What disingenuous arrogance the first paragraph is. While the article goes on to name specific species and the possible impact of border fences and related technology on them, it starts off with an absurdity, that everything that lives around the US/Mexico border and could be effected, must be allowed free range. True, it doesn't go so far as to say have no border fences, but that it doesn't is where the clearly dishonest intent comes in, because the standard of species, general, says if it lives there, it has more rights than you as a human, no matter what the consequences could be, have been shown to be, heck, might even be threatened to be. Taken to its logical conclusion, potentially all outside borders must be destroyed, after all, pollen might be hindered in its spreading, so don't make those fences too high. I don't know if border fences are a good idea, maybe no borders has its advantages, but the standard given at the start of this article is way into the asinine. If the activists in this article don't want a border, they should say so, and start suing pet owners who fence their pets in.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/31/america/LA-GEN-Mexico-US-Border-Fences.php
"...the barriers would threaten migratory species accustomed to roaming freely across the frontier."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment