|
Bosnia-Herzegovina439 Posts
I don't see what will stop humans to push another species to extinction. This is nothing new. And all the pussies trying to protect whales - your cities are built on animal territory - do you feel guilty? no. You probably eat animals, if no - you probably kill millions of bugs to get your salad - its a fact you can't keep your hands clean no matter what. Life eats fucking life. That's just the way it is. I don't want to sound so depressing, and would like to keep the whales alive but what about rest of the fucking millions of species? There are 6 billion fucking hungry people and last i checked they like any kind of meat.. i don't know really what to say about these subject, i can only bitch a few lines but i don't believe in struggle, the human nature is fucking unstoppable!
Let the Koreans have some fun, the rest of the world sure had theirs.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread.
HUMANS ARE MONSTERS
I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE
|
On July 06 2012 16:39 RockIronrod wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE
So what's your message?
|
As long as no endangered whale species are targeted, it would be hypocritical for me to object. Though I must say I do not like that these countries use scientific research as a justification. It seems very dishonest.
|
On July 06 2012 16:41 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 16:39 RockIronrod wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE So what's your message?
Being too obsessed with saving every animal and not caring about animals are equally stupid.
I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of hunting as a whole to be honest, but I'm not naive enough to think the world should bow to my phobias.
|
On July 06 2012 11:33 kaisen wrote:It means there are other countries that are whaling. The same countries that opposed to Korea's vote for resuming whaling.
Yes but the statistics say that Japan caught ~17 thousand whales. A graph that doesn't tell us the scope of the statistic or the source of the statistic is pretty much just attempting to breed ignorance. When was this? From 1948 to 2012? From 1986-2005? 1986-2012? Trust me this makes a huge difference.
Did you know that it was revealed in 1994 that the Soviet Union had been systematically undercounting its catch. From 1948 to 1973, the USSR`s reported hunted ~2,700 Humpback whales was actually ~48,000 whales?
It`s also a long established rule that Norway and Iceland are not bound by the International Whaling Commission`s Commercial whaling ban. However they do not appear on this graph.
You aren`t at fault for why the Canadian Inuit`s annual catches of 200 ENDANGERED bowhead whales are not reported on this graph, but you SHOULD be considering the accuracy of that information you rely upon.
Show nested quote +How are these whales caught? Research or Commercial or through Accidental Netting? By the use of gigantic aircraft carrier. Seriously, does it matter? Whales are killed when they are caught. Regardless of in which way they are caught.
It does. Research whaling is reported and appears most in statistics presented by the IWC.
Commercial Whaling is done by other countries. Japan also has a Commercial whaling industry (though small) which fishes off its local waters. By the way, Norway has caught roughly 11 thousand whales since the commercial whaling ban since 1986. Yet, they`re not on the graph.
Accidental netting is NOT considered whaling for the purposes of international enforcement. However, every year unreported amounts of whales (estimated in the thousands) are caught in nets and `accidentally` whaled?
Show nested quote +Does it account for inuit population? Whaling in Canada, the Carribean, Indonesia? Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't matter. Tell me the difference between aboriginal whaling and whaling in Korea or Japan.
Their numbers still belong in the graph.
What about them? What exactly are you asking here?
They have commercial whaling activities.
Show nested quote +I don't really care much for which side you're trying to argue, but realistically know what you're trying to present in a post... Fact that you are asking series of questions that could be answered by simple google search, know what you are trying to ask.
Why did you post an map with completely fabricated statistics and use it as a basis of your arguments?
I KNOW I am more qualified to discuss this topic than an overwhelming majority of posters in this thread BUT I`m not trying to force an opinion down your throat. I just wanted you to understand that using unsourced material like that is the same as just drawing up random numbers on MS paint and using it as evidence for your case.
I don`t disagree with actually saying something and making a point though.
|
On July 06 2012 16:46 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 16:41 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 16:39 RockIronrod wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE So what's your message? Being too obsessed with saving every animal and not caring about animals are equally stupid. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of hunting as a whole to be honest, but I'm not naive enough to think the world should bow to my phobias.
I think that it's stupid to go through life tolerating things you find uncomfortable 
|
I can understand where people are coming from that are claiming it's hypocritical to object since the western populations heavily farm cattle etc. Though when you look at it, they aren't the same thing and there are a few key differences which give rise to argument imo.
Cattle farms are just a part of life and for the human race to remain fed such practices must exist. These animals are bred for the sole purpose of feeding people (is the life we give them they otherwise wouldn't have had, worth the early death they inevitably face?). Whales on the other hand are not, they are a very intelligent and majestic animal (read:more likable) that is hunted down in the wild that many feel is for an unjustifiable cause. this is where the issue arises. Some might say those are conflicting views but this is just the reality I feel.
