"My act will be
multiplied endlessly.
To provide protection for wildlife and wild
beauty,
everyone has to deny himself proportionately.
Special privilege
and conservation are ever at odds.”
This quote would seem to be addressing those of great wealth and power who demand that everyone else sacrifice in the name of "conservation", while they continue to consume at a pace far beyond most of us. Those who purchase vast tracts of land, own multiple huge homes, enjoy their huge yachts and private jets. all while telling the rest of us how we should live. We all know who they are, we all see their hypocrisy, as well as the hypocrisy of those who remain silent as these elites live out "Do as I say, not as I do.", writ large.
12 comments:
?
Did you read this in context? Do you even know who Edwin Way Teale is?
“The long fight to save wild beauty represents democracy at its best.
It requires citizens to practice the hardest of virtues--self-restraint.
Why cannot I take as many trout as I want from a stream?
Why cannot I bring home from the woods a rare wildflower?
Because if I do, everybody in this democracy should be able to do the same.
My act will be multiplied endlessly.
To provide protection for wildlife and wild beauty,
everyone has to deny himself proportionately.
Special privilege and conservation are ever at odds.”
This is a reasonable, moral reflection on reasonable self-restraint and against selfish hyperconsumption and hedonism. Are you arguing in defense of overconsumption and selfish hedonism?
This is noting the simple, simply reasonable notion that, one person shouldn't deplete a stream of all the fish therein, a hillside of all the flowers upon, simply because, "I want it all!"
While you constantly amaze me on what you believe, but I can't imagine you're disagreeing with the intent of these words.
But you tell me.
When did conservatism become overtly a safe haven and bold defender of greed and hedonism?
I mean, it's right there in the name: conserve-ative.
Dan
Just to help clarify: Teale and his wife were naturalists who lived a simple life and called for all people to conserve our natural beauty. That's who he's speaking to here... all of us. I know of no claims that the Teales consumed at a greater than normal rate. If anything, they probably lived at a less-consumption pace.
Dan
This quote would seem to be addressing those of great wealth and power who demand that everyone else sacrifice in the name of "conservation", while they continue to consume at a pace far beyond most of us. Those who purchase vast tracts of land, own multiple huge homes, enjoy their huge yachts and private jets. all while telling the rest of us how we should live.
I am curious: HOW, to you, does this quote (especially the full quote) "seem" to be addressing "those of great wealth," when the text does not in any way at all say that? How does it "seem" to be written by one with huge yachts, private jets and hyperconsumption? WHAT in the text makes it "seem" that way to you?
Because there simply is nothing in the text itself. At all.
It SEEMS that this is one of the problems with hyper-partisanship: One sees a passage that might in an extremely shallow reading appear to offend and from that very shallow and inept reading, the hyperpartisan is able to read a whole life story into the text that just isn't there.
That explains so much about your approach to the Bible and to reading and yet failing to understand my words.
Partisanship and fear undermine rational reading comprehension. Or so it seems quite apparent.
"Did you read this in context? Do you even know who Edwin Way Teale is?"
Yes, at least the minimal context you provided. No, and I don't particularly care nor see the relevance.
"This is a reasonable, moral reflection on reasonable self-restraint and against selfish hyperconsumption and hedonism. Are you arguing in defense of overconsumption and selfish hedonism?"
Perhaps this is another instance where you went off half cocked and started commenting before you read the entire post. As there is nothing in my post that would lead you to believe that these questions are appropriate, I can only assume that this is you starting off trying to put me on the defensive and answering questions that bear no relationship to reality.
"This is noting the simple, simply reasonable notion that, one person shouldn't deplete a stream of all the fish therein, a hillside of all the flowers upon, simply because, "I want it all!""
Since I did or said nothing to indicate that I disagreed with that "notion" I'm curious as to why you are determined to foment disagreement where none exists.
"While you constantly amaze me on what you believe, but I can't imagine you're disagreeing with the intent of these words."
Again, try reading the entire post first, then respond. If you don't understand, just say so.
"When did conservatism become overtly a safe haven and bold defender of greed and hedonism?"
Since I am not and have not "defended" "greed and hedonism" as an individual, nor am I aware of conservatives in general doing so, I have no idea what this question is based on.
"I know of no claims that the Teales consumed at a greater than normal rate. If anything, they probably lived at a less-consumption pace."
Your capability for self delusion always astounds me. I see it over and over again and always thing it can't get worse. Then it does.
Where, specifically, did I suggest that the Teales did so?
"I am curious: HOW, to you, does this quote (especially the full quote) "seem" to be addressing "those of great wealth," when the text does not in any way at all say that?"
What an interesting way to take a piece of text and put in in a tiny, little box. Where Dan's woodenly literal conclusions about what the quote says are the only possible responses allowed. Where anyone who takes something different from Dan's approved conclusion from the text is somehow objectively wrong.
The quote does seem to me (if I'm allowed at my blog to discuss my impressions) to address those with great wealth and power who tell others that they cannot over use resources, while living a lifestyle of over use, hyper consumption, and hypocrisy.
