as scary if I could, like Duke did, omit all information about dosage. I'm unaware of a single human being harmed from DDT exposure. In fact, DDT's leading proponent used to eat a tablespoon of the substance each week, often at public hearings, to demonstrate it's safety in the early 1970s. His first exposures to DDT occurred in 1944 in Europe during WWII. He did die in 2004. While climbing a mountain in Glacier National Park in had a heart attack at age 84. Convince me...I can understand being on one side of the fence or the other regarding the use of DDT and the eradication of malaria (i.e., deciding that the possible environmental damage from DDT is worth eradicating malaria), but claiming that DDT is not a dangerous chemical is a very different argument, I think. Any decision, except some that are very simple and obvious, requires making tradeoffs. All chemicals, in the right dose, are dangerous. Some chemicals offer amazing benefits. The evidence shows that DDT is one of the latter. You, of course, are welcome to feel comfortable in the delusion that DDT, when used appropriately, is dangerous. Try to convince the tens of millions of pregnant women and children in Africa who have died because they were denied access to DDT of how dangerous the substance is. Just to clarify, I will gladly provide links to two or more articles documenting the malicious fraud behind the DDT ban, if you are willing to assure me that you will (1) read them and (2) judge them within the framework of logic. Sincerely, Pteronarcyd
Recommended Posts