From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 09:17:43 GMT

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>>>The bottom line, folks, is that  poachers *are* hunters.  According
>>>to the "American Heritage" dictionary, that is, which is
>>>right here in front of me:
>>>      "Poacher: one who hunts or fishes illegally".  

>>	Fine, Steve.  Let's go with the dictionary definition and
>>make damn sure we stick to the facts here.  I hereby charge you with
>>drunk driving and negligent homicide...

>I find your defensiveness on this point quite telling.  Rather
>then admit to one basic, incontrovertable  fact, that hunters have 
>damaged wildlife populations, you will to great lengths to dance 
>around things.

	Basic and incontrovertable fact?  No, you still don't understand
the fundamental concept here.  That concept is that killing is not the
bottom line, but rather that the bottom line is legality and morality.
Poachers and hunters are similar in that both kill animals.  So do
murderers, AR activists bombing labs that might have a few researchers
or even janitors in them (used for example only, not to be confused
with factual data), and the Purdy hosing down a Stockton, CA schoolyard
with a rifle quite well suited to small game hunting.  Perhaps an analogy
you might better understand relates to automobiles. Kyle Petty drives a
car differently than I.  While you might say we are both drivers, I say
that he is fundamentally different from I in driving habits.

	E-mail me if you are still confused.

>You're in the same mold as holocaust revisionists.

	Oh!  This is rich!  Ask anybody here -- not only am I not a
holocaust revisionist, I honestly believe that once you bring Nazi's
into an argument you admit defeat because you cannot find anything less
than Nazi association as a basis for attack.  It doesn't work on me.  Not
only have I defended and rationalized Nazi activities here, I am also
quite well disposed to drawing the distinctions between one point of view
and another with regards to morality.  Sorry, young pup, but not only
do I sense no validity to your argument, I also sense no hope for
survival under analysis.  The common flea can leap something like 500
times its body length in a single bound.  Your leap of logic does not
at all pale in comparison.

>If you don't like "dictionary definitions", fine but
>don't expect everybody to instantly adobt your obscure
>jargon definitions of things.  

	Jargon?  If you want jargon, let me know.  I made it simple just
for you, but apparently this effort was lost.

>> Furthermore, let it be known that the native
>>prarie grass of the Midwest is near extinction.  The reason, obviously,
>>is the farming of former grassland for the express purpose of producing
>>grain.  

>Now you're talking more sensibly, even though you're off
>subject.  I've long argued that farming is a major cause of
>loss of habitat and open space (as opposed to my vegetarian
>acquaintances, who go to lengths to paint ranchers as
>the only major villians in habitat loss).

	And you, as a vegetarian, are not just as responsible for 
this?  I do not doubt your sincerity, but I do doubt your honesty.
Not your honesty to me, mind you, but to yourself.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals