Leave the animal rights and treatment discussion out of this topic. Thanks. -Nyovne
HUH?
What should we be talking about in this thread then? NBA predictions?
I get a sick feeling in my stomach reading this kind of stories. Cant believe how people live with themselves while doing this stuff to another living being.
On August 12 2011 14:55 ItsMeDomLee wrote: Lololol. This kind of stuff happens everywhere. Everytime you eat KFC you're supporting animal cruelty!
Don't come into these threads and shed tears of ignorance. You're part of the problem.
First i dont eat KFC, i eat Popeyes.
Second, A bear is an Wild animal, while a chicken has been domesticated for many millenia.* Why don't you tell your greatx100 grandfather* that he should release his flock of chikens and starve? im sure hell understand that hes being cruel to animals.
Finally, i tend not to eat factory farmed meat anyway, because its unhealthy* and as more and more ppl know this, demand will fall*, and so will supply*.
On August 13 2011 06:45 Urnhardt wrote: amazingly awesome behavior yet unbelievably sad at the same time. probably sound pretty disciminatory but i'm honestly not surprised this happened in china.
doing horrible bullshit in the name of pseudoscience or bronze age myths
sounds like every country on this planet to me not just china ...
yours included
This.
Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy in his post.
You are looking for 'ignorance', not hypocrisy. And he's not being too unaware - China has a significantly worse record on animal rights and abuse than a lot of other nations (e.g. Western nations), and it has 1/5 of the world's population. There's a decent chance this happened in China before reading where it happened.
If I said "Black people has a significantly worse record on going to jail than other people (e.g. Asian people) and is a large part of the US population. There for there's a decent chance if a crime happened. A black person did it before reading what happened"
What would you say?
just giving an example
If you were talking about a crime in the United States, you would be statistically correct. There is a decent chance. That's just basic logic and statistics from the premises given. It of course depends on the crime rates between races and the percentage of the minority race with respect to the total population. It's just math given the premises.
It would be statistically correct but If I said that with a serious face I would be branded as a racist.
So you're saying that people shouldn't bring up the truth as part of an argument because of how society might respond to it? That's your rebuttal - that the truth might offend people, so, like, I guess it doesn't count?
I am saying it strongly discourages one from bringing up the statistical value of something that might invite unwanted response from the masses
Yes, but this was all in reference to this "well, I'm not too surprised this took place in China" bit. Since you were arguing that China was as good as the Netherlands with respect to animal rights, I assume you brought up the "how would you react if this were black people..." bit to show that what that guy was saying about China was prejudicial and not based on fact. Now you are saying that the black people example you gave is statistically correct, and since that's an analogy it would also mean that that "not surprised it's in China" is also statistically likely or decently likely, which is counter to your original viewpoint.
On August 13 2011 06:45 Urnhardt wrote: amazingly awesome behavior yet unbelievably sad at the same time. probably sound pretty disciminatory but i'm honestly not surprised this happened in china.
doing horrible bullshit in the name of pseudoscience or bronze age myths
sounds like every country on this planet to me not just china ...
yours included
This.
Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy in his post.
You are looking for 'ignorance', not hypocrisy. And he's not being too unaware - China has a significantly worse record on animal rights and abuse than a lot of other nations (e.g. Western nations), and it has 1/5 of the world's population. There's a decent chance this happened in China before reading where it happened.
If I said "Black people has a significantly worse record on going to jail than other people (e.g. Asian people) and is a large part of the US population. There for there's a decent chance if a crime happened. A black person did it before reading what happened"
What would you say?
just giving an example
If you were talking about a crime in the United States, you would be statistically correct. There is a decent chance. That's just basic logic and statistics from the premises given. It of course depends on the crime rates between races and the percentage of the minority race with respect to the total population. It's just math given the premises.
It would be statistically correct but If I said that with a serious face I would be branded as a racist.
So you're saying that people shouldn't bring up the truth as part of an argument because of how society might respond to it? That's your rebuttal - that the truth might offend people, so, like, I guess it doesn't count?
I am saying it strongly discourages one from bringing up the statistical value of something that might invite unwanted response from the masses
Yes, but this was all in reference to this "well, I'm not too surprised this took place in China" bit. Since you were arguing that China was as good as the Netherlands with respect to animal rights, I assume you brought up the "how would you react if this were black people..." bit to show that what that guy was saying about China was prejudicial and not based on fact. Now you are saying that the black people example you gave is statistically correct, and since that's an analogy it would also mean that that "not surprised it's in China" is also statistically likely or decently likely, which is counter to your original viewpoint.
I will be willing to accept that statistic if accept mine. Really though, thru Supamang's post you can see China is not in the top ten of animal abusive nations
doing horrible bullshit in the name of pseudoscience or bronze age myths
sounds like every country on this planet to me not just china ...
yours included
This.
Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy in his post.
You are looking for 'ignorance', not hypocrisy. And he's not being too unaware - China has a significantly worse record on animal rights and abuse than a lot of other nations (e.g. Western nations), and it has 1/5 of the world's population. There's a decent chance this happened in China before reading where it happened.
If I said "Black people has a significantly worse record on going to jail than other people (e.g. Asian people) and is a large part of the US population. There for there's a decent chance if a crime happened. A black person did it before reading what happened"
What would you say?
just giving an example
If you were talking about a crime in the United States, you would be statistically correct. There is a decent chance. That's just basic logic and statistics from the premises given. It of course depends on the crime rates between races and the percentage of the minority race with respect to the total population. It's just math given the premises.
It would be statistically correct but If I said that with a serious face I would be branded as a racist.
So you're saying that people shouldn't bring up the truth as part of an argument because of how society might respond to it? That's your rebuttal - that the truth might offend people, so, like, I guess it doesn't count?
I am saying it strongly discourages one from bringing up the statistical value of something that might invite unwanted response from the masses
Yes, but this was all in reference to this "well, I'm not too surprised this took place in China" bit. Since you were arguing that China was as good as the Netherlands with respect to animal rights, I assume you brought up the "how would you react if this were black people..." bit to show that what that guy was saying about China was prejudicial and not based on fact. Now you are saying that the black people example you gave is statistically correct, and since that's an analogy it would also mean that that "not surprised it's in China" is also statistically likely or decently likely, which is counter to your original viewpoint.
I will be willing to accept that statistic if accept mine. Really though, thru Supamang's post you can see China is not in the top ten of animal abusive nations
Nobody has posted any useful statistics yet - and I doubt they exist. For them to exist we'd have to believe that China has the same accurate record keeping with respect to animal rights and animal abuse as the Netherlands, which I cannot believe, both because of possible corruption and lack of police professionalism and because of the nature of Chinese geography, economics and the disparity in social classes.
The first thing would be to look at animal rights laws. What are on the books in China and the Netherlands? What is against the law, formally, in each country?
doing horrible bullshit in the name of pseudoscience or bronze age myths
sounds like every country on this planet to me not just china ...
yours included
This.
Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy in his post.
You are looking for 'ignorance', not hypocrisy. And he's not being too unaware - China has a significantly worse record on animal rights and abuse than a lot of other nations (e.g. Western nations), and it has 1/5 of the world's population. There's a decent chance this happened in China before reading where it happened.
If I said "Black people has a significantly worse record on going to jail than other people (e.g. Asian people) and is a large part of the US population. There for there's a decent chance if a crime happened. A black person did it before reading what happened"
What would you say?
just giving an example
If you were talking about a crime in the United States, you would be statistically correct. There is a decent chance. That's just basic logic and statistics from the premises given. It of course depends on the crime rates between races and the percentage of the minority race with respect to the total population. It's just math given the premises.
It would be statistically correct but If I said that with a serious face I would be branded as a racist.
So you're saying that people shouldn't bring up the truth as part of an argument because of how society might respond to it? That's your rebuttal - that the truth might offend people, so, like, I guess it doesn't count?
I am saying it strongly discourages one from bringing up the statistical value of something that might invite unwanted response from the masses
Yes, but this was all in reference to this "well, I'm not too surprised this took place in China" bit. Since you were arguing that China was as good as the Netherlands with respect to animal rights, I assume you brought up the "how would you react if this were black people..." bit to show that what that guy was saying about China was prejudicial and not based on fact. Now you are saying that the black people example you gave is statistically correct, and since that's an analogy it would also mean that that "not surprised it's in China" is also statistically likely or decently likely, which is counter to your original viewpoint.
I will be willing to accept that statistic if accept mine. Really though, thru Supamang's post you can see China is not in the top ten of animal abusive nations
You would be a ostrich if you where a animal.
Arguing how China does not have the worst animal rights (or not even in top ten) while draining/torturing bears for years and years for a ''magic potion'' and that in 2011! And then i didn't even talk about abuse of tigers for their bones cause it's believed to make you ''live longer'' and that in 2011!
Dog/cat eating...
Hell Chinese even kill animals outside of their own country for BS... Here a little quote of what i mean: ''With Chinese influence growing in Africa, the number of poachings has increased dramatically, as has the Chinese demand for ivory.''
On August 13 2011 06:45 Urnhardt wrote: amazingly awesome behavior yet unbelievably sad at the same time. probably sound pretty disciminatory but i'm honestly not surprised this happened in china.
doing horrible bullshit in the name of pseudoscience or bronze age myths
sounds like every country on this planet to me not just china ...
yours included
This.
Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy in his post.
You are looking for 'ignorance', not hypocrisy. And he's not being too unaware - China has a significantly worse record on animal rights and abuse than a lot of other nations (e.g. Western nations), and it has 1/5 of the world's population. There's a decent chance this happened in China before reading where it happened.
If I said "Black people has a significantly worse record on going to jail than other people (e.g. Asian people) and is a large part of the US population. There for there's a decent chance if a crime happened. A black person did it before reading what happened"
What would you say?
just giving an example
If you were talking about a crime in the United States, you would be statistically correct. There is a decent chance. That's just basic logic and statistics from the premises given. It of course depends on the crime rates between races and the percentage of the minority race with respect to the total population. It's just math given the premises.
It would be statistically correct but If I said that with a serious face I would be branded as a racist.
So you're saying that people shouldn't bring up the truth as part of an argument because of how society might respond to it? That's your rebuttal - that the truth might offend people, so, like, I guess it doesn't count?
I am saying it strongly discourages one from bringing up the statistical value of something that might invite unwanted response from the masses
Yes, but this was all in reference to this "well, I'm not too surprised this took place in China" bit. Since you were arguing that China was as good as the Netherlands with respect to animal rights, I assume you brought up the "how would you react if this were black people..." bit to show that what that guy was saying about China was prejudicial and not based on fact. Now you are saying that the black people example you gave is statistically correct, and since that's an analogy it would also mean that that "not surprised it's in China" is also statistically likely or decently likely, which is counter to your original viewpoint.
I agree, there arent enough statistics to accurately and definitively rank the countries in terms of animal abuse. China might actually be worse in terms of animal abuse than the Netherlands but no sources will ever be able to prove everything 100%.
All I wanted to do was to throw in some reasonable doubt towards the idea that China is by and large the worst place in the world for animal cruelty. This Technique kid seems to believe that about China and all I need to do to beat him in an argument is to discredit his opinion by showing sources and pointing out facts that support the idea that other countries can also be just as terrible. Demonizing an entire country and generalizing its people without doing your own research and keeping an open mind is willful ignorance and thats what I hate to see.
If you show me evidence that China is by far the worst country in the world for animal cruelty, then I will gladly agree with you. In the meantime, Foie Gras Duck says to not be so biased against China:
On August 13 2011 07:53 Misanthrophic13 wrote: [quote]
This.
Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy in his post.
You are looking for 'ignorance', not hypocrisy. And he's not being too unaware - China has a significantly worse record on animal rights and abuse than a lot of other nations (e.g. Western nations), and it has 1/5 of the world's population. There's a decent chance this happened in China before reading where it happened.
If I said "Black people has a significantly worse record on going to jail than other people (e.g. Asian people) and is a large part of the US population. There for there's a decent chance if a crime happened. A black person did it before reading what happened"
What would you say?
just giving an example
If you were talking about a crime in the United States, you would be statistically correct. There is a decent chance. That's just basic logic and statistics from the premises given. It of course depends on the crime rates between races and the percentage of the minority race with respect to the total population. It's just math given the premises.
It would be statistically correct but If I said that with a serious face I would be branded as a racist.
So you're saying that people shouldn't bring up the truth as part of an argument because of how society might respond to it? That's your rebuttal - that the truth might offend people, so, like, I guess it doesn't count?
I am saying it strongly discourages one from bringing up the statistical value of something that might invite unwanted response from the masses
Yes, but this was all in reference to this "well, I'm not too surprised this took place in China" bit. Since you were arguing that China was as good as the Netherlands with respect to animal rights, I assume you brought up the "how would you react if this were black people..." bit to show that what that guy was saying about China was prejudicial and not based on fact. Now you are saying that the black people example you gave is statistically correct, and since that's an analogy it would also mean that that "not surprised it's in China" is also statistically likely or decently likely, which is counter to your original viewpoint.
I will be willing to accept that statistic if accept mine. Really though, thru Supamang's post you can see China is not in the top ten of animal abusive nations
You would be a ostrich if you where a animal.
Arguing how China does not have the worst animal rights (or not even in top ten) while draining/torturing bears for years and years for a ''magic potion'' and that in 2011! And then i didn't even talk about abuse of tigers for their bones cause it's believed to make you ''live longer'' and that in 2011!
Dog/cat eating...
Hell Chinese even kill animals outside of their own country for BS... Here a little quote of what i mean: ''With Chinese influence growing in Africa, the number of poachings has increased dramatically, as has the Chinese demand for ivory.''
You are really so funny. You probably eat beef right? Cows are sacred in other countries, yet you eat them. Oh noez. Stop generalizing with bias, this thread is really pissing me off.
On August 13 2011 07:53 Misanthrophic13 wrote: [quote]
This.
Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy in his post.
You are looking for 'ignorance', not hypocrisy. And he's not being too unaware - China has a significantly worse record on animal rights and abuse than a lot of other nations (e.g. Western nations), and it has 1/5 of the world's population. There's a decent chance this happened in China before reading where it happened.
If I said "Black people has a significantly worse record on going to jail than other people (e.g. Asian people) and is a large part of the US population. There for there's a decent chance if a crime happened. A black person did it before reading what happened"
What would you say?
just giving an example
If you were talking about a crime in the United States, you would be statistically correct. There is a decent chance. That's just basic logic and statistics from the premises given. It of course depends on the crime rates between races and the percentage of the minority race with respect to the total population. It's just math given the premises.
It would be statistically correct but If I said that with a serious face I would be branded as a racist.
So you're saying that people shouldn't bring up the truth as part of an argument because of how society might respond to it? That's your rebuttal - that the truth might offend people, so, like, I guess it doesn't count?
I am saying it strongly discourages one from bringing up the statistical value of something that might invite unwanted response from the masses
Yes, but this was all in reference to this "well, I'm not too surprised this took place in China" bit. Since you were arguing that China was as good as the Netherlands with respect to animal rights, I assume you brought up the "how would you react if this were black people..." bit to show that what that guy was saying about China was prejudicial and not based on fact. Now you are saying that the black people example you gave is statistically correct, and since that's an analogy it would also mean that that "not surprised it's in China" is also statistically likely or decently likely, which is counter to your original viewpoint.
I will be willing to accept that statistic if accept mine. Really though, thru Supamang's post you can see China is not in the top ten of animal abusive nations
You would be a ostrich if you where a animal.
Arguing how China does not have the worst animal rights (or not even in top ten) while draining/torturing bears for years and years for a ''magic potion'' and that in 2011! And then i didn't even talk about abuse of tigers for their bones cause it's believed to make you ''live longer'' and that in 2011!
Dog/cat eating...
Hell Chinese even kill animals outside of their own country for BS... Here a little quote of what i mean: ''With Chinese influence growing in Africa, the number of poachings has increased dramatically, as has the Chinese demand for ivory.''
Youre completely hopeless arent you?
You completely ignore my posts twice now. You call the thing a "magic potion" just to make the Chinese seem worse, DESPITE all of the links posted earlier in the thread explaining how bear bile isnt actually useless. You post a single issue about China in Africa as support for your viewpoint, when we could go on forever back and forth posting instances of other countries as well as China being cruel to animals.
And as much as us Westerners hate the idea of our pets being food to others, dog/cat eating in and of itself is not animal cruelty. If they treat them badly before slaughter it is, but the act of eating animals is not cruelty. Thats like me saying the USA is cruel to animals because of "cow/chicken eating". The way we raise the animals and prepare them for slaughter may be cruel, but the mere act of eating them is not
EDIT: And thats not even mentioning the fact that eating dog/cat is rare in China. Ive been there and I did not see a single restaurant serving dog or cat. I did not meet a single person who ate dog or cat. All of the Chinese people I know who are from China have not eaten dog or cat. Stereotypes seem to rule your psyche
This article has just as much creditability as our National Enquirer.
Bear escapes cage after hearing her cub scream in pain? This animal cannot be healthy enough to have a cub if she was being milked for bile and had a hole in her abdomen.
-Farmer flees for his life at the sight of the mother cub, but also stays around to witness the bear suffocate her own cub and commit suicide? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Keep in mind that this was probably a private rural farm area in China. I highly doubt there would be many random witnesses hanging around watching bears get milked.
Screenshot or it didn't happen. The sickly bear probably got loose, the farmer bashed it over the head with a shovel and the cub was probably already dead in the first place.
You are looking for 'ignorance', not hypocrisy. And he's not being too unaware - China has a significantly worse record on animal rights and abuse than a lot of other nations (e.g. Western nations), and it has 1/5 of the world's population. There's a decent chance this happened in China before reading where it happened.
If I said "Black people has a significantly worse record on going to jail than other people (e.g. Asian people) and is a large part of the US population. There for there's a decent chance if a crime happened. A black person did it before reading what happened"
What would you say?
just giving an example
If you were talking about a crime in the United States, you would be statistically correct. There is a decent chance. That's just basic logic and statistics from the premises given. It of course depends on the crime rates between races and the percentage of the minority race with respect to the total population. It's just math given the premises.
It would be statistically correct but If I said that with a serious face I would be branded as a racist.
So you're saying that people shouldn't bring up the truth as part of an argument because of how society might respond to it? That's your rebuttal - that the truth might offend people, so, like, I guess it doesn't count?
I am saying it strongly discourages one from bringing up the statistical value of something that might invite unwanted response from the masses
Yes, but this was all in reference to this "well, I'm not too surprised this took place in China" bit. Since you were arguing that China was as good as the Netherlands with respect to animal rights, I assume you brought up the "how would you react if this were black people..." bit to show that what that guy was saying about China was prejudicial and not based on fact. Now you are saying that the black people example you gave is statistically correct, and since that's an analogy it would also mean that that "not surprised it's in China" is also statistically likely or decently likely, which is counter to your original viewpoint.
I will be willing to accept that statistic if accept mine. Really though, thru Supamang's post you can see China is not in the top ten of animal abusive nations
You would be a ostrich if you where a animal.
Arguing how China does not have the worst animal rights (or not even in top ten) while draining/torturing bears for years and years for a ''magic potion'' and that in 2011! And then i didn't even talk about abuse of tigers for their bones cause it's believed to make you ''live longer'' and that in 2011!
Dog/cat eating...
Hell Chinese even kill animals outside of their own country for BS... Here a little quote of what i mean: ''With Chinese influence growing in Africa, the number of poachings has increased dramatically, as has the Chinese demand for ivory.''
You are really so funny. You probably eat beef right? Cows are sacred in other countries, yet you eat them. Oh noez. Stop generalizing with bias, this thread is really pissing me off.
I see eating beef and keeping bears in pain for years on end as a complete different subject...
On August 13 2011 08:48 Supamang wrote: And as much as us Westerners hate the idea of our pets being food to others, dog/cat eating in and of itself is not animal cruelty. If they treat them badly before slaughter it is, but the act of eating animals is not cruelty. Thats like me saying the USA is cruel to animals because of "cow/chicken eating". The way we raise the animals and prepare them for slaughter may be cruel, but the mere act of eating them is not
And thats not even mentioning the fact that eating dog/cat is rare in China. Ive been there and I did not see a single restaurant serving dog or cat. I did not meet a single person who ate dog or cat. All of the Chinese people I know who are from China have not eaten dog or cat. Stereotypes seem to rule your psyche
On August 13 2011 07:53 Misanthrophic13 wrote: [quote]
This.
Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy in his post.
You are looking for 'ignorance', not hypocrisy. And he's not being too unaware - China has a significantly worse record on animal rights and abuse than a lot of other nations (e.g. Western nations), and it has 1/5 of the world's population. There's a decent chance this happened in China before reading where it happened.
If I said "Black people has a significantly worse record on going to jail than other people (e.g. Asian people) and is a large part of the US population. There for there's a decent chance if a crime happened. A black person did it before reading what happened"
What would you say?
just giving an example
If you were talking about a crime in the United States, you would be statistically correct. There is a decent chance. That's just basic logic and statistics from the premises given. It of course depends on the crime rates between races and the percentage of the minority race with respect to the total population. It's just math given the premises.
It would be statistically correct but If I said that with a serious face I would be branded as a racist.
So you're saying that people shouldn't bring up the truth as part of an argument because of how society might respond to it? That's your rebuttal - that the truth might offend people, so, like, I guess it doesn't count?
I am saying it strongly discourages one from bringing up the statistical value of something that might invite unwanted response from the masses
Yes, but this was all in reference to this "well, I'm not too surprised this took place in China" bit. Since you were arguing that China was as good as the Netherlands with respect to animal rights, I assume you brought up the "how would you react if this were black people..." bit to show that what that guy was saying about China was prejudicial and not based on fact. Now you are saying that the black people example you gave is statistically correct, and since that's an analogy it would also mean that that "not surprised it's in China" is also statistically likely or decently likely, which is counter to your original viewpoint.
