Letters to the Editor
DurianJoe
Published Letters: 1318 Editor's Choice: 69
-
Habitat loss is only going to get worse.
[Read the article: Tigers don't belong in zoos]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Some letter writers here accurately cited habitat loss as a reason for the dwindling number of tigers and other animals, but then concluded that because of this, wild animals belong in captivity.
Unfortunately, habitat loss is only going to get worse, so the outlook for animals imprisoned in zoos is only further imprisonment. In fact, zoos offer an argument for continued destruction of nonhuman habitat: after all, if we've got a few sad individuals locked up safely in zoos, then there's no danger of the species going extinct, so why not turn forest and jungle into cattle pastures to supply hamburgers to the billions of carnivorous apes whose population is getting bigger and bigger and bigger?
In the end, the only "wild" animals will be those imprisoned in zoos, where we can gawk at them and pat ourselves on the back for keeping their species around, As for the sad condition of the inmates -- well, at least the children will have something to look at while they eat their hamburgers.
-
"Humans are very special animals."
[Read the article: Tigers don't belong in zoos]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's what somebody wrote early in these letter pages. She was celebrating people because we protect tigers, which she said no other "prey" animal would do.
Never mind that the prey in the human-tiger relationship is far more often the tiger than the human. We kill them for sport or fur or to boil their bones for alleged aphrodisiacs. Or, we kill them for the hell of it.
As one of the "born free" advocates whom an earlier writer denigrated, I would never anthropomorphize animals, as the writer suggests we opponents of zoos would do. I care about animals too much to compare them to people. No other animal would torture other animals for sexual kinks, but we do. It doesn't take long on the Internet to find sites where women sell videos of themselves trampling and torturing small animals for the pleasure of men. But that's just the perverted fringe, right? Normal people don't do that, but they do shop in nice bright supermarkets for eggs and milk and meat made from animals kept in horrendous conditions in factories. People might think it's cruel, but if they can save a few pennies, it's cruelty they can live with. And hey, the military has to test nerve gas and other chemical weapons on animals before they can use it against other people (just to make sure it works good, you know). The taser companies also need to shock live pigs so they can warn cops just how much of a shock can be administered before you kill someone (whoops -- but at least they try). And on and on and on, but at least we keep tigers safe and sound behind bars so they won't go completely extinct in this world we run so mercifully.
Yes, we are very special, aren't we?
-
Why all the opposition to this?
[Read the article: A salve for women's sex drive]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've read through the letters here, and there are older women who insist that their sex drives are low or nonexistent, and that they would welcome a product which changed that. I've heard this throughout the years, too, anecdotally and in the news.
Men who have trouble getting or maintaining erections are happily buying Viagra and its cousins. Hugh Hefner, living the good life surrounded by gorgeous naked women and with three sexbot girlfriends of his own, loves Viagra. Can anyone claim with a straight face that a man in his circumstances would not otherwise have more than enough sexual stimulation around to get it up, were it not for his age and physical limitations?
Why oppose a remedy that will help people enjoy sex again? Such opposition reminds me of the religious grouches who oppose pain medication because it ain't natural. Fine, let them suffer. The rest of us should rejoice that we live in a world with such medical miracles.
-
Ladles and Jellyspoons, I give you goeswithness' letter as Exhibit A.
[Read the article: A salve for women's sex drive]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I rest my case.
-
Jeebus, isn't Glenn's point here obvious?
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, the Republicans will do to him what they've been doing since Nixon's Southern Strategy: use racist tactics to encourage white Americans to vote Republican. Hell, they would do that even if David Duke won the Democratic nomination.
Why is this such a controversial observation?
Really now, folks. If we Democrats are going to win in 2008, we need to have a clear-eyed vision as to who our political enemies are, and the tactics they are going to use.
-
Thrasher, you're just a modern day minstrel.
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thrasher, you know you're just a modern day minstrel, right? Your insane rants just provide fodder for laughs and pity. For your own sake, stop.
Or not. The world needs its fools.
-
It's like arguing with the Internet nazis.
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Back when the Internet first came out, I was shocked to see that neonazis and white supremacists and Jew haters actually had their own websites where they promoted and bragged about their hatred. Amazingly, they had comments pages. I and other hopeful types would try to argue sensibly with them, or if things went downhill, insult them (they were easy targets, naturally). Neither approach was effective. As I've written before, arguing with racists and bigots on the Internet is like arguing with a tree stump. Pointless, in other words.
It doesn't matter if the bigot is White or Black -- they're still tree stumps.