ORIGINAL: manuman
I don't have 2 separate definitions Mustad--I made a further point of clarifying the same issue. If you think that the definition of tolerance is the same today as it was 15 years ago, then you aren't paying attention.The end result , or logical conclusion to the new tolerance is that there aren't any standards--everyones personal views are the standard--which is an oxymoron. A standard is a guage for ones personal opinion, to determine if it is true or false. If the standard becomes that all views are equal, you don't have any room left for right or wrong, true or false.
This is beautiful. So if there are no standards, there is no need for allowance. If there is no allowance, there is no tolerance. Outstanding. Better yet, let's define tolerance as allowance of behavior that deviates from one's own viewpoints. Meaning, I will tolerate the fact that you have 2 separate definitions of tolerance. How do you extend this to a more macro level?
ORIGINAL: manuman
THe publics views have and are still changing constantly. The advent of the extreme animal rights activists have been born out of a confused and displaced view about the comparison of the life of an animal in comparison to a human being.
Right.
ORIGINAL: manuman
If you honestly believe this is a new issue that is just now in the process of becoming exposed, then you must be personally becoming aware now, because this is not something that has taken place in the last 2 years or less, but has been gradually changing for sometime now.The shifting was and is first in the value systems, trickling down and influencing people's behavior. You act a certain way because you first think or believe a certain way.People are becoming more upset as time goes by, due to the changing shift in values, and it is working its way out into the public arena each year.
As I said, this issue is no more than two generations old. Define a generation as what, say 30 years? What I'm saying is this issue is no more than 60 years old. It is not something that has been defined and we have an opportunity to define it. In another post you say something about the anti's want us stopped. My point is "screw the anti's"; they are not our audience. Our audience is the majority of people who have yet to make a decision on their perception of hunting. This is where we win or lose the battle. I think we both agree on this. Where we disagree is how to execute.
Your approach is very two dimensional (you show the deer, you get a reaction); similar to the approach you originally described about gays. I'm here, deal with it. This could be successful, but I don't think it will be. As you say, make a stand and see what happens. My experience is this more often results in failure unless you know exactly how people are going to react to your action. Are you that confident in your opinion of the majority?
My approach is not so direct. I would prefer approaching the values of hunting from another perspective. Explain to people that it was one of the founding principles upon which our country was founded. There is scientific evidence that supports hunting as a means of controlling and preserving the wildlife population. I won't go on as I'm sure you know more of these than I do. I favor this approach because it is based more on facts than on an emotional reaction of seeing a dead deer.
I'm not so sure the concept of a change in approach is such a bad thing. At the turn of the century when Roosevelt initially identified the fact that the wildlife resources were becoming depleted, he knew something had to be done.
"Above all else, we should realize that the effort toward this end is essentially a democratic movement. It is... in our power... to preserve large tracts of wilderness... and to preserve game... for ... all lovers of nature, and to give reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the skill of the hunter, whether he is or is not a man of means."
Look at Roosevelt, L.W. Wendt, Ray Lowe, B.L. Price, M.A. Malone, Emil Knoepke, Glen Smith, Kenneth McDonald. These are all men that identified that there was a need to change the current course of events to prevent the activity of hunting from becoming extinct. Why is it so difficult to believe that just about a century later, we find ourselves in a similar situation where change is needed to protect what we love.
Cheers,