-Caveat Lector-
YnrChyldzWyld wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Hawk wrote:
>
> >Maybe I should have said "Domesticated Indian elephants." You're back to talking
> about "wild" elephants that "belong to the people."
>
> And just WHERE do you think those 'domesticated Indian elephants' get
> PARKED?
Most elephants do not get parked...
> Do you really think that privately owned Indian elephants in the increasingly
> urbanized southeast Asia get put into garages, complete with automatic dooropeners,
> every night?
Nope... hadn't thought that at all. Why would you suppose such an absurd thing?
> I stand by my statement...the DOMESTICATED Indian elephant is also in
> trouble, due to the loss of its natural habitat.
The domesticated elephant does not live in "natrual habitat." Presumably he gets
parked in garages with automatic door openers... right? I have a horse, for instance,
that does not live in "natural habitat." She's far healthier and has a chance of
living to be 25 or so years, unlike the horses still striving for survial in "natural
habitat."
> your contention was that AFRICAN elephants should be privately owned like some Indian
> elephants are...ignoring the FACT that African elephants are basically untrainable.
Training has nothing whatsoever to do with it. If people owned African elephants, and
there resources were dependent on the elephant's welfare, they would take care of them
and the elephants would be better off.
> You also ignore the fact of the USES the Indian elephant was put to, and
> therefore fail to recognize WHY the Indian elephant, privately owned tho
> many of them may be, is becoming increasingly rare...
If there is no use for them, why the expense and effort to keep them alive?
> It would make as much sense to argue that Saudis and Kuwaitis should go
> back to using camels instead of driving cars...
Frankly, my dear, I don't care what Saudis and Kuwaitis use... it is none of my
business.
> I would not presume to second-guess God's mind in WHY elephants...or any
> other species...was put on Earth...neither would I presume to state that
> eliminating any species would have little, or no, effect on the greater
> whole...
Then you shouldn't presume that preserving the species is worth the effort either.
> But my guess is that God will treat each one of us by the way we treated
> the lesser species in our care/dominion...
Guess to your heart's content... so long as you don't force me to pay for it.
Hawk
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
