Comment on Multi-culturism by hyokkim

Parent Post: Multi-culturism · In Reply To

hyokkim · 7/15/2026, 11:38:31 PM · permalink

30 bumps

wfgopack · 7/16/2026, 3:15:42 PM · permalink

11 bumps

hyokkim · 7/16/2026, 10:46:06 PM · permalink

10 bumps

wfgopack · 7/17/2026, 12:40:56 AM · permalink

5 bumps

hyokkim · 7/17/2026, 4:34:49 AM · permalink

4 bumps

wfgopack · 7/17/2026, 2:37:46 PM · permalink

3 bumps

hyokkim · 7/17/2026, 11:06:58 PM · permalink

2 bumps

wfgopack · 7/19/2026, 5:13:08 PM · permalink

1 bump

dickie · 7/16/2026, 11:39:45 PM · permalink

4 bumps

hyokkim · 7/16/2026, 11:50:12 PM · permalink

No reason for mercy for dumb animals; they should be used for OTNI, and individual rights.  
  
Bears/wolves/nasty dogs do not, and are not capable of appreciating your mercy; they see you either as a threat, or food, or something dangerous they need to stay far away from.  
  
Which one would you rather be in?   Would you let the bears, wolves, and nasty dogs move in to your neighborhood till they get 'comfortable', and claim your neighborhood as theirs?  
  
''HUMAN LIFE

There are many in our society who believe the life of an animal has equal or greater value than that of a human. I disagree. A bear is a wild animal, that when not threatening human life, is a wonderful sight. However, when I encounter bears that act aggressively by popping their teeth, woofing, swinging their head from side to side, charging, etc. I shoot them. I do not give them a prolonged chance to kill my wife, children, myself or anyone that is with me. When I encounter bears (which I do several times per year) that run at my sight or smell, they are safe from me because I know I am safe from them. When they show aggression to humans, it is irresponsible to let them live as they will eventually permanently harm or kill someone. I don’t care that our governmental wildlife agencies are protecting bears. They are generally misguided in this tactic. The notion that bears are a spiritual, magical life form that has value over human life, is a point of view that not only comes from the typical tree hugger groups/mindset, but it is coming from various fish and game agencies, more and more often. I choose to protect human life over animal life, period. The notion that bears were here before us and therefore have rights to maul us is not only untrue but even if it was true, I am here NOW and assert my right to be so.

BEAR AGGRESSION & ATTACKS

Bear aggression and attacks are far more common that most fish and game agencies want to report. In 2011, in Montana, there were seven REPORTED grizzly attacks on humans. Some of them were fatal to the human. Others simply mauled the human, who recovered from injuries. There were doubtless more attacks, but they happened to capable and prepared individuals who simply killed the bear and walked away, never wanting the problems that come with reporting the incident to “authorities”. I’ve had more scrapes with black bears than I have with grizzlies, but that is probably because there are a lot more black bears in the woods. Do not let yourself be misled by fish and game agencies that claim “black bears are not dangerous” or likewise about grizzlies.

SHORT STORY

A short story will best explain; many years ago, when I lived up Carmen Creek, in Idaho, early one fall, the neighbors were plagued with a threatening and marauding black bear. (This is a very rural area and “neighbors” means people who live within 4-5 miles) He would eat their dog’s food, tear up their apple trees, tip over garbage cans, chase their dogs and even chase people into their houses. Numerous people in the area were scared of him and had been threatened by him. One of my neighbors had blasted him in the butt with bird shot (12 ga.) and that seemed to make him more irritated…..This neighbor (A lady) did it with good intentions, but she did the wrong thing….I explained to her that if she was going to shoot a bear, she needed to do it with lethal intentions and not mess around. He was a large 300lb.+ black/dark brown color phase boar, with no fear of humans. My first encounter with him happened as I was jogging down Carmen Creek Road…..He was standing in the middle of the road as I rounded a corner in my shorts and tank top. He would not move for me, stood in the road and growled repeatedly. I was unarmed and lightly clothed and felt extremely vulnerable. A vehicle rounded the corner and he then moved out-of-the-way begrudgingly for the car and kept growling as he went. I realized how dangerous this bear was and wanted to “take care” of that bear legally, BEFORE anyone was hurt or killed, so I called our local Fish & Game office. They would not give me permission to kill him unless I had a bear tag. (I had already filled my bear tag for that year)

