|
On February 12 2011 06:50 Slithe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 06:30 Slayer91 wrote: Big words don't make you intelligent. It's just literary elitism. It's easier to paint a picture when you have more colors of the rainbow at your disposal. @agarangu I think this question was posed to you already but I didn't see an answer. Why is it that you find plants and animals to be similar enough that eating either is fine, but eating a human is not?
On February 12 2011 00:59 agarangu wrote: And I didn't say plants feel as much pain as animals do. I said plants feel pain. That's it. Now, maybe you want to establish an arbitrary parameter to decide how much pain is it fair for an organism to feel in order to classify which being to kill, and which not to. On the other hand, I don't think it is arbitrary to decide to preserve your own specie.
Do you see it now? Awesome. (y)>.<(y)
|
On February 12 2011 06:50 Slithe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 06:30 Slayer91 wrote: Big words don't make you intelligent. It's just literary elitism. It's easier to paint a picture when you have more colors of the rainbow at your disposal.
I only used the word "gay" once and you'd understand the connotation as well unless you're 80
|
Twice
I think its kinda gay for certain animals though, like pigs.
I understand that it's popular in america to cut the grass and leave the cattle in all day though, which I think is gay.
Not a big deal but it just doesn't read well.
|
All posts below this line must pertain to the subject of linguistic aristocracy.
New debate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
On February 12 2011 04:39 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +I've already explained that the OP brings up rational arguments for not eating meat, yet is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others. He has also in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat. I think when he related eating meat to being sexist or racist, there may possibly have been some implication of insinuation that people who eat meat are not good people. Maybe. I think I made and deleted three posts trying to respond to this thread, before finally grasping how futile it is. So instead I will pick on you.
If you read the OP with the intention of finding something that can be construed as pretentious, you can. Fact is though, that it's pretty hard to write a non-offensive piece about the negative affects of eating meat when 95% of people do so.
But anyways ...
Good and wrong are subjective terms; sexism wasn't considered wrong for a long time, nor was racism. As such, it would be ignorant to think that there's a natural defined standard for good and wrong. Each culture has it's own general concensus on morality, and even that is shifting constantly.
My point being that morality is more of an opinion than it is a truth. So when I say that I think it's wrong to kill animals when you don't need their flesh to survive, it's not to say that other views on the matter aren't correct. In a discussion of good and wrong no-one's ever right; it's a personal judgement, not a truth. If you eat meat and don't find it morally reprehensible, you're not wrong. If you don't eat meat and find it morally reprehensible, you're not wrong.
Basically, I'm asking people in this thread to be more open-minded about the matter; open-mindedness not meaning devoid of an opinion, but the not considering your opinion as a universal truth. It's not a discussion of who's right and who's wrong and it's not a judgement of people's choices. It's an exchange of views, facts and opinions that might convince someone to review or refine his judgement on the morality of eating meat. Whether that's me or someone else doesn't matter, having refined your opinion never hurts.
Tapping into Day9's eternal wisdom: it's not about winning the game NOW, it's about getting better in the progress.
|
Whenever I want to convince someone to stop doing something, I relate what they're doing to the nazis.
Oh wait. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I can think of at least a 100,000,000 ways I could put that better. Please don't relate the cause of vegans to civil rights movements. If you actually had a good argument, you wouldn't need to resort to such low tactics.
|
Edit: Bad - you can see my fail below.