I do believe S.Korea should be able to fish and eat what they want if it's in their own waters, especially regulated numbers of a decently populated species.
|
On July 06 2012 16:54 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 16:46 RockIronrod wrote:On July 06 2012 16:41 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 16:39 RockIronrod wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE So what's your message? Being too obsessed with saving every animal and not caring about animals are equally stupid. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of hunting as a whole to be honest, but I'm not naive enough to think the world should bow to my phobias. I think that it's stupid to go through life tolerating things you find uncomfortable
Yeah, I don't think gay marriage should go through either.
The point here is sometimes shit doesn't go your way, not everything fits into your little box of comfort, and not everything will back the fuck off your irrational fears and thoughts. And you deal with it because you're not the most important person in the world. My fear of spiders doesn't mean all spiders should be killed. A teens discomfort at physical affection doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Peoples hard-on for whales doesn't make them exempt from hunting.
|
On July 06 2012 16:55 shizzz wrote:
Cattle farms are just a part of life and for the human race to remain fed such practices must exist..
A simple question: does a cow's meat provide more or less calories than the plant foods it is fed throughout its life? XD
|
I might be okay with it if it is restricted and enforced, but knowing how things work it won't be. I really don't know what will happen if this is allowed. I'm just assuming the worst, I guess.
The problem with humans is we are too damn efficient at hunting. Add that to nearly limitless demand and many species can become critically endangered or extinct very quickly. We need to be able to set limitations on ourselves since physical limitations no longer apply to us.
Edit: The difference between cattle and whales are that cattles are domesticated and whales are not. There are inherent problems with the cattle industry as well as the fishing industry, but those are two different topics.
Also, due to bioaccumulation, whale meat has a lot of mercury and isn't good for consumption. So what are we using the whale carcasses for? Candles? Cosmetic products? Other unnecessary things? Seems like a waste of a perfectly good animal.
|
On July 06 2012 17:00 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 16:55 shizzz wrote:
Cattle farms are just a part of life and for the human race to remain fed such practices must exist.. A simple question: does a cow's meat provide more or less calories than the plant foods it is fed throughout its life? XD
These plant foods they are fed are a renewable produce, grown in it's own right for the purpose of feeding the cattle which feed us. You will also be getting a range of vitamins from the meat in a concentrated form you otherwise wouldn't have. Sure you can live a meat free life but for those of us who don't, meat is pretty damn good .
Meat has been a main staple in our diet for a long time and I definitely don't see that changing anytime soon.
|
On July 06 2012 09:51 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 07:33 Azarkon wrote:On July 06 2012 06:09 Masamune wrote:On July 06 2012 03:20 Azarkon wrote:On July 06 2012 03:10 Masamune wrote:On July 06 2012 02:39 Azarkon wrote:On July 06 2012 02:29 Masamune wrote:On July 06 2012 02:15 Azarkon wrote:On July 06 2012 02:09 Spicy_Curry wrote:
Humans are the only animals that hunt for more than they need. Its disgusting. Predators in nature waste a lot of meat each time they kill. Have you seen what happens after a lion takes down an antelope? The lion doesn't eat the entire antelope. It eats choice bites, then leaves the carcass for scavengers. A lot of scavengers have a niche because predators are wasteful. Not just that, but there are predators besides humans who kill for 'pleasure'. Take cats, for example. There are a lot of well-fed pet cats who go after rats just because - they don't kill rats because they are hungry and need to eat; they kill them because they want to. Yes and in nature, most species are patriarchal and rape serves as an adaption. Does that mean we should just succumb to our primal behaviour because other species do and allow it to creep back into our society? And fyi, predators in nature waste meat because they have no form of preservation like we do. Instead of carrying around a rotting piece of meat, it serves a better purpose to just hunt another animal again. The first humans in the Americas did this when they drove many species to extinction but I can't blame them because they didn't know any better and were trying to survive. We know better now so let's show it? Being morally 'better' than animals is a human conceit; there is nothing 'animal' about it. But being a human conceit, it is comprehensibly only to other humans and in the context of our societies/cultures/ideologies. The statement that humans are 'evil' / 'disgusting' because we hunt whales has nothing to do with nature and everything to do with our social conceptions, which are not necessarily shared by other societies/cultures/ideologies. My bringing this into this thread is to remind people how socially constructed their world views are. Animals never think about whether they're wasting food / driving prey into extinction / hunting for meat instead of pleasure / etc. People, living in modern, first world societies, who have been educated under the doctrines of environmentalism, and who are disconnected from the act of hunting and killing prey because all they experience is grocery store->kitchen->table, do. Skip the moral blanketing about humans being bad, and talk about how SK is trying to violate an international treaty via a loophole, and we're better off for discussions. I don't see how pontificating about how bad humans are because we won't follow each other's socially constructed moral standards is going to help. Don't try and create strawman arguments with me because