New CP, new person - same old arguments!
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Yes, and fair enough, to a point
Exactly, and its up to each of us to determine for ourselves where that point is. You point out that animals suffer to provide me with the food I eat. I point out that animals suffer for you to have the roads you use to move around. Both are equaly valid points. Neither you nor I have the authority to judge which is greater or lesser than the other. The fact that you do so makes you a hipacrate.
I'm not claiming the authority to judge, but I can still argue the toss about the judgement you or others make if I want - and you can argue back.
Josh Gray wrote:
You point out that animals suffer to provide me with the food I eat. I point out that animals suffer for you to have the roads you use to move around
There is a big difference between these two, and that is in what we, as individuals, can and can't do. Short of opting out of society altogether, I cannot help but "support", at least implicitly, the animal suffering that exists in order for roads to exist. If that makes me a hypocrite, it is at least not of my making. I really can't do much about it. But I can (quite easily) stop eating and buying animal products, and buying into the general abuse of animals in society. It really isn't hard to be vegan, not these days.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Yes, and fair enough, to a point
Exactly, and its up to each of us to determine for ourselves where that point is. You point out that animals suffer to provide me with the food I eat. I point out that animals suffer for you to have the roads you use to move around. Both are equaly valid points. Neither you nor I have the authority to judge which is greater or lesser than the other. The fact that you do so makes you a hipacrate.
It's been... fun... nice to give the new forum a good workout! But it's 1 a.m. here and I have to get up in the morning... ...no doubt you'll all be glad to get back to arguing about Global Warming then.... :)
-
Demon Possessed wrote:
That is like an insect advocating the use of bug spray.
Yeah....sure it is.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo.
CataclysmicQuantums wrote:
sure it is.
So that's your comeback? :laugh::laugh::laugh:
-
Well go argue with Schmuck all you like - besides, I have no problem with globalisation. Nor - as I said - do I own leather shoes.
I fear you missed the point... never mind...
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
-
I just refer to you to my original post that started all this....
And in completing the circle, I refer you to my previous post. ;-)
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
-
Most politicians are as religious as they believe the electore requires of them.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
Yes. It seems that none of them actually stand for anything. They just want to make as many as possible feel good so they will get votes.
-
Exactly. But all the candidates running right now are religious, even Hillary (or so she claims, and not that I would vote for her even if she was an atheist). With 80-90% of the population being religious, do you think a rational thinker would have much of a chance? :)
Demon Possessed wrote:
With 80-90% of the population being religious
So that leaves you in the 10-20% who aren't. Thats a smaller group than people who believe Elvis is alive or those who believe that aliens create crop circles. Maybe you need to give your outlook on life a long hard look. :-D
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
CataclysmicQuantums wrote:
sure it is.
So that's your comeback? :laugh::laugh::laugh:
It doesn't require one. It was just plain stupid. You might have well said "I'm fucking stupid". I wont make a comeback to an insult to yourself.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo.
-
It doesn't require one. It was just plain stupid. You might have well said "I'm fucking stupid". I wont make a comeback to an insult to yourself.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo.
CataclysmicQuantums wrote:
You might have well said "I'm fucking stupid". I wont make a comeback to an insult to yourself.
So pointing out that you are a helpless drug addict who is worthless to society and would be deserving of human experimentation if it was implemented (as you were advocating) is an insult to myself? :laugh: You never cease to amaze me with the utter failure you manage to achieve with every post! By the way the picture in your profile is hilarious. You have dweeb written all over your face.
-
CataclysmicQuantums wrote:
You might have well said "I'm fucking stupid". I wont make a comeback to an insult to yourself.
So pointing out that you are a helpless drug addict who is worthless to society and would be deserving of human experimentation if it was implemented (as you were advocating) is an insult to myself? :laugh: You never cease to amaze me with the utter failure you manage to achieve with every post! By the way the picture in your profile is hilarious. You have dweeb written all over your face.
Demon Possessed wrote:
So pointing out that you are a helpless drug addict who is worthless to society and would be deserving of human experimentation if it was implemented (as you were advocating)
I don't speak stupid, speak English.
Demon Possessed wrote:
By the way the picture in your profile is hilarious. You have dweeb written all over your face.
I have seen pictures of you and your family and I will say you look like quite the dweeb. If it wasn't for my glasses, I would look like someone from the military. Not that it matters, I do like my glasses.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo.
-
Demon Possessed wrote:
So pointing out that you are a helpless drug addict who is worthless to society and would be deserving of human experimentation if it was implemented (as you were advocating)
I don't speak stupid, speak English.
Demon Possessed wrote:
By the way the picture in your profile is hilarious. You have dweeb written all over your face.
I have seen pictures of you and your family and I will say you look like quite the dweeb. If it wasn't for my glasses, I would look like someone from the military. Not that it matters, I do like my glasses.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo.
CataclysmicQuantums wrote:
I have seen pictures of you and your family and I will say you look like quite the dweeb.
Yep, there are some out there from a few years ago that look pretty dumb. Maybe tomorrow I will take a pic of myself.
CataclysmicQuantums wrote:
If it wasn't for my glasses, I would look like someone from the military
Haha that's funny. They say positive self-talk is good but in your case it is dishonest. You just look like a high-strung jumpy little nerd, and I bet all your toughness goes away the second you step out of your pathetic fantasy life on the internet.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I do care about animal welfare but I'll have no truck with animal rights, there are no such things so arguing the animals corner is a moot point, they don't have one. The issue is one of human morality, responsibility and stewardship.
That is just being pedantic. You do not care about animal welfare - if you did you would be a vegan, plain and simple. Anyone that says they care about animals and isn't vegan is a hypocrite - sorry if that offends you, but if you don't believe me, just open your eyes to what REALLY goes on in farms and factories around the world (including the USA and UK.)
Fred_Smith wrote:
if you did you would be a vegan, plain and simple
Nonsense I'm afraid Fred, if we were all vegans like you then all the sheep and beef cattle and pigs and chickens would be wiped out, permanently, just great for animal welfare that! I don't condone the bad practices of intensive farming and I buy free range and organic, no to say free-trade to the extent that I can afford it. I don't shirk responsibility for what is done in my name and I actively campaign against the CAP and the EU insanity which hold our agriculture in its grip. What I'm not is a hyprocrite, I simply don't believe that there is any connection between animal welfare and not eating or using animal products, other than the obvious negative consequences for them of being economically useless.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
if you did you would be a vegan, plain and simple
Nonsense I'm afraid Fred, if we were all vegans like you then all the sheep and beef cattle and pigs and chickens would be wiped out, permanently, just great for animal welfare that! I don't condone the bad practices of intensive farming and I buy free range and organic, no to say free-trade to the extent that I can afford it. I don't shirk responsibility for what is done in my name and I actively campaign against the CAP and the EU insanity which hold our agriculture in its grip. What I'm not is a hyprocrite, I simply don't believe that there is any connection between animal welfare and not eating or using animal products, other than the obvious negative consequences for them of being economically useless.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
if we were all vegans like you then all the sheep and beef cattle and pigs and chickens would be wiped out, permanently
I'm sorry but that argument (heard all the time...) is so specious it makes me speechless (almost!) What you're saying is "We've bred all these animals for us to eat and experiment on before killing, so we might as well carry on because otherwise they'll die out". I mean, come on... most of them are going to die anyway, and most of them sooner rather than later - all you have to do is stop breding them for your selfish needs. But even that's not really the point; this "if everyone did..." argument (whether it be in relation to this or any other debate) is yet another irrelevancy and red-herring put out to move the argument off-track. "Everyone" will never agree on aything - so never mind what everyone else will or will not do - all you have to do in life is what you believe to be right.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I simply don't believe that there is any connection between animal welfare and not eating or using animal products
Well, that really does make me speechles. Staggering.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
if we were all vegans like you then all the sheep and beef cattle and pigs and chickens would be wiped out, permanently
I'm sorry but that argument (heard all the time...) is so specious it makes me speechless (almost!) What you're saying is "We've bred all these animals for us to eat and experiment on before killing, so we might as well carry on because otherwise they'll die out". I mean, come on... most of them are going to die anyway, and most of them sooner rather than later - all you have to do is stop breding them for your selfish needs. But even that's not really the point; this "if everyone did..." argument (whether it be in relation to this or any other debate) is yet another irrelevancy and red-herring put out to move the argument off-track. "Everyone" will never agree on aything - so never mind what everyone else will or will not do - all you have to do in life is what you believe to be right.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I simply don't believe that there is any connection between animal welfare and not eating or using animal products
Well, that really does make me speechles. Staggering.
Fred_Smith wrote:
"We've bred all these animals for us to eat and experiment on before killing, so we might as well carry on because otherwise they'll die out".
No what I'm actually saying is: We've bred all these animals for us to eat and make shoes and glue and clothes and jam and cheese and other good stuff out of so we should look after them and use them efficiently, reduce their suffering wherever possible, kill them quickly and cleanly and be grateful for what we get from our labour and their lives. Clearly our concepts of animal welfare are entirely different. As far as I can see it is best for an animal to live well to a good purpose, well fed and disease free, breed successfully, die at least as quickly and cleanly as it ever naturally would and serve a good purpose by its death. Your vision would leave it a member of an endangered species, not looked after because it has no economic value, to die of disease or decrepit old age or violent predation with no surety of breeding success and its carcass to go to no better purpose than feeding the crows and foxes. If that's your idea of animal welfare then you can keep it and speechless is not a bad place for you to be.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
"We've bred all these animals for us to eat and experiment on before killing, so we might as well carry on because otherwise they'll die out".
No what I'm actually saying is: We've bred all these animals for us to eat and make shoes and glue and clothes and jam and cheese and other good stuff out of so we should look after them and use them efficiently, reduce their suffering wherever possible, kill them quickly and cleanly and be grateful for what we get from our labour and their lives. Clearly our concepts of animal welfare are entirely different. As far as I can see it is best for an animal to live well to a good purpose, well fed and disease free, breed successfully, die at least as quickly and cleanly as it ever naturally would and serve a good purpose by its death. Your vision would leave it a member of an endangered species, not looked after because it has no economic value, to die of disease or decrepit old age or violent predation with no surety of breeding success and its carcass to go to no better purpose than feeding the crows and foxes. If that's your idea of animal welfare then you can keep it and speechless is not a bad place for you to be.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
As far as I can see it is best for an animal to
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
live well to a good purpose
...like our selfish desires
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
well fed and disease free
...tell that to force-fed geese, turkeys, chickens etc; tell that to the hundreds of thousands of cattle recently slaughtered here becuase one of them was suspected of having foot-and-mouth. Tell that to the millions of dairy cows suffering from mastiitis every day. There are 1001 diseases farmed animals get all the time. Tell that to sheep fed the ground up dead remioans of their own kind.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
breed successfully
tell that to the *millions* of sows that spend their entire lives in birthing crates where theya re penned in so tight they can only stand up or lie down, and kept on a permament treadmill of pregnancy and suckling. Tell that to turkeys bred so fat they can't breed naturally and have to be wanked off by humans in order to extract semen.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
die at least as quickly and cleanly as it ever naturally would
Go visit an abbatoir. Go visit a halal shop.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
as it ever naturally would
that's a joke, right? :mad:
-
To celebrate my 1,000th post, and that I am therefore due to be granted a personality by thr Great Bob in the Cybersky, I thought I'd give you a break from Global Warming and cough-syrup and treat you instead to MY favourite rant... yeah, you guessed it... [I actually posted this on Monday, saw it here, then before you could say "Bob's your uncle" the site went down for the rest of the day... coincidence? Surely... it has been barely usable since then in the UK, but seems to be back now, though my post seems to have vanished and my count still shows 999... so here we go... (btw, heartfelt congrats and sympathies to Chris and team - what a few days you must have had - ouch!)] Anyway... yes, vivisection. It still just amazes me that anyone with half a brain still falls for this nonsense. How can testing drug A on animal N in a laboratory and observing result R tell you ANYTHING useful about how drug A will react in person X in the real world? Or person Y? I mean, it so obviously illogical, such obvious bad science, I have to wonder why it is that people cannot or will not see it... if my arch-nemesis 73Zeppelin wasn't so blinded by his preconceptions I'm sure he'd have some pyschological insights into it, but my suspicion is it's to do with peoples' fear of death, and their insatiable need to find some "answers" - some turn to priests in grey robes, and others to scientists in white coats.... and never mind the truth. There are countless examples of tragic and misleading results from vivisection, and any "success" is nothing more than co-incidence and chance. The point is, you cannot know what the results of human trials are until you try them - meanwhile your animals tests have told you nothing that you can rely on - if they were reliable there woudn't have been the catalogue of human disasters there have been, but simplre logic and clear thinking will tell you that such tests cannot possibly be reliable. And the eveidence backs this up. (I have posted up some examples of this in the past, and will again if anyone wants but a) you can Google this stuff for yourself if you want, and b) I really want you to just consider the simple logic - or illogic - of the vivisectionists' claims, as in para 3 above.) There was a story in the news just recently about how some new mouse experiment was going to lead to a revolutionary cure for cancer in a few years. Oh yawn, please. This nonsense is trotted out religiously every few years to keep you hooked and their money reeling in. I have lost c
I agree with Matthew, I'll care about animals when all of of our fellow human beings can enjoy their basic human rights, like not starving to death for instance. And now I'm going to enjoy a nice steak ;-P Oh, and congrats for your 1000th post.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
That's so ironic for a hopeless drug addict to advocate human experimentation. That is like an insect advocating the use of bug spray. :laugh:
It takes no small display of abject ignorance to class the ex-user of an extremely interesting and profound psychoactive substance as a 'hopeless drug addict'. You my boy are just another victim of propaganda. Do you also think Satan and Communists are your biggest enemies?
