Skip to main content

Poaching and Hunting: A Distinction With Only A Rhetorical Difference

Poaching, definitionally distinct from hunting only by the artificial and abstract regulatory provisions of in-vogue parliamentary or congressional councils, strikes a largely-moral chord with its sponsors while piquing a less-prominent ecological interest in others. A cursory investigation into the history of poaching reveals a very sentimental or monopolistic refrain, whereby general assembly routinely ruled in favor of immediate public commercial or fiscal interest or its delusional counterpart of overtly-romanticized political expedience, a human anthology well-documented throughout the Oyster Wars, the Bering Sea Anti-Poaching Operations, the countless modern episodes of counterintuitive, destructive "ivory-crushing" protests, and the contemporary occasions of fines and imprisonment stemming from relatively modest, and might one dare describe it as "human" or "animalistic," demonstrations of innate survival strategy. 

The major distinctions across the spectrum of relevance, as far as the deaths of specific species may be concerned, seem to each time embody still-human, still-myopic interests, as we will surely seldom observe an instance of protest against the killing of spiders, insects, or free-range cattle, let alone the measurable and frequent disposal of less-animate, less-relatable species and the systematic processing of the goods which appear gracefully on the shelves at Kroger then eventually romantically at the candle-lit table for two at dinner with a complementary garnish and decadent glass of cabernet. 

Upon one's conclusion that one's behavior, here an act of survival optimization, warrants a sentence of imprisonment or fine, he or she concomitantly concludes his or her findings with a rough estimation of the value of the subject's actions, hereby effectively pricing the behavior out of the realm of morality and however-marginally yet potentially significantly mitigating its social repercussions. Pricing the supposed transgression transfers the behavior from the social forum to the market forum, condemning posterity, however far removed from this precedent, to a distorted value system built upon imprecise, incomplete, and inflexible standards of coercion and priced behavior, potentially permanently altering the course of human intuition and sensitivity to the subjects of innate survival strategy, the inherent qualities of human liberty, and the perils of systemic infringement thereupon and vestigial applications where these axiom-laden provisions are sure to further entrap and outlaw mere human behavior and out-of-vogue, supposedly uncivilized modes of survival.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century. 

Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties? 

The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery. 

It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession. 

It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…