4 ms·

You couldn't be more wrong. Wolf attacks are extremely rare. They're not a significant threat to humans. http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2011/dec/1

You couldn't be more wrong. Wolf attacks are extremely rare. They're not a significant threat to humans. http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2011/dec/16/oregon-department-fish-and-wildlife/department-fish-and-wildlife-says-there-have-been-/ http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2011/dec/16/oreg... Wolves are vilified because of their threat to livestock. Farmers kill wolves to protect their animals. The return of wolves is good news for people living in forested areas overpopulated by deer. Without wolves, the deer population grows unchecked. The deer overgraze which hurts plant growth. https://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/ https://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/

woodpanel 9y ago
The rhetoric reveals your biasedness: Where did I even mention attacks? Nowhere. But, because you know that my statement is correct, that the majority of people in rural areas don't like having wolfpack-neighbors, you've seem to feel obliged to make ridicule of their fears. Its clearly an overreaction. An impulse I just can guess what triggered it. Is it maybe that I pointed out, that the romanticization of things ('yay!') is usually done by people who don't have to live with the outcomes of it? And precisely because they don't have to live with that are usually much more powerful and likely to get their romanticized ideals poured into legislation (e.g. wealth redistribution vs. not being dependent on entry level jobs, social housing projects vs. not living in them, promoting preditors vs. living in gentrified urban areas etc.)? Is it maybe that at the core of the romaticizer's actions is the aim for Deutungshoheit (narrative control) via claiming "pureness", which is most hurt by showing its very basic inconsistencies? Is it because applying a 80s-moustache statement glass wearing Hipster face to "Yay! Wolfes are back" lays bare the author's arrogance?

woodpanel 9y ago

The rhetoric reveals your biasedness: Where did I even mention attacks? Nowhere. But, because you know that my statement is correct, that the majority of people in rural areas don't like having wolfpack-neighbors, you've seem to feel obliged to make ridicule of their fears. Its clearly an overreaction. An impulse I just can guess what triggered it. Is it maybe that I pointed out, that the romanticization of things ('yay!') is usually done by people who don't have to live with the outcomes of it? And precisely because they don't have to live with that are usually much more powerful and likely to get their romanticized ideals poured into legislation (e.g. wealth redistribution vs. not being dependent on entry level jobs, social housing projects vs. not living in them, promoting preditors vs. living in gentrified urban areas etc.)? Is it maybe that at the core of the romaticizer's actions is the aim for Deutungshoheit (narrative control) via claiming "pureness", which is most hurt by showing its very basic inconsistencies? Is it because applying a 80s-moustache statement glass wearing Hipster face to "Yay! Wolfes are back" lays bare the author's arrogance?