Should the government invest in the preservation of endangered species?

[Ebowed]

Should the government invest in the preservation of endangered species?

[Ebowed]

How is a private organization going to save the panda if the government refuses to pass a law making it illegal to hunt pandas?

[Ebowed]

How is a private organization going to save the panda if the government refuses to pass a law making it illegal to hunt pandas?

The government can pass the law but pass the cost of enforcing it off to others.

You want to privatize law enforcement?  WTF?

[Ebowed]

Law enforcement if where talking about endangered species, I'm not advocating actual police being privitized.

Why make the distinction?  Why bother even passing a law if you have no idea of knowing whether it will be enforced?

[Ebowed]

Well, that would count towards human existence wouldn't it? If a species is not important for the survival of humanity (even indirectly) I don't see why tax money should go towards protecting it. It seems sort of arbitrary to me.

You misunderstood what I said. 

We have an obligation to protect species that face extinction because of human activity.

Removing species that don't seem to directly benefit humanity can have massive repercussions and negatively impact the ecosystem of which they are a part.  And in many cases, such carelessness would likely come back to bite us in the butt.

I suggest you do some reading about ecosystems and how they function.

I suggest you do some reading about civility and perhaps reading. The former will help you get people to read your posts and the latter will help you read others. I won't debate with somone unable to read my posts or conduct themselves, but I will corteously give you a little hint to help you with your reading comprehension by high-lighting some of the key terms in the above conversation.

Ick, stop being so arrogant, and while we're lecturing people about their literacy skills, have a second look at the sentence you had to highlight:

Removing species that don't seem to directly benefit humanity can have massive repercussions and negatively impact the ecosystem of which they are a part.

indirectly = don't directly

Thus, he addresses your cool and rebellious viewpoint that species which indirectly help humans survive should not receive protection.

[Ebowed]

Not only did you fail to spot the irony of my meeting his unbelievable arrogance with a similar dish.

Is the incredible arrogance and condescending tone in your new post more of this "irony", or are you just being an asshole?  Don't worry, I'm sure you can come up with a reason for it in your response.

You also failed to read my post just like he did. What was it I said again? "If a species is not important for the survival of humanity (even indirectly) I don't see why tax money should go towards protecting it. " So, I'm saying that unless it is important for the survival of humanity it should not be protected. I also make an extra effort at emphaisizing that I, of course, just like any person with half a brain, include species that are indirectly important for the survival of humanity.

I don't see how you can accuse me of not reading your post correctly when you can't even phrase a sentence without having to rewrite the meaning later.

Read your sentence again, and maybe get your parents to read it too.  The reason everyone is reading it the way Snowguy and I read it is because you wrote it like a dumbass.

So, when he replied to that by saying that species can be indirectly important to our survival I thought I should point out where I specifically mentioned this in my post.

Indeed, you mentioned that a species can be indirectly important to our survival.  What you also mentioned is that even if a species is indirectly important to our survival, the government shouldn't spend resources trying to protect it.

Seriously, read your own posts.  And after you're done telling Snowguy how arrogant he is with your hilarious ironic posts, you could consider rebutting the actual arguments at play here.

[Ebowed]

Well, well. As you know English is not my first language

No.  Stop right there.

You don't get to play that card.  You'd be allowed to do that if you hadn't made a big deal out of our inability to read.  ("You also failed to read my post just like he did"; "I suggest you do some ... reading. [It] will help you read others. I won't debate with somone unable to read my posts")  Instead, you are now showing off your hypocrisy by saying that your English isn't perfect.  Well, nobody's is.  If it's not perfect, maybe you shouldn't say that we don't know how to read your badly written sentences.

it is a standard practice in academic circles that when you can choose between two different interpretations you pick the one that seems most reasonable.

Right, that is standard practice when speaking to someone who usually has reasonable views themselves.  You have a notorious track record of picking extremely conservative views for the sake of being different.  For all I know, you probably do support nuclear weapons being launched on the African jungle.  Why would it surprise me?

"If a species is not even indirectly important for the survival of humanity I don't see why tax money should go towards protecting it".

Right.  If that's what you meant, then fine.  That's not what the sentence reads like, and I'm sure you can see why it comes across as meaning something completely different.

[Ebowed]

I'm sure most people whose primary intent is to consider Gustaf's arguments rather than personally attack him read it that way as well.

lol

If I wanted to personally attack him (as I have in this thread), I'd do it outright, not intentionally misread his statements.