I never once touched on the topics of evil and morality. Leave your college classes on ethics and morality at the door please. As a species with an advanced form of cognition, we have the ability to make our society a better one (which ultimately is for our own "selfish" purposes and a topic of another discussion). Instead of condoning some of the things we do because it's natural and seen in nature (such as your comparison of human wasting to animals), we can try and curtail it a bit to better help us all. But you did. You said that we need to act 'better' than animals because we are humans. This is a fundamentally moral argument, because what is 'better' is contingent on social/cultural/ideological forces and you have shown no different. You have never explained what makes preserving endangered species 'better' than not preserving them, and short of that you are a product of the environmentalist social mores that are conditioned into people in the West these days. Thus, you are making a moral argument, not a logical one. I ask again - why is preserving endangered species 'better' than not preserving them? Is it not natural for species that are unable to adapt to their environment to perish? Isn't that the entire process of selection and evolution? lol how is it a fundamentally moral argument? It actually has nothing to do with morals and is quite logical. Once again the strawman... Given human intelligence and our ability to reason, we have two options in regards to this situation: A) Live in apathy and let natural selection take its course. B) Make easy alterations in our lives to preserve biodiversity, which can be as asset in the future. I'm not advocating that we take option B because of some moral obligation but because it is the option which benefits society the most. We already do many things that go against nature to benefit and progress society, so why should this be any different? Humans are generally considered a patriarchal species, but yet we employ women equality and literacy in the West and it, in turn, helps to preserve our advanced and developed society. You make the claim for allowing natural selection to take its course, so are you also saying that we should just revert back to our normal behaviour and allow civil rights to dissolve because it goes in tandem with our innateness? This is the case in other societies and transcends "social/cultural/ideological forces" but would it be a beneficial choice for ours? The same case could be made for preserving biodiversity on this Earth. South Korea may have different social and cultural codes of conduct than mine, but when it starts to potentially infringe on my life, I take issue with it. For all I care they can enslave their women, but don't touch the whales How's that for morals? If there is any assumption to be made, it's that you are the product of internet conditioning that believes environmentalism to be a wasted effort and should be ignored completely because of a few introductory college classes. Honestly, it's getting stale. Hmm, from what I see, you are greatly confused about what your argument is. Your main gist in those paragraphs is that letting whales go extinct is equivalent to reverting back to primitivism, thereby unmaking the social progress humans have made. But this is a false analogy: human progress is not fundamentally predicated on environmentalism, and one is able to have one without the other. Indeed, the two are opposed in a lot of ways. For example, in order to have the advanced, technological society that we have today, huge swaths of natural habitats had to be transformed into resources that service humans - to the detriment of their animal and plant inhabitants. There is nothing logical in the fear mongering statement that allowing whales to go extinct is tantamount to repealing social progress. This is a large flaw in your ideological stance. Your advocacy of betterment for ourselves is in the service of a humanistic moral philosophy, and the examples that you gave regarding gender equality, civil rights, etc. are all examples from human morality. But instead of stopping there, you then draw the false analogy between human morality and animal rights, believing that the securement of one requires the securement of the other. This is the very tacic of animal rights groups in the West - to equate animal rights with human rights and therefore environmentalism with moral humanism - which makes my notions about your conditioning all the easier to support. What you further fail to understand is that, because you depend on tenets from a moralistic human philosophy to support your environmentalist stance, you are making moral arguments. Gender equality, for example, is not a law of nature, but because the variants of moral humanism popular in the West today posit that equal rights and opportunity is a fundamental positive desirable to all humans, gender equality is an ethical tenet of Western moral humanism. That your notion of progress and advanced society is tied to ethical - and specifically humanly ethical - principles is what makes your arguments moral. In the case that your goal is to avoid a moral argument, you are better off sticking to the personal argument, which constitutes the best logical argument in your arsenal against whale hunting - you oppose whale hunting because it infringes on your life, because killing off whales -> you and your children are no longer able to enjoy them in whatever capacity you enjoy them now. This is a logical, utilitarian argument, and your confusion lies in thinking that your other arguments, and not this one, is your primary rational thrust. The main gist of my arguments is NOT that letting whales go extinct is equivalent to reverting back to primitivism. Read my posts carefully over please. But nice try, I knew you couldn't answer the post directly. Instead, you chose to blow it out of proportion and use this stance as your new strawman to base your post on. However, just to be clear, my main argument is that we can either live in apathy and just let shit happen (because evolution will take its course...) OR we can choose to cut back on unnecessary practices TEMPORARILY