Disgusting rhetoric

If you believe in your cause, you should be able to discuss why using both passion and science, not over-the-top rhetoric that disparages anyone who disagrees with you. Doing so shows ignorance and insecurity.

Last week in this newspaper, Keith Hammer showed his ignorance and intolerance in explaining his opposition to snowmobilers legally recreating in the Swan Valley. Last year, after closing the Skyland-Challenge Creek area, the Forest Service told snowmobilers to go to the Swan.

This is how Hammer described it: “This is the equivalent of telling a child molester to simply move on down the street to the next playground.”

Really? This is the best argument this person can make to protect an area that he supposedly loves? How disgusting. What’s equally disturbing is that this paper felt OK using such a quote, thereby appearing to give some justification to the statement.

Also, the silence from other so called environmentalists to distance themselves from a quote like this and a person like this implies agreement and is very telling.

Maybe it’s time to rethink who really qualifies as an environmentalist and who really can judge who are child molesters other than law enforcement officials and the actual molesters themselves.

Jane Reardon

Polebridge