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
As far as I can see it is best for an animal to
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
live well to a good purpose
...like our selfish desires
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
well fed and disease free
...tell that to force-fed geese, turkeys, chickens etc; tell that to the hundreds of thousands of cattle recently slaughtered here becuase one of them was suspected of having foot-and-mouth. Tell that to the millions of dairy cows suffering from mastiitis every day. There are 1001 diseases farmed animals get all the time. Tell that to sheep fed the ground up dead remioans of their own kind.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
breed successfully
tell that to the *millions* of sows that spend their entire lives in birthing crates where theya re penned in so tight they can only stand up or lie down, and kept on a permament treadmill of pregnancy and suckling. Tell that to turkeys bred so fat they can't breed naturally and have to be wanked off by humans in order to extract semen.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
die at least as quickly and cleanly as it ever naturally would
Go visit an abbatoir. Go visit a halal shop.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
as it ever naturally would
that's a joke, right? :mad:
And exactly what is it you think you do by going bare foot? Absolve yourself of responsibility for these things, you do not. Make them better, no you don't achieve that either. The minute economic pressure you exert simply enhances the diffculty of those involved in making a profit and increases the likelihood of them cutting corners on animal welfare and other other regulations. The system is weighted wrongly with the wrong incentives and a far more thorough going, human welfare and morality based, rethink is needed. I'm alright jack veganism is not a solution to anything and may actually make it harder to fix the real problems. I have at no point defended any of unethical practices you describe but you betray your true position with the
Fred_Smith wrote:
...like our selfish desires
comment. Animals do exist to serve us, just as we have a responsibility to look after them and all of our environment properly. If you place their 'rights' above that then you've joined the 'two legs bad, four legs good' crazies I'm afraid. :sigh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
I agree with Matthew, I'll care about animals when all of of our fellow human beings can enjoy their basic human rights, like not starving to death for instance. And now I'm going to enjoy a nice steak ;-P Oh, and congrats for your 1000th post.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
Once upon a time (allegedly) in a nice little forest, there lived an orphaned bunny and an orphaned snake. By a surprising coincidence, both were blind from birth. One day, the bunny was hopping through the forest, and the snake was slithering through the forest, when the bunny tripped over the snake and fell down. This, of course, knocked the snake about quite a bit. "Oh, my," said the bunny, "I'm terribly sorry. I didn't mean to hurt you. I've been blind since birth, so, I can't see where I'm going. In fact, since I'm also an orphan, I don't even know what I am." "It's quite OK," replied the snake. "Actually, my story is much the same as yours. I, too, have been blind since birth, and also never knew my mother. Tell you what, maybe I could slither all over you, and work out what you are, so at least you'll have that going for you." "Oh, that would be wonderful" replied the bunny. So the snake slithered all over the bunny, and said, "Well, you're covered with soft fur; you have really long ears; your nose twitches; and you have a soft cottony tail. I'd say that you must be a bunny rabbit." "Oh, thank you! Thank you," cried the bunny, in obvious excitement. The bunny suggested to the snake, "Maybe I could feel you all over with my paw, and help you the same way that you've helped me." So the bunny felt the snake all over, and remarked, "Well, you're smooth and slippery, and you have a forked tongue, no backbone and no balls." "I'd say you must be - :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: it's no good - I can't bring myself to say it! I love France, really... :laugh:
-
It takes no small display of abject ignorance to class the ex-user of an extremely interesting and profound psychoactive substance as a 'hopeless drug addict'. You my boy are just another victim of propaganda. Do you also think Satan and Communists are your biggest enemies?
Brady Kelly wrote:
Do you also think Satan and Communists are your biggest enemies?
America single handedly defeated communism in 1989 when Ronald Regan tore down the Berlin wall. Now we are fighting a even more evil enemy in the fight to bring freedom to the middle east. America is busy fighting the works of Satan all over the world and you foreigners aren't doing anything, so STFU.