X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:15:10 CST
From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Objectivity

> JOE, Jay says something is Liberal or Conservative, and I really don't
> see whether I should agree to something just because it's Liberal or
> Conservative.

I'm very glad that you feel this way; I'm damn tired of people looking
at everything like all is black and white.  I tried not to do this,
but show things are complicated on the segregation issue and I was
attacked. I read somewhere that the '70s brought major disillusionment
with the government, and appearance/ face value became more important
than the complicated reality.  We can't fix up the messes in the world
unless we change this.

     I don't see how disillusionment with government can cause
     an increase in glitzy, style-over-substance politics as it
     is today. The complicated reality is, IMHO, we saw that the
     government didn't care what we thought and we, as a nation,
     allowed it to happen.

> Jay would probably call me liberal. He already knows I'm too conspiracy
> minded for my own good B). But, I believe in open gun ownership combined
> with universal gun education. I realize that, due to the near total
> destruction of natural predators to deer, elk, and other animals, they
> either spread so far significant numbers become roadkill or starve, so
> as effective managers of our wilderness, we must allow hunting. I feel
> less government is better than no government. These are all conservative
> positions coming out of someone who'd be a liberal democrat poster child
> if you saw me walking down the street.

I'm sorry you included this example; I'm for gun ownership (no
limitations would be going too far though imho), but this need for

     I don't think the standard 3 ( convicted felons, the mentally
     handicapped, the *TOO* young ) should get gun ownership, but
     otherwise, I don't have a problem.

hunter argument kind of seems dumb to me.  Man threatens the
environment of animals so he is kind if he kills them; stop this
pseudo-humanistic facade and admit hunters kill for the sport.  After
all, for those who feel animals are somewhere on par with us
(self-interest putting man above other animals), the argument could be that
since people are starving in Africa we should kill them. Nonetheless,
I agree with the general point of your post.

     How about this: Man kills wolf. Wolf used to hunt deer. Now
     deer can reproduce all over the place. Deer that used to survive
     in one area now have about eaten up all possible food in that
     area. Moving to another area, they cross a highway. *WHAM!*
     Tenderized venison and thousand dollar bill to replace the entire
     front end of your automobile. If the requirements went to bows
     and black powder muzzleloaders, I wouldn't have a problem.

     To understand this argument, you have to know that there are more
     deer in north america than there have ever been.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
"It's very healthy for a young girl to be deterred from promiscuity by
fear of contracting a painful, incurable disease, or cervical cancer,
or sterility, or the likelihood of giving birth to a dead, blind, or
brain-damage baby even ten years later when she may be happily
married."
              --Phyllis Schafly, President, Eagle Forum

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained in this post are not the
opinions of the Administration, Faculty, or Student Body of
South Dakota State University.  Hell, they might not even
be mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU