AhbabaOooMaoMao

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iuiiwm1 wrote

>I'm not sure I understand the author's objective with this article. Is the idea that these place names need to be changed? are harmful? or are simply quirks of history?

Did you miss the second half of the article below those links?

Author's conclusion:

>Place names are not permanent. If some are questionable by today’s standards, citizens can debate the decision to pass them on or to change them. Doing so responsibly requires honest conversation, respect for Indigenous voices, and a willingness to redress the thorny history of Connecticut.

−3

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iu9dzw3 wrote

Blah blah blah.

If anything, we are the problem, having encroached on the bears natural territory.

There was a single bear attack.

Show me the reports signed off by the state biologists saying there are too many bears and that an open season is the only a recommended solution.

I keep seeing people say that the state biologists support this. The ones I have spoken to in person do not. Still waiting to see a report from any state agency saying that this is the correct approach.

I don't think it's too much to ask to approach this from a science-based standpoint, instead of based on our fee fees, blood lust to shoot animals, and unreasonable fear of puppy dog-like black bears.

1

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iu8wqur wrote

It must be so cool to read a document written 250 years ago with the mentality of a tiny baby who is oblivious to context or depth, without reading significant developments in 250 years of American jurisprudence.

Just as a narrowly tailored time place manner restrictions on government-owned property does not touch or offend the First Amendment, it does not concern the Second either. Not sure if you can understand that over the sound of your childish screeching.

2