GREED

I don't think itt's actually survival that the modern hunters aim for. I guess it's more of a "woods maintenance" kind of thing. And they actually are thrilled by this hobby while they are doing no harm and lots of good. So in a way it is sport. But it's useful and not criminal and the only way of hunting allowed by the law. So what's the point trying to stop hunting?

0 Replies

I don't think it's mans job to maintain the woods. I have a problem with anyone who gets a thrill out of killing any animal. I have a huge soft spot for animals, so this is a subject I like to avoid. If I could stop it, I would ;-)

0 Replies

You say they are not doing any harm, but the animals they are killing might not think that way.

0 Replies

Animals don't actually "think", at least they don't think much before killing other animals. And too many wolves could empty a forest of any other animals and thus cause real and horrible harm to environment. Boars too. Even "vegetarian" animals harm nature when they overpopulate. Leave the forests without maintenance and see what happens then. My guess would be: no more forests. Way to go.

0 Replies

Animals kill other animals to survive, not for sport. Huge difference. The animal species that is the biggest threat to the forest and the environment is the human species.

0 Replies

nemesis wrote:

Hey Sofia,
no offence meant, but I think that now you're guilty of the notorious "holier than thou" PRIDE. I hope you're not Catholic fundamentalist

Show evidence of a "holier than thou" PRIDE.

Diane--
Thank you, but I can't take any credit. I'm a slave to hungry dogs and shoeless children. :wink: <You were nice.> Very Happy

Montana-- Your dogs get subs!!! Mine only got those dried out, pruny convenience store hot dogs! (I'm so glad to know I'm not the only crazy
person feeding roadside animals. I screeched off the road last week and gave a dog my McDonald's. My daughter rolled her eyes, and threw her burger out, too. She probably judges me to be a little nuts, but I hope it rubs off, and she passes the Stray Animal Feeding gene on to my grandchildren...) Subs--You are such a sweetie!

0 Replies

Sofia
They liked the meatball subs the best I think :-) I'm quite sure they would have been happy with anything I gave them though. Way to go with the McDonalds Sofia. You are a wonderful compassionate example to your children ;-) My son is also following in my footsteps and has a huge heart for our animal friends as well.

0 Replies

Anyone who lives in a first world country exploits the poor, most of whom are children, somewhere in the world to some degree.

Those hundred dollar name-brand shoes and their multi-million dollar propaganda campaigns are bought by first worlders from first world corporations that pay third world laborers a buck-eighty-five a day to make those shoes. Many of those laborers are children.

First worlders pay taxes to subsidize their countries' agriculture corporations at the expense of subsistence farmers in the third world. First world agricultural subsidies directly lead to starvation, mostly children, in the third world.

0 Replies

Buying clothes for the poor is nice.

It's not unlike treating a severed limb with a bandage strip.

0 Replies

Sorry Infrablue....how cynical...at least thanks to people like montana and Sofia there are people living with one arm;but now they are not hungry or naked....

0 Replies

My Band Aid® is my yearly contribution to the Rescue Mission in my city.

That those one armed people are not now hungry or naked is nice, willow. Really.

0 Replies

Greed is acquiring more than you'll ever need and not sharing the excess to others.

0 Replies

greed is merely another of the myriad itterations of 'stupidity'.
one hoards wealth in exchange for one's humanity.

and as for the 'giving' to others being selfserving; it really doesn't matter what the source of benevolence is, it only matters that it happens, and if one can be so involved, who is on a plane so high as to bother to criticize.

Hopefully, however, anyone in a possition to help others, be they humans or other species, will give reasonable thought to the longterm outcome of their generosity, and avoid contributing to cyclical harm.

0 Replies

Responding to these items by Infrablue--

Quote:

Anyone who lives in a first world country exploits the poor, most of whom are children, somewhere in the world to some degree.

----------------
So, merely existing in a first world country makes you guilty of exploitation? An accusation of exploitation should at least be precipitated by some action on the part of the accused. Guilt by location is unsupportable.
----------------

Quote:

Those hundred dollar name-brand shoes and their multi-million dollar propaganda campaigns are bought by first worlders from first world corporations that pay third world laborers a buck-eighty-five a day to make those shoes. Many of those laborers are children

.
---------------
So, buying $300. shoes makes you guilty... There are increasing numbers of consumers who check out the manufacturers--a la Kathie Lee--but I hardly think buying expensive shoes makes you guilty of exploitation. Shouldn't you at least make some direct choice to exploit to be blamed for it?

0 Replies

I'm afraid infrablue is correct;

and in my opinion, only an active effort to avoid the worst of western excess, is sufficient to assuage the 'guilt' of complacent indulgence invited by every media source on this continent.

true if one does not buy the $300 pair of shoes, one imperils the subsistance of the labourers who produce them; however you send the message that such excess is not profitable ('unacceptable' will never disuade the greedy), and eventually 'share economics' will dominate.

0 Replies

Sofia: you gave the evidence.
1. you remember your good deeds.
2. you tell about them to others.
didn't Christ say your left hand oughtn't to know what your right hand is doing? if you did a good deed just for the sake of it, you should have forgotten about it by now.
but no, you have to tell the world just how big your heart is!
now try to prove you didn't feed animals just so you could tell about it later. or to ease your own guilt and appear better than you are in your own eyes and others'.

0 Replies

nemesis; in light of your last post, i wish to reitterate that i feel 'motive' is insignificant in comparison to 'results', and at the same time question your 'knowledge of Sofia's motivation for benevolence.
It is inappropriate to assume reasons for the actions of persons you do not know, and in Sofia's case i am convinced you are wrong. Quoting Christ in the business of executing a 'put-down' will probably not gain you many points with Christian followers, and it will not serve you well on any level as 'evidence'.

0 Replies

nemesis wrote:

Sofia: you gave the evidence.
1. you remember your good deeds.
2. you tell about them to others.
didn't Christ say your left hand oughtn't to know what your right hand is doing? if you did a good deed just for the sake of it, you should have forgotten about it by now.
but no, you have to tell the world just how big your heart is!
now try to prove you didn't feed animals just so you could tell about it later. or to ease your own guilt and appear better than you are in your own eyes and others'.

I think I can speak for Sofia here as well in saying that we only reason what so ever that we give animals and children food and clothing is because they're hungry and in need and mentioning it in passing is just sharing what's in out hearts with eachother.

0 Replies

BoGoWo: unlike some of the people here, I'm not interested in getting any points with anyone. Motivation is an interesting topic in itself but if Sofia doesn't want to discuss her motivation, I'll leave her alone.
I still think that boasting about one's good deeds and big heart (and superb home making skills, as is the case of Martha Stuart) is ugly. And isn't that PRIDE? But maybe American culture allows that.

0 Replies

nemesis wrote:

BoGoWo: unlike some of the people here, I'm not interested in getting any points with anyone. Motivation is an interesting topic in itself but if Sofia doesn't want to discuss her motivation, I'll leave her alone.
I still think that boasting about one's good deeds and big heart (and superb home making skills, as is the case of Martha Stuart) is ugly. And isn't that PRIDE? But maybe American culture allows that.

What makes you think anyone here is looking to gain any points with anyone? A lot of us here have known eachother for years and enjoy sharing with others who we are and what makes us who we are. I don't think Sofia has any motives at all and is just exchanging thoughts with people she has grown to know as I do.

I've learned a lot of crafty ideas from Martha Stuart and I personally think she's very talented, so I hope you don't mind if I keep watching and learning. I'll try not to brag if I learn something new though since I know how ugly it makes me look....

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know