|
On February 12 2011 12:10 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 11:23 Saechiis wrote:On February 12 2011 04:39 Chef wrote:I've already explained that the OP brings up rational arguments for not eating meat, yet is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others. He has also in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat. I think when he related eating meat to being sexist or racist, there may possibly have been some implication of insinuation that people who eat meat are not good people. Maybe. I think I made and deleted three posts trying to respond to this thread, before finally grasping how futile it is. So instead I will pick on you. If you read the OP with the intention of finding something that can be construed as pretentious, you can. Fact is though, that it's pretty hard to write a non-offensive piece about the negative affects of eating meat when 95% of people do so. But anyways ... Good and wrong are subjective terms; sexism wasn't considered wrong for a long time, nor was racism. As such, it would be ignorant to think that there's a natural defined standard for good and wrong. Each culture has it's own general concensus on morality, and even that is shifting constantly. My point being that morality is more of an opinion than it is a truth. So when I say that I think it's wrong to kill animals when you don't need their flesh to survive, it's not to say that other views on the matter aren't correct. In a discussion of good and wrong no-one's ever right; since it's a personal judgement, not a truth. If you eat meat and don't find it morally reprehensible, you're not wrong. If you don't eat meat and find it morally reprehensible, you're not wrong either. As such, I'm asking people in this thread to be more open-minded about the matter; open-mindedness not meaning devoid of an opinion, but the act of not considering your opinion to be an universal truth. It's not a discussion of who's right and who's wrong and it's not a judgement of people's choices. It's an exchange of views, facts and opinions that might convince someone to review or refine his judgement on the morality of eating meat. Whether that's me or someone else doesn't matter, having refined your opinion never hurts. Tapping into Day9's eternal wisdom: it's not about winning the game NOW, it's about getting better in the progress. And don't you say this while sitting in a house that's truly packed with stuff made by exploited workers from poor countries? It seems weird to me that you would criticize people on that specific issue and say that they're doing something wrong when you yourself encourage cheap labor and you buy stuff made in containers that aren't ecological. You probably drive a car that consumes gas and you use electricity which was made at a power plant which pollutes a lot. I mean, we do a LOT of stuff that's "bad" in some way or another. You picked your battle - others pick other battles. Who's better, the vegan who pollutes or the "green" guy who eats meat? If I was to stop using everything that's exploitive or bad in some way, my quality of life would suck. And the main reason why I think it's hard for vegans to make rational arguments (save a few) is because really, this lifestyle (eating meat) is pretty sustainable, whereas pollution and chopping down entire forests isn't necessarily viable for the long term.
You're quoting my post, but everything you say screams "I haven't read your post!". What are you responding to?
|
On February 12 2011 12:51 Saechiis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 12:10 Djzapz wrote:On February 12 2011 11:23 Saechiis wrote:On February 12 2011 04:39 Chef wrote:I've already explained that the OP brings up rational arguments for not eating meat, yet is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others. He has also in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat. I think when he related eating meat to being sexist or racist, there may possibly have been some implication of insinuation that people who eat meat are not good people. Maybe. I think I made and deleted three posts trying to respond to this thread, before finally grasping how futile it is. So instead I will pick on you. If you read the OP with the intention of finding something that can be construed as pretentious, you can. Fact is though, that it's pretty hard to write a non-offensive piece about the negative affects of eating meat when 95% of people do so. But anyways ... Good and wrong are subjective terms; sexism wasn't considered wrong for a long time, nor was racism. As such, it would be ignorant to think that there's a natural defined standard for good and wrong. Each culture has it's own general concensus on morality, and even that is shifting constantly. My point being that morality is more of an opinion than it is a truth. So when I say that I think it's wrong to kill animals when you don't need their flesh to survive, it's not to say that other views on the matter aren't correct. In a discussion of good and wrong no-one's ever right; since it's a personal judgement, not a truth. If you eat meat and don't find it morally reprehensible, you're not wrong. If you don't eat meat and find it morally reprehensible, you're not wrong either. As such, I'm asking people in this thread to be more open-minded about the matter; open-mindedness not meaning devoid of an opinion, but the act of not considering your opinion to be an universal truth. It's not a discussion of who's right and who's wrong and it's not a judgement of people's choices. It's an exchange of views, facts and opinions that might convince someone to review or refine his judgement on the morality of eating meat. Whether that's me or someone else doesn't matter, having refined your opinion never hurts. Tapping into Day9's eternal wisdom: it's not about winning the game NOW, it's about getting better in the progress. And don't you say this while sitting in a house that's truly packed with stuff made by exploited workers from poor countries? It seems weird to me that you would criticize people on that specific issue and say that they're doing something wrong when you yourself encourage cheap labor and you buy stuff made in containers that aren't ecological. You probably drive a car that consumes gas and you use electricity which was made at a power plant which pollutes a lot. I mean, we do a LOT of stuff that's "bad" in some way or another. You picked your battle - others pick other battles. Who's better, the vegan who pollutes or the "green" guy who eats meat? If I was to stop using everything that's exploitive or bad in some way, my quality of life would suck. And the main reason why I think it's hard for vegans to make rational arguments (save a few) is because really, this lifestyle (eating meat) is pretty sustainable, whereas pollution and chopping down entire forests isn't necessarily viable for the long term. You're quoting my post, but everything you say screams "I haven't read your post!". What are you responding to? Not sure what happened. Made sense at the time. Think I meant to quote someone else from another page or something. Sorry
|
My take on this whole this is that we should treat animals better and to minimize their suffering while they are being raised for food. However, any argument against eating meat because we shouldn't kill animals is silly in my book. Its how nature has acted since basically forever and we are just a part of the same system except we have the capability to control our environment the a much greater extent then do other animals. Just because our species has developed sentience and the ability to create abstract ideas like compassion doesn't mean we automatically have some responsibility to never harm any other living thing. These traits developed because they were beneficial when they were applied to our own species since we are highly social and complex animals that need the interaction.
|
On February 12 2011 12:06 Chef wrote: Whenever I want to convince someone to stop doing something, I relate what they're doing to the nazis.
Oh wait. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I can think of at least a 100,000,000 ways I could put that better. Please don't relate the cause of vegans to civil rights movements. If you actually had a good argument, you wouldn't need to resort to such low tactics.
I'm assuming this is in response to my post? I'm not sure since it doesn't make much sense ...
Nazi's?
As for the rest of your post:
I was using sexism and racism as a bridge to show that people's perception of morals change over time, which you should've seen if you read my post carefully. And even though I've never related sexism and racism to "specie-ism", saying
Please don't relate the cause of vegans to civil rights movements. If you actually had a good argument, you wouldn't need to resort to such low tactics.
is still non-sensical, what does it proof besides the fact that you like to give your opinion?
On February 12 2011 13:23 Slaughter wrote: My take on this whole this is that we should treat animals better and to minimize their suffering while they are being raised for food. However, any argument against eating meat because we shouldn't kill animals is silly in my book. Its how nature has acted since basically forever and we are just a part of the same system except we have the capability to control our environment the a much greater extent then do other animals. Just because our species has developed sentience and the ability to create abstract ideas like compassion doesn't mean we automatically have some responsibility to never harm any other living thing. These traits developed because they were beneficial when they were applied to our own species since we are highly social and complex animals that need the interaction.
I agree with your first sentence.
As for the second part of your post, I feel like humans have been cheating the rules of nature for a long time now. I have no problem with the killing of animals in the wild since predators can't choose not to. Either the prey dies or the predator, since the latter needs to eat the former to survive. Predators that have compassion couldn't survive through evolution since they'd have nothing to eat.
Humans however are omnivores, we don't need to eat meat to survive. Our lives are also no longer a struggle for survival, we have the freedom to choose our food. So, if we can choose to not eat other sentient creatures without ramifications, why not do it? Doesn't the fact that we can think about the morality of eating animals not automatically give us responsiblity of some sort? If compassion isn't useful to humans, then why have we developed the ability to do so?
If we could replicate any food we wanted like in Star Trek, would you still rather eat animals that had a life?
We are developed monkeys, what makes our lives more valuable than theirs? Can we really deny that we're animals that have the brains to claim they're humans?
|
On February 10 2011 06:41 Tony Campolo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 06:33 101TFP wrote: Misquoting is a very mature way to argue.
I like meat.
Most wild animals die of starvation or by getting eaten alive. In the grand scheme of things, guess how many billions and billions of animals have suffered and died painful deaths in the history of the earth. Our way of life has only existed for a very very short amount of time in comparison.
Just because we humans don't like pain and think that it is bad to cause pain to others, doesn't mean that it isn't a completely natural thing to kill other animals and make them suffer for our well-being if necessary. Today we have very efficient methods of doing that, which seems to be necessary to uphold the need for meat of humanity.
Everyone is free to decide to not eat meat, just don't run around and expect us to actually care.
edit: Regarding your point of humans treating each other better than they treat animals. You are wrong. People tortured and killed each other all day long since the dawn of mankind. And it's still happening. Not true. Most animals die of intensive factory farm practices and in the slaughterhouses - billions per day. In the grand scheme of things, this suffering can be reduced - just because many people have died in wars in the past doesn't justify wars today. Take for example the fact that thousands of Africans are dying daily from malnutrition and starvation. It would be better for less of them to have children, as these children are simply being born and living lives full of suffering. Likewise for the billions of animals that are produced (via artificial insemination) on factory farms, it would be better if they were not created in the first place. If we can reduce that suffering, then we ought to. can you please link me to a source for this information?
|
On February 12 2011 14:45 Alexson wrote: can you please link me to a source for this information?
