(March 19, 2019 at 2:49 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(March 19, 2019 at 2:06 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: That's not the same. Resources for humans are abundant (at least where I live). If I die or don't die of a heart attack, it isn't going to affect the rest of my community, resource-wise. You're arguing something completely different. Remember - we're talking specifically about a woman giving water to a koala during a drought. The cases aren't remotely the same.
No one - least of all me - wants to see a cute, cuddly koala die of thirst. But what I REALLY don't want to see is wild animal populations put at risk because people can't let nature take its course. There's really no difference (other than one of scale) between what this woman did, and cutting down a eucalyptus tree. In both cases, she's altering the balance between resources and the koalas that need them. She did a bad thing.
Boru
Considering that human beings are the most destructive species causing the most damage currently, this is funny.
Sorry if you are going to say, "let nature take it's course" regarding the Koala, then don't call 911 when you have chest pains.
Otherwise all you are arguing is that humans are an apex, and we both know we are not.
I saved a turtle last year, no I am not sorry and I would do it again.
1. So, your solution is to have humans do even MORE damage?
2. I already explained why this is a stupid argument (and it wouldn't do me much good to call 911 for anything. The emergency number here is 111, but I wouldn't expect you to know that, you provincial boob).
3. Not arguing that humans are an apex anything, just trying to point out that saving one animal may not be the best option for that species as a whole.
4. Good for you. You saved a turtle. That was very nice of you.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