I explained that the bear was eventually going to hurt someone and the officer on the phone told me that if he did hurt someone, they would come out and trap the bear……..I explained that once someone is hurt or killed, it is too late for that person or family and if that officer ever got his ass out of a chair while waiting for his 20 year retirement, he would not need such things explained to him……..realizing how futile my attempt at community service and common sense was, by going through legal Fish & Game channels, I gave up on doing things legally. That bear was dead within 12 hours of that phone call and my neighbors were once again safe in their own yards. In the following days, many people assumed I had something to do with the bears’ disappearance and thanked me. I had no animus for this bear or any bear, but I was able to recognize what type of bear he was and what the risk to innocent people was…….the problem/danger got taken care of. Pretty simple solution! For more inclusive information on stopping bears, you may want to read this Trail and Camp Guns article.

INFORMED & PREPARED = NO FEAR

There is no need to be afraid of bears, but there is a great reason to be informed and prepared. For those who don’t feel the need to be prepared in bear country, that is your right, but what about your obligation to protect your loved ones and others who rely on you? Every time I see an interview with a wildlife official explaining away a recent fatal bear attack, they ALWAYS say something to the effect of “such bear attacks are extremely rare bla, bla, bla”. Truth is that bear attacks are not all that rare if you spend time in bear country and even if such attacks were rare, the person that has just experienced one, had a 100% chance of being attacked, no?''  
  
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=62#9  
  
https://www.wtxl.com/news/sheriff-dogs-ate-owner-after-mauling-her-to-death/article_e86e56ae-e507-11e7-82eb-bb11c6ad562c.html

2 bumps

dickie · 7/16/2026, 5:18:16 AM · permalink

16 bumps

hyokkim · 7/16/2026, 9:35:52 AM · permalink

6 bumps

dickie · 7/16/2026, 11:17:51 PM · permalink

3 bumps

hyokkim · 7/16/2026, 11:40:39 PM · permalink

1 bump

hyokkim · 7/16/2026, 9:30:38 AM · permalink

4 bumps

dickie · 7/16/2026, 11:34:51 PM · permalink

The question is whether you can justify it consistently.

If humans receive rights because they possess logic and reasoning, then there should be a test. Pass it and you get rights. Fail it and you do not. That would exclude infants, people with severe cognitive disabilities, advanced dementia patients and probably a fair number of ordinary adults.

It would also mean that a superintelligent alien should receive rights, perhaps more rights than we do. At some point, a sufficiently conscious and self-aware AI would qualify too. Refusing rights solely because something is not biologically human would expose the standard as species loyalty rather than logic.

Nonhuman animals do not need every human right. A cow does not need voting rights, just as a toddler does not need the right to sign a mortgage. Rights can correspond to relevant capacities and interests. An animal capable of pain, fear and suffering has an interest in not being tortured or killed unnecessarily.

The secular position cannot scientifically prove that human rights exist. Rights are not visible in nature, measurable in a laboratory or encoded as physical laws. Nature does not grant rights to humans, animals, aliens or computers. Nature grants whatever you can possess and defend. Everything beyond that is a moral claim created and enforced by someone.

My answer is easier because I believe in God. Human beings have a distinct moral status because they are made in the image of God, not because every individual human passes an intelligence test. That preserves the rights of infants, disabled people and people with dementia without pretending they all possess equal reasoning ability.

It also gives humans duties toward animals. Animals may not have identical human rights, but they are living creatures created by God, not disposable objects whose suffering is meaningless.

Without God, you still have to draw the line somewhere, but you cannot call your preferred boundary scientifically proven or objectively natural. You chose it. Someone else can choose animals, aliens or conscious machines. The argument then becomes whose moral preference has enough power behind it.

1 bump

sacredcow · 7/16/2026, 12:47:37 PM · permalink

2 bumps

Signature