Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Bryan Fischer really hates it when animals attack. Like, hates it so much that he thinks we’d be better off without them.

Which is why Fischer, who is the “Director of Issues Analysis” for the conservative Christian group the American Family Association, wrote a blog post today called “A hot dog on two legs - time for open season on Yellowstone grizzlies,” in which he refers to Grizzly Bears as a “curse” and says that “it’s time” for the grizzlies to go.

Does Stephen Colbert know about this guy?

Fischer posted the piece on his “Rightly Concerned” blog, which is “a project of the American Family Association.”

“God makes it clear in Scripture that deaths of people and livestock at the hands of savage beasts is a sign that the land is under a curse. The tragic thing here is that we are bringing this curse upon ourselves,” Fischer writes.

Fischer is a favorite of social conservative Republicans, and even spoke at the Values Voter summit this fall alongside Mitt Romney, Jim DeMint, and other big-name Republicans. Many also know him for having suggested that there should be “no more mosques, period” in the U.S. because “every single mosque is a potential terror training center or recruitment center for jihad.”

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... to_get.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If he just put a gun in his mouth, he wouldn't have to worry about a grizzly attack.

I don't know about all the curse stuff but we do run into things about the value of a human life vs. non human animal life.

You know, it is likely that some peopjle are going to be killed by Grizzly bears in the future. If we elimianted Grizzly bears, that would not happen.

So the question is: Why are you not willing to eliminate Grizzly bears if it will save even ONE human life? Same with mountain lions, by the way.

We do an awful lot of things in order to "save" lives. Why do we continue to allow the existence of large predators that might kill people?

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't know about all the curse stuff but we do run into things about the value of a human life vs. non human animal life.

You know, it is likely that some peopjle are going to be killed by Grizzly bears in the future. If we elimianted Grizzly bears, that would not happen.

So the question is: Why are you not willing to eliminate Grizzly bears if it will save even ONE human life? Same with mountain lions, by the way.

We do an awful lot of things in order to "save" lives. Why do we continue to allow the existence of large predators that might kill people?

We are waiting for you to get eaten.

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't know about all the curse stuff but we do run into things about the value of a human life vs. non human animal life.

You know, it is likely that some peopjle are going to be killed by Grizzly bears in the future. If we elimianted Grizzly bears, that would not happen.

So the question is: Why are you not willing to eliminate Grizzly bears if it will save even ONE human life? Same with mountain lions, by the way.

We do an awful lot of things in order to "save" lives. Why do we continue to allow the existence of large predators that might kill people?

People will also be killed by snakes, spiders, and sharks. Should we get rid of them, too?

People will also be killed by snakes, spiders, and sharks. Should we get rid of them, too?

That's a valid question. But, you know, nobody gets in a tither if people kill cottonmouths or black widows. If someone in Louisiana sees a cottonmouth in their back yard and kills it it's understood. Or if they find a black widow in their garage. Nobody says they shouldn't kill it.

No other animal would tolerate having another animal around that is a potential threat to it if it had the power to eliminate it. Or even if it is competition.

JohnStOnge wrote:

People will also be killed by snakes, spiders, and sharks. Should we get rid of them, too?

That's a valid question. But, you know, nobody gets in a tither if people kill cottonmouths or black widows. If someone in Louisiana sees a cottonmouth in their back yard and kills it it's understood. Or if they find a black widow in their garage. Nobody says they shouldn't kill it.

No other animal would tolerate having another animal around that is a potential threat to it if it had the power to eliminate it. Or even if it is competition.

Better start killing off humans with your logic.

Better start killing off humans with your logic.

I think Grizzly bears are cool and am not anxious to see them go extinct. But it's interesting to think about.

Suppose i put some human being in front of you. Let's say it's some likeable person. Maybe a beautiful and likeable soman. Then I say that she will be killed by a Grizzly bear. And I point out that if there were no Grizzly bears that wouldn't happen to her. If you had to choose between the life of another person and the existence fo Grizzly bears, which would you choose?

JohnStOnge wrote:

Better start killing off humans with your logic.

I think Grizzly bears are cool and am not anxious to see them go extinct. But it's interesting to think about.

Suppose i put some human being in front of you. Let's say it's some likeable person. Maybe a beautiful and likeable soman. Then I say that she will be killed by a Grizzly bear. And I point out that if there were no Grizzly bears that wouldn't happen to her. If you had to choose between the life of another person and the existence fo Grizzly bears, which would you choose?

Only if you are nuts.

We should only kill grizzlies if we can torture them by cutting off their arms. The right to bear arms in is the second amendment.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Better start killing off humans with your logic.

I think Grizzly bears are cool and am not anxious to see them go extinct. But it's interesting to think about.

Suppose i put some human being in front of you. Let's say it's some likeable person. Maybe a beautiful and likeable soman. Then I say that she will be killed by a Grizzly bear. And I point out that if there were no Grizzly bears that wouldn't happen to her. If you had to choose between the life of another person and the existence fo Grizzly bears, which would you choose?

Shit happens.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I think Grizzly bears are cool and am not anxious to see them go extinct. But it's interesting to think about.

Suppose i put some human being in front of you. Let's say it's some likeable person. Maybe a beautiful and likeable soman. Then I say that she will be killed by a Grizzly bear. And I point out that if there were no Grizzly bears that wouldn't happen to her. If you had to choose between the life of another person and the existence fo Grizzly bears, which would you choose?

