Americans, why do you let this continue?

Bull. The fact is that you are ignorant of the particulars of this situation. You are ignorant of the contents of my mind and do not know what I may have considered or not. It was the case then, it is the case now.

Didn't use a fence, it is a wood frame and walls, metal roof. Did you know perimeter barrier need not be buried in the ground? In your quick research on the subject did you discover what I am talking about?

Further your imagined solution turns out not to be the solution that you thought it was. In practice However, some animals learn to avoid the shock, either by running under the fence quickly between pulses, or by pushing other individuals through the fence. Animals with thick woolly coats (such as sheep or Highland cattle) may learn to push through the fence themselves, using their coats as electrical insulation. Some animals also learn to recognize the slight clicking sound made by some electric fences and thus can sense when the fence is off.

And my question about your experience with chicken coops, chickens, and living in the forest still stands. What are your credentials to be commenting on my particular situation and most particularly, what gives you the idea that you know the extent of my considerations in life?

The only advantage I can see in you pursuing this is for you to save face somehow. Of course you wouldn't be in this predicament had you not tried to get in my face. I love a legitimate challenge but you are posing on this issue.
In the same manner as your not deeply considered conclusion on the cause of an increase in military suicides, or the reason for the disparity between suicide and combat deaths.

You are articulate and know how to use language or understand it's functions
but you could use more circumspection before you start flapping your gums around me.

The reason I came into this thread was to turn a shock jock radio discussion
into some high fidelity resolution of our political aims.

 

thedope,

It is apparent that you have just made me the beneficiary of your most recent research into fencing. Probably the sheep and highland cattle thing gave it away. I honestly didn’t need to know that; you really don’t know what I know. Doesn’t matter why you researched it though; the important thing is that you did.

I imagine that jacking off is different from jerking off in that the more aggressive among us tend to jerk rather than jack. I would suggest to you that, contrary to your estimation of your place in this discussion, you are the reciprocating down-stroke of this . . . transaction.

Did you notice that your need to defend your policies against bogus claims against it equals your acknowledgement of attack?? Whose perceptions are you engaging now? Yours? Mine? Both! Now, why don’t you give me a demonstration of you either saving face, or you helplessly providing the next stroke. Desire is difficult to overcome; especially the desire to be understood.

 

Some people use dogs as deterrents.

 

You don't pay FOR anything. You just pay. They just do whatever they want.

You need to stop thinking that there is some kind of "contract" that binds them.

You don't like it? Stop paying then.

 

But anyway, what do "our" political aims have to do with the aims of politicians making policy? You don't see those two aims as diametrically opposed?

 

Nor do I need your opinions as to whether I took the proper precautions with my chickens, but here you are. I know that you believed electric fencing to be the remedy for what you see as my dilemma. I also know that you overreach with your assumptions because of a strong moral sense. Many things I do not know about you and if you recall I asked you to share your credentials.

I researched electric fencing as we are speaking, not before, to check and see if maybe, just maybe you had something legitimate to add to my situation. I am not one to present a loosing argument by definition. It seems intelligent resourceful animals are able to defeat electric fencing. I personally am impressed with the resourcefulness of raccoon.

You shouldn't let your imagination get the better of your good sense. Why do distinguish those two words as denoting levels of aggression? What do you imagine my place might be in this discussion? I have a better grasp on my motives. Here is the authoritative report.

First and foremost I enjoy talking to you. Secondly I responded to a query about your reference to "coon". I gave a synopsis of our discussion and the reason for it. An aside attending to your digression, given for public consumption.

Did you notice that I do not defend myself against bogus claims, I dispel them?

Well it is the information I am debating, not my activities, or yours. I don't take it personally. I use colorful language to describe your position because
you are still pressing the issue and I think the effort represents some heartfelt thing. Must be, because you are so invested.

 

Nothing. However I do not think think them diametrically opposed, only not the same. That is why I thought to redress our political aims instead of berating politicians and policy. I am not endorsing the system but pointing out that our political aims are secure and wholesome community, and we can best achieve that through direct investment.

 

Thedope,

I do have a moral sense. I do not have a strong moral sense. A strong moral sense is as illusionary as a strong love, or special love. Love is love. Moral is moral. Degrees of love and morals don't exist. However, degrees of expression exist because expressions are based on personal experience and values. And really, how could it be otherwise? That's all I'll say.

My point would be that, making investments in the community is all fine and well unless that which is beyond the community acts as a dictator to stand in the way of meaningful change. It is getting harder and harder to buy raw milk, for instance.

 

I tend to see every animal as the animated embodiment of a particular aspect or characteristic of the human being. We all know a weasel or two, right? We all know a loyal dog or two, also, don't we? And what about a mule? Ever met one of those (be very careful, dope)? Put all the animals together into one being, and you've got a human.

Hey, if you bring all the stars in the sky together, you've got a sun. Yet another stunning argument for unity.

But yeah, what can a community do when confronted with the reality of wolves occupying the greater legislative body?

 

Just a thought, but if coon meat is as delicious as everyone says it is, and if there were a sufficient number of coons in your area, wouldn't it be more practical to use your rooster as bait with which to trap them? I'm not being facetious here.

 

I would add slime mold.

You have a view.

New ecosystems thrive in island environments. Create enclaves of sanity. Be willing to starve the system through your own industry.

 

And I would add floating butterflies, which in essence, are no better than maggots, but no worse, either.

Have you a view?

Yes, you may create enclaves of sanity, and you may believe that government will not intrude upon your enclave of sanity should they see you as a threat. You believe that these small enclaves of sanity will spread and become as a cancer to the present industrialized system. Need I remind you that these people kill for far less? Are you familiar with their wars and such?

 

Do you have something they want? If not, then no problem. Pay your taxes.

 

Yes, all things are lawful yet not all things are helpful and helpful, is a matter of timing. There is a time and a place for everything. Learn to ask the question, what is it for.

 

One day they may come for my neighbor's son to defend their greed. No problem?

Yes, all things are lawful, yet not just.

If you recognize "it," then you don't have to ask what it's for.

 

And yes, they want you, me, and future generations to pay off their debt. I have something they want--my labor. Not a problem?

 

If you loved me, you wouldn't have to ask.

You can do better.

What is your remedy?

 

What do you mean "If I loved you, I wouldn't have to ask"? Have you found a new tool or criteria for measuring my love, or what?

Remedy? My remedy is to recognize the ailment. If you recognized the ailment, you wouldn't have to ask. In that sense, you can do better.

 

I repeated what you said in different terms.

So create an ailment for me to recognize.

 

thedope: Learn to ask the question, "what is it for"?

Storch: If you recognize "it," then you don't have to ask what it's for.

thedope: If you loved me, you wouldn't have to ask.

Storch: What do you mean?

thedope: I repeated what you said in different terms.

Storch: Well, I know you must have done so for some reason, so continue on with your point.