Hmm, got it wrong. It's billions per year (more including fish):
www.abolitionistapproach.com
|
Hmmm. I have a lot to say about this, I'll knock them all out in a simple list.
1) About vegetarians. It's fine if you want to eat plants only. But don't push this stuff on me. Meat is essential to the human diet. Vegetarians are some of the most sickly people I have ever met, but that's their choice and I have nothing wrong with it.
2) You say we should treat all animals with compassion, even though they are of lesser intelligence. I love animals, and never cause any harm of them. I treat my pets as if they were my best friends. In fact, I spend WAY more money donating to animals causes than human causes because I think animals deserve it way more.
I now ask you this question....all those vegetables you are eating come from the death of plants, don't you feel bad? Oh wait, you say they are not intelligent? well you clearly don't regard the intelligence difference between us and animals, why not animals and plants? don't plants have a right to life as well?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 10 2011 05:31 Tony Campolo wrote: So the last thread got closed 'cos I didn't put enough effort into the OP. Yet I didn't have the chance to respond to the replies because it was like 12am in NZ.
Like racism or sexism, specie-cism is one dominant species disregarding the rights of other species. It is compassion and the capacity for empathy that differentiates human beings from being good and bad. Without compassion for our fellow man, there is only the law of the jungle - survival of the fittest.
Why can't the same compassion be shown towards animals? The worst argument I heard was that children are dying around the world, therefore animal rights don't matter and somehow because I support animal rights I am against human rights.
First of all, I do support human rights and am actively involved with charities that help the poor (e.g. sponsoring children, volunteering my time for community groups that help the homeless). Coming from an ex-Christian background, I've dedicated more of my time to helping human rights than animal rights. Chances are those that attack vegans for not supporting human rights are less likely to be involved in any active charitable work themselves, as most people that give their time to various causes know how disrespective it is to have someone attack your cause as being less worthy than another's.
Secondly, supporting animal rights takes nothing away from human rights. All veganism requires is a change in diet - it does not require going out and trampling on human rights.
Thirdly, what it comes down to is what is ethical. Animals may not be as intelligent as us - but that doesn't mean they feel less pain. This is evidenced both physically and mentally.
An extract from my personal blog:
In addition to having distinct personalities, cows are very intelligent animals who can remember things for a long time. Animal behaviorists have found that cows interact in complex ways, developing friendships over time, sometimes holding grudges against cows who treat them badly and choosing leaders based upon intelligence. They have complex emotions as well and even have the ability to worry about the future.
Researchers have found that cows can not only figure out problems, they also enjoy the challenge and get excited when they find a solution. In one study, researchers challenged the animals with a task where they had to find how to open a door to get some food. The researchers then measured their brainwaves. Professor Broom said that ‘The brainwaves showed the cows excitement; their heartbeat went up and some even jumped into the air. We called it their Eureka moment,’ Cows can also learn how to push a lever to operate a drinking fountain when they’re thirty or press a button with their head to release food when they’re hungry. Like humans they quickly learn to avoid things that cause pain like electric fences. In fact if just one cow in the herd is shocked by an electric fence, the rest of the herd will learn from that and will avoid the fence in the future.
Grandmother cows often help their daughters with mothering duties, but one cow named Olivia wanted no part of that. She never left her calf’s side, and she ignored her mother’s offers to help groom him. Offended, her mother finally marched off to another field to graze with her friends and never communicated to her daughter again. Cows can also remember and hold grudges against people who have hurt them or their family members.
Dairy cows are continually kept pregnant and lactating and their babies are sold off to the meat industry when they are only two days old. The life of a dairy cow is not as natural as you might think, especially considering that 80 percent of dairy cows are made pregnant through artificial insemination.
The only way for a cow, like any other mammal, to produce milk is for the cow to have a baby. The milk produced by cows is naturally meant for baby calves; however, because people want to drink this milk, the baby calves are taken away from their mothers when they are only a few days old. Cows are extremely maternal animals and both the mother cow and the baby calf suffer terribly from being separated at such a young age. In fact, one cow missed her baby so much that she broke out of her paddock and trekked through 8 kilometers of paddocks and rivers to find her baby. On dairy farms, mother cows can be heard bellowing out wildly trying to find their babies as well as running after the cattle trucks that take their babies to separate farms.
The baby calves life is then decided by their gender. That’s right, not only is the dairy industry hell for the animals, the environment and your health, it is also an industry that decides an animal’s entire life based on whether they are male or female. If the calve is male then he is taken away to be raised and slaughtered for meat. Because of this the NZ dairy industry contributes to the death of more than 1 million male dairy cows every year. That’s one death every 20 seconds. In fact, 55 percent of all beef in New Zealand supermarkets comes directly from the dairy industry. These male calves are transported to separate meat farms where they will never see their mothers again. They suffer terribly on their journey to the meat farm. Transported as young as 4 days of age, they endure cold and hunger, without food for up to 30 hours, while struggling to maintain their footing in the cattle truck.
However if the calf is female she is raised as a dairy cow, living in the same conditions as her mothers. She too will live in a cycle of pregnancy and lactation, being forced to give birth to a baby calf each year, only to have that baby torn away from her within a few days. In the wild cows can live to be up to 25 years old. But on dairy farms they are slaughtered when they are only 8-10 years old meaning that most dairy cows live less than half their natural life span.
Because dairy cows are milked so excessively, NZ dairy cows have increased risks of teat diseases like mastitis. When a cow has mastitis her udder may become so inflamed that it is as hard as a stone, and blood bubbles into her milk, which becomes clotted and watery. Severe cases of mastitis can kill a cow in less than a day.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I do not believe in rights. Let’s say that I don’t think such a thing as a “right” exists. Consequently, I would also like to table all considerations of “sentience” and “intelligence” and "the capacity to experience suffering," especially insofar as you take them to secure for their bearers access to these various rights.
Let’s also say that I do not believe that compassion, sympathy, empathy, etc. determine in any way what is moral or immoral. Let’s say that I think that feelings, whatever other roles they may have, are absolutely irrelevant to knowing what is right and what is wrong—in the exact same way that, in the scientific method, feelings are absolutely irrelevant to knowing what is true or what is false.
Let’s also say that, for me, whether an action contributes to the survival of a species or the extinction of a species (our species or another species) has no bearing on whether or not that action is moral. Similarly, let’s say that an action being right or wrong has nothing to do with whether it contributes to the stability or health or equity or prosperity or progress of a society or of a nation or of the global village. Let’s say that an action’s efficacy (or lack thereof) in any of these contexts and that action’s rightness (or wrongness) are two different evaluations entirely and that they relate to one another in no meaningful way.
Let’s say that the same is true for individual health—that longevity or fitness or the proper functioning of heart and lungs are not things that should be placed in the balance when weighing the morality of an action.
My question:
Do you still have an argument as to why I should go vegan, or do, as I suspect, your arguments all rely on the assumption that you and I share assumptions about what makes something desirable or not?
I don’t want to be unfair to you, but it seems to me that your missionary zeal for veganism is just that—missionary zeal. If I agreed with your original moral scheme, I would agree with your conclusions. But I don’t agree.
So do you still have anything to say to me? Or shall I, like a tribesman hearing a well-intentioned sermon, simply smile a little in amazement, wonder whether the craziness of this particular foreigner knows no bounds, and then retire into my domicile to carry on with the business of living?
|
On February 12 2011 07:22 Slayer91 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 06:50 Slithe wrote:On February 12 2011 06:30 Slayer91 wrote: Big words don't make you intelligent. It's just literary elitism. It's easier to paint a picture when you have more colors of the rainbow at your disposal. I only used the word "gay" once and you'd understand the connotation as well unless you're 80 ![](/mirror/smilies/puh2.gif)
Let's think about it like this then, Slayer. How many people have responded to the point that you made in your original post?
How many have responded to your use of the word "gay"?
In retrospect, then, didn't your use of the word "gay" serve to obscure your point rather than communicate it? Didn't it distract your readers and therefore detract from the effectiveness of your post?
You may not think it did. That's fair. But I definitely think it did, and I think that a little bit of audience awareness on your part would have avoided this hang-up entirely. Then we would have been free to discuss what you said rather than how you said it.