Only if you are nuts.

Sometimes I get the feeling JSO still smokes a lot of weed. Those are definitely the kinds of thoughts I have when I do it.

grizzaholic wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I think Grizzly bears are cool and am not anxious to see them go extinct. But it's interesting to think about.

Suppose i put some human being in front of you. Let's say it's some likeable person. Maybe a beautiful and likeable soman. Then I say that she will be killed by a Grizzly bear. And I point out that if there were no Grizzly bears that wouldn't happen to her. If you had to choose between the life of another person and the existence fo Grizzly bears, which would you choose?

Shit happens.

But if we kill all the bears it won't be happening in the woods.

Me and my Grizzlies will kill all comers. C'mon mfs, C'mon!

Wedgebuster wrote:Me and my Grizzlies will kill all comers. C'mon mfs, C'mon!

What about zombies?

grizzaholic wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Me and my Grizzlies will kill all comers. C'mon mfs, C'mon!

What about zombies?

Once I didn't know what they wuz, now I are one.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Better start killing off humans with your logic.

I think Grizzly bears are cool and am not anxious to see them go extinct. But it's interesting to think about.

Suppose i put some human being in front of you. Let's say it's some likeable person. Maybe a beautiful and likeable soman. Then I say that she will be killed by a Grizzly bear. And I point out that if there were no Grizzly bears that wouldn't happen to her. If you had to choose between the life of another person and the existence fo Grizzly bears, which would you choose?

I choose the Grizzly. Unless you have actual had the experience of seeing them in the wild you can't really understand what amazing creatures they are. I have seen a lot of beautiful women & a lot of them are less pleasant to be around than a pissed of grizzly.

Only if you are nuts.

No, only if you think beyond the superficial and are willing to question things that are tyically taken for granted.

The fact is, there is an element here involving a willingess to accept some small number of human deaths due to Grizzly attack as opposed to taking an action which would eliminate that possibility. In a sense it's valuing the lives of Grizzlies as a species over valuing the lives of some human beings as individuals.

If you really think about it, we are saying that we accept the loss of some human life in order to maintain the existence of that species. I'm not saying I"m necessarily opposed to that. I'm not advocating going out of our way to wipe out Grizzlies. Just pointing out that the situation exists.

At least we don't take it to the next step like they do in India with Tigers. You know, like I've written about before where if a Tiger is killing and eating people they won't just kill it. Instead, they do stuff like set up dummies that look like people at the edge of the water and wired so that when a Tiger pounces on them they get a shock. At least if we do have a Grizzly that attacks somebody we shoot it .

JohnStOnge wrote:

Only if you are nuts.

No, only if you think beyond the superficial and are willing to question things that are tyically taken for granted.

The fact is, there is an element here involving a willingess to accept some small number of human deaths due to Grizzly attack as opposed to taking an action which would eliminate that possibility. In a sense it's valuing the lives of Grizzlies as a species over valuing the lives of some human beings as individuals.

If you really think about it, we are saying that we accept the loss of some human life in order to maintain the existence of that species. I'm not saying I"m necessarily opposed to that. I'm not advocating going out of our way to wipe out Grizzlies. Just pointing out that the situation exists.

At least we don't take it to the next step like they do in India with Tigers. You know, like I've written about before where if a Tiger is killing and eating people they won't just kill it. Instead, they do stuff like set up dummies that look like people at the edge of the water and wired so that when a Tiger pounces on them they get a shock. At least if we do have a Grizzly that attacks somebody we shoot it .

You raise an interesting question. Why don't you want to see us extinguish the Griz?

JohnStOnge wrote:

Only if you are nuts.

No, only if you think beyond the superficial and are willing to question things that are tyically taken for granted.

The fact is, there is an element here involving a willingess to accept some small number of human deaths due to Grizzly attack as opposed to taking an action which would eliminate that possibility. In a sense it's valuing the lives of Grizzlies as a species over valuing the lives of some human beings as individuals.

If you really think about it, we are saying that we accept the loss of some human life in order to maintain the existence of that species. I'm not saying I"m necessarily opposed to that. I'm not advocating going out of our way to wipe out Grizzlies. Just pointing out that the situation exists.

At least we don't take it to the next step like they do in India with Tigers. You know, like I've written about before where if a Tiger is killing and eating people they won't just kill it. Instead, they do stuff like set up dummies that look like people at the edge of the water and wired so that when a Tiger pounces on them they get a shock. At least if we do have a Grizzly that attacks somebody we shoot it .

It's only interesting to think about if you are nuts.

We can't eliminate everything that kills us, and it's absurd to even think about it or try, unless you want to live in a bunker.

There is also no guarantee that eliminating the Grizzly reduces the number of human deaths. Grizzly prey populations may rise resulting in more fatal traffic fatalities. Or more hunting fatalities since hunters may be needed to control animals once controlled by the Grizzly.

I can say that we don't have wolves here in Southeastern PA. and black bear sightings are rare, but we do have lots of deer and lots of traffic accidents involving deer. Sometimes those accidents are fatal. We also have the occasional fatal hunting accident.

Solve one problem you may create another one that is worse.

You raise an interesting question. Why don't you want to see us extinguish the Griz?

I think they are cool. They are not disgusting like lions are.

JohnStOnge wrote:

You raise an interesting question. Why don't you want to see us extinguish the Griz?

I think they are cool. They are not disgusting like lions are.

Good answer! Your getting better at this trolling stuff. I think.