I will be willing to accept that statistic if accept mine. Really though, thru Supamang's post you can see China is not in the top ten of animal abusive nations
You would be a ostrich if you where a animal.
Arguing how China does not have the worst animal rights (or not even in top ten) while draining/torturing bears for years and years for a ''magic potion'' and that in 2011! And then i didn't even talk about abuse of tigers for their bones cause it's believed to make you ''live longer'' and that in 2011!
Dog/cat eating...
Hell Chinese even kill animals outside of their own country for BS... Here a little quote of what i mean: ''With Chinese influence growing in Africa, the number of poachings has increased dramatically, as has the Chinese demand for ivory.''
Statistics are always twisted for one side or another. You bring up far too many logical fallacies for anyone to take your arguments seriously.
You're taking a case example and using it to say that China has the worst animal rights. The Netherlands has many cases of horses being raised for meat that are starved, dehydrated, and abused. Does that automatically mean they are the worst? No. It's just an example.
Why are you bringing up eating domesticated animals that are kept as pets in other parts of the world? It has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Just because you don't eat them doesn't mean others shouldn't. If my facts are correct, people from the Netherlands as well as China eat horse meat. In the US and UK, it is considered taboo because they are kept as pets. Does that mean nobody should be eating horses? Those dogs and cats eaten in China likely led a better life before being eaten than the cows, pigs, and chickens that are factory farmed for your meat. Personally, I love meat, and I have no problem with eating any animal. I do prefer traditionally farmed meat over factory farmed meat because of the flavor (ie, Kobe beef vs a regular steak), but that's just personal preference. Just because you think it's a cute animal doesn't mean it shouldn't be eaten. It just shows your prejudice and bias.
You also blame China for something like elephant poaching when 20-30 years ago, it was the entire Western world's demand for ivory that caused elephant populations to go nearly extinct. What do you think of fishermen who have caused entire populations of tuna and salmon to be wiped out to feed American and European demand?
doing horrible bullshit in the name of pseudoscience or bronze age myths
sounds like every country on this planet to me not just china ...
yours included
This.
Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy in his post.
You are looking for 'ignorance', not hypocrisy. And he's not being too unaware - China has a significantly worse record on animal rights and abuse than a lot of other nations (e.g. Western nations), and it has 1/5 of the world's population. There's a decent chance this happened in China before reading where it happened.
If I said "Black people has a significantly worse record on going to jail than other people (e.g. Asian people) and is a large part of the US population. There for there's a decent chance if a crime happened. A black person did it before reading what happened"
What would you say?
just giving an example
If you were talking about a crime in the United States, you would be statistically correct. There is a decent chance. That's just basic logic and statistics from the premises given. It of course depends on the crime rates between races and the percentage of the minority race with respect to the total population. It's just math given the premises.
It would be statistically correct but If I said that with a serious face I would be branded as a racist.
So you're saying that people shouldn't bring up the truth as part of an argument because of how society might respond to it? That's your rebuttal - that the truth might offend people, so, like, I guess it doesn't count?
I am saying it strongly discourages one from bringing up the statistical value of something that might invite unwanted response from the masses
Yes, but this was all in reference to this "well, I'm not too surprised this took place in China" bit. Since you were arguing that China was as good as the Netherlands with respect to animal rights, I assume you brought up the "how would you react if this were black people..." bit to show that what that guy was saying about China was prejudicial and not based on fact. Now you are saying that the black people example you gave is statistically correct, and since that's an analogy it would also mean that that "not surprised it's in China" is also statistically likely or decently likely, which is counter to your original viewpoint.
I agree, there arent enough statistics to accurately and definitively rank the countries in terms of animal abuse. China might actually be worse in terms of animal abuse than the Netherlands but no sources will ever be able to prove everything 100%.
All I wanted to do was to throw in some reasonable doubt towards the idea that China is by and large the worst place in the world for animal cruelty. This Technique kid seems to believe that about China and all I need to do to beat him in an argument is to discredit his opinion by showing sources and pointing out facts that support the idea that other countries can also be just as terrible. Demonizing an entire country and generalizing its people without doing your own research and keeping an open mind is willful ignorance and thats what I hate to see.