You got to know who you're talking to, and when you're talking to the bleeding-heart, spineless, shiftless, fairness-equity-tolerance-and-mutual-understanding, dorm-room Socialist, hippy asswipes that comprise 99% of TL's userbase, well... you have to choose the right words for the job. You can't offend any of these delicate sensibilities. They're fragile little blossoms, they are.
Just my take on it at least.
|
That's because you guys are all gay literary aristocrats! You wouldn't have responded to my point anyway, it's too rational and non confrontational. It seems the posts that strike up debate tend to make wildly biased claims with lots of insults toward something or other. ![](/mirror/smilies/puh2.gif)
In any case, using it twice is really bad on my part, using an awkward word once and you can get away with it. Twice is a total newbie move.
|
I'm pretty happy with my meat-eating lifestyle as of the moment. Besides, 80% of Philippine meat and dairy products are done organically. Not because they are animal rights advocates, but because Philippine farmers simply can't afford all the equipment for more efficient farming
|
On February 12 2011 22:02 Slayer91 wrote:That's because you guys are all gay literary aristocrats! You wouldn't have responded to my point anyway, it's too rational and non confrontational. It seems the posts that strike up debate tend to make wildly biased claims with lots of insults toward something or other. ![](/mirror/smilies/puh2.gif) In any case, using it twice is really bad on my part, using an awkward word once and you can get away with it. Twice is a total newbie move. You could have won this argument really easily if you'd just told him rainbows are gay.
If you read the OP with the intention of finding something that can be construed as pretentious, you can. Fact is though, that it's pretty hard to write a non-offensive piece about the negative affects of eating meat when 95% of people do so.
I'm assuming this is in response to my post? I'm not sure since it doesn't make much sense ... Nazi's? As for the rest of your post: I was using sexism and racism as a bridge to show that people's perception of morals change over time, which you should've seen if you read my post carefully. And even though I've never related sexism and racism to "specie-ism", saying Show nested quote +Please don't relate the cause of vegans to civil rights movements. If you actually had a good argument, you wouldn't need to resort to such low tactics. is still non-sensical, what does it proof besides the fact that you like to give your opinion?
Let's review:
1 The OP (who is not you) began his argument by saying that much like racism and sexism, 'specism' is a form of discrimination.
2 His intended audience, presumably, are people who eat meat. His ideal to either defend his way of life, or to convince others to adopt it as well. I would say it's the latter.
3 I say that this is a pretty poor way to open an argument. You alienate your entire intended audience by associating the plights of human rights, to the plights of animal rights. Regardless of what I think of animal rights, I know every person who reads this is going to think you're basically calling them a nazi as your opening argument. Most people are going to stop reading the OPs argument at this point. What promise does a 2 page rant that begins with how meat eaters are akin to women haters and bigots have? Even if his arguments did get better, he shot himself in the foot.
4 In defence of the OP, you say that no matter how one opens an argument for veganism, they are going to find something they find offensive to them, because they are looking for it and 'construing it.'
5 I respond, sarcastically, that I'm pretty sure it doesn't take much effort to be offended by a statement which puts one on the level of misogynists and bigots, and that if that there was a good argument to be had, it probably wouldn't have opened up with this clearly provocative statement.
6 You respond, as you have to with most posts in this thread, complaining that I somehow didn't read your post properly, or didn't read it at all, or that I'm too stupid to get it. I don't see how that defends opening one's argument with a statement that can only be taken as an attack on the reader's morality, but okay. Sure, maybe one day in the year 2050 we'll all look back on the year 2011 and think how barbaric they were for eating animals. Or maybe we won't. It's besides the point. It doesn't help your argument now, by fantasizing about a time in the future when eating animals will be akin to owning a slave.
This concludes our review. Please study it well as you will no doubt be tested in the future for its contents, though likely in a different context.
|
On February 12 2011 22:02 Slayer91 wrote:That's because you guys are all gay literary aristocrats! You wouldn't have responded to my point anyway, it's too rational and non confrontational. It seems the posts that strike up debate tend to make wildly biased claims with lots of insults toward something or other. ![](/mirror/smilies/puh2.gif) In any case, using it twice is really bad on my part, using an awkward word once and you can get away with it. Twice is a total newbie move.
I like your style, Slayer, even if you made a totally newbie move. I also like the fact that you recognize that sensationalism is the only thing that's going to get you airtime in a debate like this. You're going to have to be more polarized, rabid, and partisan if you want to get anywhere in life!
|
|
|
|