Dave Stancliff, you can read what he says here in the Sunday, Mar. 7, 2010, Times-Standard, affirms that “In a better world” we wouldn't have zoos. Is this Stancliff's backdoor vote on scrapping the zoo because the city doesn't have the necessary monies to keep or pay for the Sequoia Park Zoo?
Actually he says, “we wouldn't keep animals in captivity.” Does that me we should all turn our dogs loose and get rid of our cats if we want a better world?
Or is this just his unsophisticated (I could say “simple-minded) way of trying to tell people how and what to think again? Opinions are one thing and Stancliff is quick to say, about people that enjoy going to zoos, “I understand they are entitled to their views.” I'll bet you didn't know you were expressing a personal view, or even casting a vote in support thus making yourself complicit in their crime, every time you visited a zoo? Yeah! Crime, cruelty to animals.
He goes on to say, “If scientists want to study them in order to protect them, they should do it in their natural habitat. Captivity is cruel. I don't care what others say in defense of the practice; nothing will ever convince me that capturing animals to study and to entertain people is right.” So, all of you fine folks that want to spend monies that no one has keeping the Sequoia Park Zoo, what kind of people does that make you? He also says, “He (someone that doesn't agree with Stancliff) and others of like mind have a right to their opinion, but I think they are dead wrong.” Questioning the validity of a persons “opinions” is one thing, accusing someone of being “dead wrong” impugns that persons character. Challenging someone's facts is a whole lot different than assaulting that person's character or personhood.
Opinions are one thing and this blog takes the “stand” that they are totally worthless. Stancliff, however, with the Times-Standard's support, goes far beyond a simple opinion. He sets himself up as some sort of elitist judging, alienating, quantifying and condemning the moral and ethical nature of the people in this community that do not necessarily agree with him and his worthless “opinions.” If he was any kind of a man taking a stand on some issue, lets say on, “Sequoia Park Zoo re-enters budget crosshairs; councilman wants Eureka voters to decide” all he had to do was write a substantive column on that subject and make a straightforward manly stand. Leave your judging to God.
The Times-Standard and their readers and supporters would all be better served if Dave Stancliff practiced what he preaches: “Live and let live.”
Yeah, “What a concept”!
Wikipedia article on the capybara. Picture source.
--Joe
No comments:
Post a Comment