If you show me evidence that China is by far the worst country in the world for animal cruelty, then I will gladly agree with you. In the meantime, Foie Gras Duck says to not be so biased against China:
I don't know if China is the worst, but I'd certainly put it far behind any country in Western Europe / North America. I don't have directly relevant statistics, but I'm also quite sure I'm right - from what I'm heard, from the general nature of Chinese abuses with respect to other rights and so on.
On August 13 2011 07:59 Blasterion wrote: [quote] If I said "Black people has a significantly worse record on going to jail than other people (e.g. Asian people) and is a large part of the US population. There for there's a decent chance if a crime happened. A black person did it before reading what happened"
What would you say?
just giving an example
If you were talking about a crime in the United States, you would be statistically correct. There is a decent chance. That's just basic logic and statistics from the premises given. It of course depends on the crime rates between races and the percentage of the minority race with respect to the total population. It's just math given the premises.
It would be statistically correct but If I said that with a serious face I would be branded as a racist.
So you're saying that people shouldn't bring up the truth as part of an argument because of how society might respond to it? That's your rebuttal - that the truth might offend people, so, like, I guess it doesn't count?
I am saying it strongly discourages one from bringing up the statistical value of something that might invite unwanted response from the masses
Yes, but this was all in reference to this "well, I'm not too surprised this took place in China" bit. Since you were arguing that China was as good as the Netherlands with respect to animal rights, I assume you brought up the "how would you react if this were black people..." bit to show that what that guy was saying about China was prejudicial and not based on fact. Now you are saying that the black people example you gave is statistically correct, and since that's an analogy it would also mean that that "not surprised it's in China" is also statistically likely or decently likely, which is counter to your original viewpoint.
I will be willing to accept that statistic if accept mine. Really though, thru Supamang's post you can see China is not in the top ten of animal abusive nations
You would be a ostrich if you where a animal.
Arguing how China does not have the worst animal rights (or not even in top ten) while draining/torturing bears for years and years for a ''magic potion'' and that in 2011! And then i didn't even talk about abuse of tigers for their bones cause it's believed to make you ''live longer'' and that in 2011!
Dog/cat eating...
Hell Chinese even kill animals outside of their own country for BS... Here a little quote of what i mean: ''With Chinese influence growing in Africa, the number of poachings has increased dramatically, as has the Chinese demand for ivory.''
You are really so funny. You probably eat beef right? Cows are sacred in other countries, yet you eat them. Oh noez. Stop generalizing with bias, this thread is really pissing me off.
I see eating beef and keeping bears in pain for years on end as a complete different subject...
On August 13 2011 07:53 Misanthrophic13 wrote: [quote]
This.
Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy in his post.
You are looking for 'ignorance', not hypocrisy. And he's not being too unaware - China has a significantly worse record on animal rights and abuse than a lot of other nations (e.g. Western nations), and it has 1/5 of the world's population. There's a decent chance this happened in China before reading where it happened.
If I said "Black people has a significantly worse record on going to jail than other people (e.g. Asian people) and is a large part of the US population. There for there's a decent chance if a crime happened. A black person did it before reading what happened"
What would you say?
just giving an example
If you were talking about a crime in the United States, you would be statistically correct. There is a decent chance. That's just basic logic and statistics from the premises given. It of course depends on the crime rates between races and the percentage of the minority race with respect to the total population. It's just math given the premises.
It would be statistically correct but If I said that with a serious face I would be branded as a racist.
So you're saying that people shouldn't bring up the truth as part of an argument because of how society might respond to it? That's your rebuttal - that the truth might offend people, so, like, I guess it doesn't count?
I am saying it strongly discourages one from bringing up the statistical value of something that might invite unwanted response from the masses
Yes, but this was all in reference to this "well, I'm not too surprised this took place in China" bit. Since you were arguing that China was as good as the Netherlands with respect to animal rights, I assume you brought up the "how would you react if this were black people..." bit to show that what that guy was saying about China was prejudicial and not based on fact. Now you are saying that the black people example you gave is statistically correct, and since that's an analogy it would also mean that that "not surprised it's in China" is also statistically likely or decently likely, which is counter to your original viewpoint.
I agree, there arent enough statistics to accurately and definitively rank the countries in terms of animal abuse. China might actually be worse in terms of animal abuse than the Netherlands but no sources will ever be able to prove everything 100%.
All I wanted to do was to throw in some reasonable doubt towards the idea that China is by and large the worst place in the world for animal cruelty. This Technique kid seems to believe that about China and all I need to do to beat him in an argument is to discredit his opinion by showing sources and pointing out facts that support the idea that other countries can also be just as terrible. Demonizing an entire country and generalizing its people without doing your own research and keeping an open mind is willful ignorance and thats what I hate to see.
