RemVS308 said:
Maybe we can lure him back out,hope so)... someone should post a comment on The Ethics Of Using The String Of Death For Hunting Prairie Dogs, or something like that....
A THESIS...
... ON THE ETHICS OF USING THE DREADED,by all Prairie Dogs) STRING OF DEATH!
Before asking the question, "Is the String of Death ethical", one must delve into the question, "Is Death of a Prairie Dog an issue that involves ethics".
To be fair, one must seek opinions from
ALL sides of this ponderous question.
The lovely ladies from PETA should be the first to consider, because the name of their organization has "ethic/al" in it.
While it is presumptuous to speak for an organization that I do not belong to, and if it were to be known, I despise to the very marrow of my bones...
... I can say with total authority that the lovely ladies from PETA would be against the the "Devils own Device", the dreaded "String of Death!
So that's -1 vote. Not lookin' good so far :,
-
Then there's the cattleman, whose total livelihood depends on raising cute moo cows so we can feed our fat asses at McDonald's. I mean how can you "Double size it" if there is no "IT" to double size???
So this question not only cancels the vote from the lovely ladies from PETA, it does so with "extreme prejudice", because, not only is this position supported by the cattlemen, but the wives of the cattlemen,who are NOT among the lovely ladies of PETA), but also supported by their children, and the millions of children all over the USA that would not be able to say, "Yes, double size it!
So we are back to "0",with extreme prejudice)
-
Now, if we ask the Prairie Dogs, I don't think they will vote. First off, they don't have driver's licenses, so they didn't fill out the "Motor Voter" card.
Second, they don't speak English, and the voting is not accepted in "Squeek", so even if they wanted to vote, they can't!
However, I'm sure that there is a Government program to teach them English, or at the very least, a program to have bi-lingual voting cards, in both English, and "Squeek".
Then they can punch the cards with their teeth,but eat the "chads").
But until then, they have no vote - sorry.
-
And then there's the ammo companies and bullet makers.
Aside from the problems their workers have supporting their families,and don't forget their starving children, and the tax money that goes into the World Bank)...
... these ammo and loading supply companies MUST be kept in business, as a hedge against future war.
For example - if all the ammo companies are gone, and we go to war, who will make the ammo, who will have the skills and knowledge to make the tools of democracy.
So they have a +1 vote!
-
Then there is the shooter! Now, the shooter's vote must be considered marginally. The reason is very similar to the vote a 5 year old has to the question, "What would you like for dinner".
The predictable answer is "Ice cream".
So when you ask a 5 year old, "What would you like for dinner", you don't listen too hard to the Ice cream part of the answer.
As a responsible parent,I AM one, or at least I tell myself that I am), you put a special "parent filter" in place and it translates Ice cream to "LIVER and ONIONS!". At least, that what my parents made for dinner when I was five and asked for ice cream for dinner.
So with the shooter, you take their jaded enthusiasm to
KILL poor cute widdle pwairie doggies, and run it through a politically correct filter. You don't come out with Liver and onions, but you do come out with...
"Well, I really don't want to drive 1,500 miles to do this thing, but I'm very concerned about the plight of the cattlemen, and especially their family's and starving children.
Also, there is the pending downturn in the US economy, and even a 0.0001% drop in sales at the major fast food companies could conceivably pull the bottom out of America's GNP and way of life, and cause rampant starvation around the world, as nation after nation fell, because there was no money in the International World Bank to prop up those paper Dictators,our "friends abroad").
So as much as I really hate shooting those very cute widdle animals, I really must. I'm doing for the country and the economy.
Now... that a BIG PLUS 1 - cuz it has a moral purpose
So now we have 2 + votes.
That makes the foundation for the question, "The Ethics Of Using The String Of Death For Hunting Prairie Dogs".
If one accepts the above fundamental foundation, then the next question is, "Should the death of the Prairie Dog be made efficient?".
Now, one of the above voters would say "NO!", and that would be be the ammo makers... believing that hitting Prairie Dogs with the fewest rounds is anti-capitalism, and there fore, communism.
The shooter would argue back that they take as much ammo as they can carry, so it does not result in less ammo sold, but more Prairie Dogs killed,there's THAT
"K" word again).
Of course, PETA is against it! But, there is an insider's group. This is the group that was responsible for "euthanizing" all those dogs last year. This sub faction thinks,reluctantly) that if the Prairie Dogs are going to be shot, it should be as effective as possible... so there is a secret "yes" vote from inside of PETA.
So... the summery of all of this is.
"Using The String Of Death For Hunting Prairie Dogs" is not only ethical, but Goddamn effective
Meow.
.
