You can't have it both ways
Most of these were comments heard at recent meetings or in conversations or synthesized from recent readings.
The first two were uttered by the same person. And the third one was said by a person also advocating for more wilderness areas in the Gila National Forest.
Dirt roads are not necessarily permanent. Weather and flora take them back.
Once the forest is gone, it's gone forever.
Wilderness areas can be areas that are reclaimed by Mother Nature.
This editor's comment: If nature can reclaim areas that humans have impacted, why will the forest be gone forever? Cannot the speakers see the conflict inherent in their words?
Another instance that comes to mind about not having it both ways is freedom of speech.
The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1791, gives every citizen freedom of speech in Amendment 1. All the amendments guarantee individual rights.
However, some seem to think that freedom of speech only applies to them and everyone must agree to what they say. They will not listen to anything that varies from what they believe everyone should believe.
That is not freedom of speech. That is oppression, even Fascism, which those who don't agree with an opinion react to through violence and destruction.
Freedom of speech is just that. Freedom of speech.
Another item heard in a presentation. Having a wall between Mexico and New Mexico for a single purpose would have a permanent and long-lasting impact.
Yeah, but a "wildway" corridor from Mexico through to Canada is not a one-purpose item? Yes, it is to have habitat for wildlife, but it would allow no human life within it. That seems to be a single purpose to keep people out.
How can a person be so against the species to which he or she belongs?
The person also said that a wall cannot be undone. Sorry, but history proves otherwise. Remember the Berlin Wall? It is no longer there, so yes, walls can be undone.
Another example of not having it both ways. A government official complains that if a utility bill goes up, the person in that dwelling may not be able to afford to eat. However, in the next paragraph, the same official supports raising a statewide tax to pay for services. Who pays the taxes? (granted that maybe that person is on welfare, so YOU are paying the taxes to support that person who can't afford to eat AND pay for electricity.) You probably work for a living.
Another example: a person praises the federal government for having designated the Gila National Forest and Wilderness, but in the same sentence says he doesn't trust government at any level because of its lack of transparency. Sorry, but you either like the government for creating the wilderness or you don't, and you either like government and what it does or you don't. Can't have it both ways.
The March for Our Lives showed ways in which one cannot have it both ways. One of the survivors of the really tragic Parkland High School shooting in Florida has said that 96 deaths caused by guns happen in the U.S. every day. He didn't mention that more than 2,000 babies are aborted every day. The trending hastag #NotOneMore should apply to abortions, too.
Also, in reference to the Parkland tragedy, it seems that some students are allowed to speak out for gun control, but other students, who understand the need for Amendment 2 in the Bill of Rights, have mostly been shut out by most media outlets. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
But, in reality, in our world today, too many people try to have it both ways. Isn't that called hypocrisy?