"How does it "seem" to be written by one with huge yachts, private jets and hyperconsumption? WHAT in the text makes it "seem" that way to you?"
Hyper consumption, is hyper consumption. Whether it's over fishing one specific body of water, or buying a personal yacht so large that it can't dock anywhere but a port for cruise ships. Hyper consumption, while demanding that others conserve, is hypocrisy.
"Because there simply is nothing in the text itself. At all."
The "text itself" doesn't seem to be written in a style that demands a hyper woodenly literal reading. The text seems to lend itself to taking it and expanding the principles it speaks of. I was unaware of the rule that limited the reading of all types of literature to the Dan approved, hyper woodenly literal, interpretation.
"It SEEMS that this is one of the problems with hyper-partisanship: One sees a passage that might in an extremely shallow reading appear to offend and from that very shallow and inept reading, the hyperpartisan is able to read a whole life story into the text that just isn't there."
It SEEMS as though this is one of your problems with passing judgements on others without any actual proof that your judgements are factually accurate. It SEEMS as though one of your problems is to take a small area where we might actually agree on something, and turn that small area of agreement into a large area of disagreement.
"That explains so much about your approach to the Bible and to reading and yet failing to understand my words."
Well, your made up hunches about me that you've invented and applied to me regardless of any actual basis in fact certainly affect your judgement. But if this sort of straw man bullshit helps your self esteem, I guess you need to indulge it.
"Partisanship and fear undermine rational reading comprehension. Or so it seems quite apparent."
Since I've not demonstrated "Partisanship" in this post, nor have you demonstrated that my "reading comprehension" precludes my expansion on the theme from the quote, I can't see how this doesn't raise more questions about your biases, prejudices, prejudgements, and failure to read my comment than anything else.
Dan, posts a quote about how over consuming for selfish reasons is bad.
Craig, agrees that selfish over consumption is bad and points out the hypocrisy of those who selfishly over consume, while lecturing others on how the others should behave. Craig points out that this "Do as I say, not as I do." ethic is inherently hypocritical.
Dan, goes off on multiple tangents and ad hom attacks while frantically erecting straw men for him to attack.
My apologies. I did actually misunderstand. I see now that you were saying that, to you, this quote could be seen as dealing with the wealthy liberal (or otherwise) who wants to create rules for other people that they don't want to live by. I see the point now and apologize for being the one who was misunderstanding.
To your actual point then, while that quote might be used that way, it is almost certainly not the point being made by Teale. Like when people reference Jesus "blessed are you who are poor... woe to you who are rich..." and say that it seems like it's speaking of the figurative poor and rich, not the literal poor and rich. While the quote might be used that way, there's nothing in the context that suggests this was the intent of the author.
Nonetheless, I was wrong and misunderstood and I apologize for that.
Wow, I'm gobsmacked. Dan actually offered an apology that is almost completely devoid of any qualifications. This could be a first.
Given that I never suggested anything about the intent of the author, I fail to see the relevance.
Nonetheless, your apology is noted and accepted.
As for your Jesus quote. I am aware of no one but you who demands that His words refer exclusively to one type of rich/poor. I personally see it (based on the context of the entire Gospel record) as a both/and not either/or. But if it makes you happy to add a straw man to your apology, you go right ahead.
Yeah, Dan had his chance to prove he's not a total douche and instead f'd it up by trying to pretend he has a better handle on Scripture. That was unnecessary and it detracts from his certainly painful honorable act of admitting for once in his life he was wrong.
"To your actual point then, while that quote might be used that way, it is almost certainly not the point being made by Teale."
Based on what specifically? I think Craig's take is sound. Teale is questioning taking more than needed. How is Craig's take wrong, given those who would do such a thing are often those with no understanding or concern for conserving resources? The elites...as the word is often used...are often seen as lacking concern for anything not related to their own benefit, though they will chastise the common man as if they're the only culprits.
Dan seems to be incredibly intent on demonstrating his superiority to those who disagree with him. From his boasting about his education and expertise, to his boasting about his charitable work. to his boasting about his mastery of scripture, he seems to need to prove his superiority. Strangely enough, he seems to have missed the whole humility thing Jesus spoke of.
It's clear that Dan realizes that the conclusion he jumped to, based on his biases and prejudices, was wrong. Unfortunately this is the second time in a few days where his biases and prejudices led him to jump to a wrong conclusion and I don't think his ego will allow him to fail twice in a week given his superior ability to read for understanding.
On an larger scale, the fact that he chooses not to deal with the open and blatant hypocrisy of the climate elites or to criticize their "Do as I say, not as I do." message, does reveal something, doesn't it?
Well, if his "mastery" of Scripture is any indication, I wouldn't wager he's superior in anything he's done. He certainly lacks wisdom as so evident in how he supports his personal causes, as well as how he thinks he's debunking or rebutting conservatism. He's a mess.
Post a Comment