From: tsuit@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Tom Suit)
Subject: Re: licensing (long) (was: Re: Recent live-rock boom...)
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax Va.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:57:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.193656.24662@cs.ucla.edu>, jason@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Jason Rosenberg) writes:
> oleg@llustig.palo-alto.ca.us (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
  
> >In article <1992Apr3.231455.9326@cs.ucla.edu> jason@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Jason Rosenberg) writes:
> >>I find the term "eco-nazi" to be extremely offensive.  
  
> >It's intended to be.
  
> >>What does Nazism have to do with any of this.  
  
> >Would you rather I used the term "eco-fascists?"  It probably describes them
> >better: a bunch of fanatical extremists who'd like to control everyone's
> >actions and thoughts in order to build their misbegotten lunacy of a Utopia.
> >Their goals may seem noble and it's easy to ignore the lies, distortions and 
> >the self-righteous zealotry of these people, but I don't like being lied to
> >even with (supposedly) the best of intentions.
  
> Well, your starting to sound like a card carrying member of the NRA (gag!).

  You have a problem with the NRA? I don't recall them ever being out to
  take away or control anyone's rights. I also don't ever recall them
  doing anything but HELP the environment! So what's your problem??

> Green Peace killing baby seals?  I don't believe that.  (please enlighten
> me there, so I don't think you're making unsubstantiated claims).  
  
  What, only industry lies? Environmentalists never ever do anything
  bad? Where have you been? You don't think that hammering spikes into
  trees increases the risk of disease for the tree? 

> Commercial industry is certainly not all about being honest and forthright
> in never leading the public astray, etc.  If you want to criticize your
> "eco-nazis" under those terms, you have to criticize all of society.  If

  Not at all. When industry lies, they do it to make or protect a profit
  margin. We all know they do it and when they actually get caught the
  government (you know that group of people that is supposed to protect
  our best interests and rights) forces them to change their ways. On
  the other hand, a special interest group like Greenpeace lives by the
  adage "To make an omlette you have to break a few eggs". However
  they don't put a limit on how many eggs they can break. AND, it's
  all under the auspices of "good intentions". Secondly, they are 
  usually very uninformed. They ignore all evidence that does not
  support their cause. 
  
> you have lost that much faith in modern civilization (not hard to do), then
> let us know that is where your coming from.  You would then think there is
> no hope what-so-ever to save the environment, thus everyone who does is a
> screaming zealot.  
  
  Not at all...there is hope to save the environment. Just get all the
  facts first before you try to make any changes that affect people's
  lives.

> Nazism is not about fringe groups lobbying for what they believe in.  It
> is about central dictatorial control of the entire society en masse.  It
> is about exploiting hatred for power.  It is about genocide.  Don't use
> the term anymore, please.  I promise I will make an issue of it every time
> you mention it.  (Now I am sounding like a overzealous lunatic!  But I sure
> don't feel like one).
  
  What, you are banning the use of metaphors? That makes you a language-
  nazi!! And before you start frothing about whether or not someone's
  metaphor is accurate or not, note this: there are vegetarians
  that want to control what I can and cannot eat. Why should I have to
  be a vegetarian just because they don't like to eat meat? There
  are environmentalists and vegetarians that HATE hunters, and there
  are people that focus that hate to try to get laws passed. Now
  before you rage out about how hunters are a menace to the environment,
  note this: wolves eat deer...but with the presence of civilization
  there are too few wolves. There is also lots more grass, thus the
  deer population skyrockets. Since all this grassland (fields, lawns,
  whatever) replaces forests, in the winter there is less forest per
  deer. Deer survive the winter by eating bark and very small branches.
  The end result is that very quickly the population gets too big and
  they starve during the winter. They also become road hazards. People
  get killed by deer in deer/car accidents. Hunters replace the natural
  predators in controlling the deer population. Even with hunters, there
  are far more deer in North America than there were before the arrival
  of Europeans.

  On the same note, wild pigs in Hawaii are breeding out of control
  since they have no natural predators. They eat most vegetation which
  is leading to massive erosion of top soil which is causing lots
  of silt to get washed onto the reefs. Thus the reefs are dying.
  Since hunting is illegal in Hawaii, rather than get money from people
  who would be happy to kill the pigs, the government is paying rangers
  to kill the pigs. Where is the logic to that?

Tom Suit