If you show me evidence that China is by far the worst country in the world for animal cruelty, then I will gladly agree with you. In the meantime, Foie Gras Duck says to not be so biased against China:
I don't know if China is the worst, but I'd certainly put it far behind any country in Western Europe / North America. I don't have directly relevant statistics, but I'm also quite sure I'm right - from what I'm heard, from the general nature of Chinese abuses with respect to other rights and so on.
Doesn't this just define the very need for a little research before you go around regurgitating opinions around the place?
EVERYONE these days is 'quite sure' they're right, until they've done a little research and find they were completely wrong in their assumptions. Sometimes you find evidence that affirms your suspicions. Hooray! But, having a 'gut feeling' and being 'quite sure' you're right is no basis for credibility at all.
On August 13 2011 08:48 Supamang wrote: And as much as us Westerners hate the idea of our pets being food to others, dog/cat eating in and of itself is not animal cruelty. If they treat them badly before slaughter it is, but the act of eating animals is not cruelty. Thats like me saying the USA is cruel to animals because of "cow/chicken eating". The way we raise the animals and prepare them for slaughter may be cruel, but the mere act of eating them is not
And thats not even mentioning the fact that eating dog/cat is rare in China. Ive been there and I did not see a single restaurant serving dog or cat. I did not meet a single person who ate dog or cat. All of the Chinese people I know who are from China have not eaten dog or cat. Stereotypes seem to rule your psyche
You are looking for 'ignorance', not hypocrisy. And he's not being too unaware - China has a significantly worse record on animal rights and abuse than a lot of other nations (e.g. Western nations), and it has 1/5 of the world's population. There's a decent chance this happened in China before reading where it happened.
If I said "Black people has a significantly worse record on going to jail than other people (e.g. Asian people) and is a large part of the US population. There for there's a decent chance if a crime happened. A black person did it before reading what happened"
What would you say?
just giving an example
If you were talking about a crime in the United States, you would be statistically correct. There is a decent chance. That's just basic logic and statistics from the premises given. It of course depends on the crime rates between races and the percentage of the minority race with respect to the total population. It's just math given the premises.
It would be statistically correct but If I said that with a serious face I would be branded as a racist.
So you're saying that people shouldn't bring up the truth as part of an argument because of how society might respond to it? That's your rebuttal - that the truth might offend people, so, like, I guess it doesn't count?
I am saying it strongly discourages one from bringing up the statistical value of something that might invite unwanted response from the masses
Yes, but this was all in reference to this "well, I'm not too surprised this took place in China" bit. Since you were arguing that China was as good as the Netherlands with respect to animal rights, I assume you brought up the "how would you react if this were black people..." bit to show that what that guy was saying about China was prejudicial and not based on fact. Now you are saying that the black people example you gave is statistically correct, and since that's an analogy it would also mean that that "not surprised it's in China" is also statistically likely or decently likely, which is counter to your original viewpoint.
I agree, there arent enough statistics to accurately and definitively rank the countries in terms of animal abuse. China might actually be worse in terms of animal abuse than the Netherlands but no sources will ever be able to prove everything 100%.
All I wanted to do was to throw in some reasonable doubt towards the idea that China is by and large the worst place in the world for animal cruelty. This Technique kid seems to believe that about China and all I need to do to beat him in an argument is to discredit his opinion by showing sources and pointing out facts that support the idea that other countries can also be just as terrible. Demonizing an entire country and generalizing its people without doing your own research and keeping an open mind is willful ignorance and thats what I hate to see.
If you show me evidence that China is by far the worst country in the world for animal cruelty, then I will gladly agree with you. In the meantime, Foie Gras Duck says to not be so biased against China:
I don't know if China is the worst, but I'd certainly put it far behind any country in Western Europe / North America. I don't have directly relevant statistics, but I'm also quite sure I'm right - from what I'm heard, from the general nature of Chinese abuses with respect to other rights and so on.
Isn't this just define the very need for a little research before you go around regurgitating opinions around the place?
EVERYONE these days is 'quite sure' they're right, until they've done a little research and find they were completely wrong in their assumptions.
Well i posted a link to animal laws in Netherlands and asked the guy i was arguing with to do the same for China, but he ignored it... that's because animal rights are non existent in China...
On August 13 2011 08:42 cz wrote: Dunno if this was posted, but:
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Foiegras4.jpg/250px-Foiegras4.jpg)
