Before we go to far off on this tangent of semantics, I want to bring this back to what is really perplexing to me;
1. I cant be the judge of right wrong, and neither can you or anyone else.
Agreed.
All I can base anything on is if it affects me or my family
I don't agree with your basis, but whatever logic you use is up to you.
because if its not affecting me how can i really care?
This what is perplexing me. How can you not see how the actions of others can have a very real and direct impact on you and your family?
As much technology as we think we have, we still rely very heavily on the earth for the natural resources for keeping us alive.
If I decide I feel go dynamite fishing for fun, that is gonna have a very real impact on you when the fish population reaches a tipping point and collapses.
Fish, for example, will hit a typing point in their population when their numbers fall so low that their population density isn't sufficient for reproduction.
Once one population collapses, the next species on the food chain, will become susceptible to the same collapse first due to availability of nourishment and then ultimately insufficient population density.
....
I don't know if you haven't been following it in the news, but the collapse of the fish populations in the ocean is a very real and immediate threat today.
2. Show me how some folks trapping foxes and racoons that over populate their area affects me and I'll answer you...
Great example. The reason why raccoons for example are overpopulated in some areas is because
someone else killed all their natural predators
Now that example doesn't have a catastrophic result, but it produced results in your environment based on the actions of someone else.
as you If you look at the scope of time and space narrow enough Im sure some dead deer and racoons is a major impact, but in the grand scheme of things it does not matter...
It's ironic that you tell me "if you look at the scope and time of space narrow enough" because that is the fallacy you are committing in your logic.
At the same time you are indirectly accusing me of committing a straw man fallacy, which is not true.
Sure, 50 raccoons or foxes in Alabama is probably not gonna change anything in the ecosystem.
The problem in the logic arises when you apply it to the "grand scheme" of things as you call it, because once you say it is ok for "someone" to kill 50 racoons/foxes/fish/elephants/birds - how then can you not say it is OK for "everyone" to do such, since "everyone" is composed entirely of "someones"?
