DO YOU SMOKE POT?

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by JeepNGeorge


We must becareful not to become what we hate. Killing birds or untimely fires is all the same.

No, it's not. Killing those birds is spoiling your environment so that it suits your decadent, wasteful desires. Running that individual away is keeping your environment closer to its original, functioning standard.

I sound like a damn hippy, but trapping and then bashing in the heads of those birds horrible.

I bet he's a damn yuppie.

And it's easy to avoid becoming what you hate. Keep high standards, morals and ethics and avoid compromise.

[mrnoodle]

Originally posted by CrySanctuary
Nope, personally StraightEdge...

And how many 15 year olds can say THAT? *grin*

not enough. If you ever feel the need to try it, just wait till you're done with high school. Not that it would kill you or anything, but it would save your parents a couple gray hairs.

[CrySanctuary]

Originally posted by mrnoodle

not enough. If you ever feel the need to try it, just wait till you're done with high school. Not that it would kill you or anything, but it would save your parents a couple gray hairs.

You know, I really don't. I've been offered (many drugs) plenty of times, my whole high school is full of stoners... I think I've gotten past the main reason kids try it - peer preasure. That's never been a problem for me fortunetly.

I've already talked to one of my siblings about this...if I ever DO try it, then I sure aint gettin' wiser with age!

I must ask this, hijacking my own post for the moment - You didn't by chance take your name from the infamous Noodle Boy, did you?

[mrnoodle]

nope. One of the bands I was in called me that because I can't stop farting around on guitar during "in-between" times. I noodle. so it stuck. I even have it on one of my guitar cases. lol

[BrianR]

I disagree...there is no parallel between the burning of an inanimate structure and the willful killing of innocent and relatively helpless lesser life forms.

The animals were given to us, not to wantonly destroy because it suits us, but as a part of a whole entity, the world, and it is incumbent (another $10 word) upon us to be the stewards of that world; to refrain from destruction for destruction's sake, to kill only for food or for personal safety. The death of those birds serves no purpose other than his personal edification (that's a $5 word).

Dagney has a next-door neighbor who traps squirrels because they annoy him. But unlike your murderous neighbor, he takes them miles away and releases them. I, therefore, do not have a problem with that. But it is senseless death that bothers me to the point of costing me sleep.

I would put a quick stop to this slaughter were I you.

Brian

[xoxoxoBruce]

I do not approve of killing the birds. No how. No way.
That said, I don't believe the flora and fauna of the earth was left to my stewardship, or yours. That's a religious thing.
Humans are just another critter left to his only devices to survive in a very hostile world. We were better equipt and have evolved to where if we really put out mind to it, could control everything, maybe even the weather to some degree. But that gives us neither the obligation nor right to do so.
Sure, it would be smart to take a que from other critters not to be screwing everything up around us. Those birds might dine on a bug that could wipe us out. There's too much we don't know.

[dar512]

Originally posted by lumberjim


you're just still mad about that time when i hit you with my club and stole your woman.

actually, while i am educated, and majored in art in college, i DO tend to relate better to simple pleasures. I might actually enjoy an opera, but i think i'd have to be really really stoned. I love classical music....bach, motzart, schroeder.


you know, the masters.....

Well, I knew you were educated. But I have to admit I thought you would think that opera was wimpy. My mistake.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

[lumberjim]

not whimpy as long as there are viking helmets and fat chicks.....it appeals to the biker in me.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I do not approve of killing the birds. No how. No way.
That said, I don't believe the flora and fauna of the earth was left to my stewardship, or yours. That's a religious thing.
Humans are just another critter left to his only devices to survive in a very hostile world. We were better equipt and have evolved to where if we really put out mind to it, could control everything, maybe even the weather to some degree. But that gives us neither the obligation nor right to do so.
Sure, it would be smart to take a que from other critters not to be screwing everything up around us. Those birds might dine on a bug that could wipe us out. There's too much we don't know.

I disagree. For myself, our stewardship is entirely based on our need to not screw up our environment. I'm not an animist, or an eco-freak. I just know that systems don't last as long as they have without some degree inherent balance. Humans mess up that balance at this point. Early on we were incapable of enough damage to skew things. Now, on the other hand, we can do significant harm. Our only obligation is to ourselves, but that obligation involves tending our fields not shepharding our or the animal's souls.

I agree that we don't know enough though.

[dar512]

Originally posted by lumberjim
not whimpy as long as there are viking helmets and fat chicks.....it appeals to the biker in me.

Have you seen American Choppers on cable? My brother introduced me to it over the weekend. What a hoot.

[elSicomoro]

That show is great. I'm just waiting for the Teutels to beat the living shit out of each other on camera...

[wolf]

Originally posted by CrySanctuary
Nope, personally StraightEdge...

And how many 15 year olds can say THAT? *grin*

Is that some new drug I haven't heard about, or are you one of those kids that do all kinds of extreme shit, including tattoos and piercings, but won't use drugs, drink, or have sex?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


I disagree. For myself, our stewardship is entirely based on our need to not screw up our environment. I'm not an animist, or an eco-freak. I just know that systems don't last as long as they have without some degree inherent balance. Humans mess up that balance at this point. Early on we were incapable of enough damage to skew things. Now, on the other hand, we can do significant harm. Our only obligation is to ourselves, but that obligation involves tending our fields not shepharding our or the animal's souls. I agree that we don't know enough though.

There are predators out there that can kill almost anything in their neighborhood. They don't because there is no need. They kill enough to eat and killing more would be a waste of energy. But they don't have "stewardship" or "domain" over they rest of the critters.
I believe we agree, we would be wise to follow their example and only take what we need and leave the rest alone.
The point I was making, or trying to, is that "stewardship" or "domain" over the beasts is a religious thing, and I don't buy it.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I believe we agree, we would be wise to follow their example and only take what we need and leave the rest alone.
The point I was making, or trying to, is that "stewardship" or "domain" over the beasts is a religious thing, and I don't buy it.

Yeah, we agree.

But I still contend that my belief in a need for "system maintenance", if the word stewardship is unpalatable to you, is necessary because our consciousness, our ability to think abstractly is what makes us the most likely to damage the system we live in. All I'm worried about is having an environment that will continue to provide for the human species. It's not religious in any sense. I'm significantly non-theistic.

There is a book by Michael Shermer called "The Science of Good and Evil." I think you might appreciate it.

Book Description
In his third and final investigation into the science of belief, bestselling author Michael Shermer tackles the evolution of morality and ethics

A century and a half after Darwin first proposed an “evolutionary ethics,” science has begun to tackle the roots of morality. Just as evolutionary biologists study why we are hungry (to motivate us to eat) or why sex is enjoyable (to motivate us to procreate), they are now searching for the roots of human nature.

In The Science of Good and Evil, psychologist and science historian Michael Shermer explores how humans evolved from social primates to moral primates, how and why morality motivates the human animal, and how the foundation of moral principles can be built upon empirical evidence. Along the way he explains the im-plications of statistics for fate and free will; fuzzy logic for the existence of pure good and pure evil; and ecology for the development of early moral sentiments among the first humans. As he closes the divide between science and morality, Shermer draws on stories from the Yanamamö, infamously known as the “fierce people” of the tropical rain forest, to the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan, to John Hinckley’s insanity defense. The Science of Good and Evil is ultimately a profound look at the moral animal, belief, and the scientific pursuit of truth.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'll check it out, thanks.