for the sake of biodiversity and its beneficial implications for humans (which happens to also be evolution taking it's course). There is nothing moralistic about my stance, which you also claim there is. My previous posts were addressing your post claiming that we should just let natural selection take its course because that's life . I refuted this by saying that aside from protecting endangered species, the West practices many policies that go against our our innate behaviour SUCH AS women rights (uncommon across different cultures, societies and ideologies much like whale hunting [which is why I chose the example, not to equate anything like you imply]), leading to advancement in our lives and society. My example of women's rights also demonstrates that although Western civil rights standards are uncommon across the world, they hold out to be far superior, from a logical standpoint (my emphasis), as addressed in the previous posts. Therefore, we shouldn't be ashamed that we're conditioned with Western standards, because sometimes (as in the case with women's rights and endangered species) they happen to be the better standard. And if you can't read between the lines, which you have proven on a consistent basis: given Homo sapiens natural advantage of higher cognition over any species on Earth, the logical solution (I'M NOT ADVOCATING ANYTHING REGARDING MORALS) to our existence would be to live in a world where we utilize this advantage and our subsequent knowledge, instead of brushing it aside to live an apathetic life. The former IS actually natural selection at work, while the latter would be impractical/ illogical/absurd and is the stance of your original post that I commented on, which thankfully, is not practised by society. P.S. The benefits attained from the preservation of endangered whales goes far beyond having something to do with my children while at MarineLand, which you allude to. But if these are the only benefits you can attribute to biodiversity, I'd advise putting down your philosophy text and picking up an introductory biology one, instead.
I don't think you understand the difference between telling others to read between the lines and intentionally avoiding the issue. You keep alluding to the logic of saving the whales, but have never stated what that logic is, preferring instead to draw parallels again and again to liberal humanist - ie modern Western - values, which are moralistic and humanistic stances.
I don't need to pick up an introductory biology text. What I need is an explanation of what you are talking about when you allude to the rational benefits of saving whales. The purpose of discussion is not for me to assign to you what I already know about the arguments for stopping whale killing; it is for you to demonstrate that you know why you support it and are capable of arguing for it logically, which thus far you have been unable to do. Indeed, what you said about natural selection above tells me that your knowledge in this area is rather lacking - an animal that tries to actively intervene in its environment is not fundamentally better adapted to that environment than an animal that remains apathetic.
Here's a freebie: whales play an important role in the marine eco system and removing them has harmful effects on said eco system. The problem with this argument is that it requires arguing that removing whales results in harmful ecological effects for humans. Eco systems collapse - and are reformed - all the time. Who's to say a whaleless ocean isn't better for humans?
|
Comparing whale hunting to eating cows is fucking stupid. We don't farm whales. Whales are top level predators that reproduce very slowly and face increasing pressure.
You can make the case that "we don't need to eat any meat, just eat plants!!!!" but there are plenty of reasons to keep eating animals.
Do we know what will happen if we push whale species extinct? Not really I guess, but it's a pretty safe bet that it won't be anything good. I don't know of any good reasons to keep hunting whales.
Just to give some more perspective, I feel the same way about the overfishing of other top level predators like tuna and swordfish. There's verrrrrry little reason to hunt them on a grand scale. It will be bad for everyone all over the planet if we fuck up fish populations so bad that there aren't enough to go around.
|
On July 06 2012 16:59 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 16:54 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 16:46 RockIronrod wrote:On July 06 2012 16:41 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 16:39 RockIronrod wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE So what's your message? Being too obsessed with saving every animal and not caring about animals are equally stupid. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of hunting as a whole to be honest, but I'm not naive enough to think the world should bow to my phobias. I think that it's stupid to go through life tolerating things you find uncomfortable Yeah, I don't think gay marriage should go through either. The point here is sometimes shit doesn't go your way, not everything fits into your little box of comfort, and not everything will back the fuck off your irrational fears and thoughts. And you deal with it because you're not the most important person in the world. My fear of spiders doesn't mean all spiders should be killed. A teens discomfort at physical affection doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Peoples hard-on for whales doesn't make them exempt from hunting.
I guess I desire more freedom in life than you do. Who benefits from your tolerating suffering? You certainly don't...
On July 06 2012 17:06 shizzz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 17:00 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 16:55 shizzz wrote:
Cattle farms are just a part of life and for the human race to remain fed such practices must exist.. A simple question: does a cow's meat provide more or less calories than the plant foods it is fed throughout its life? XD These plant foods they are fed are a renewable produce, grown in it's own right for the purpose of feeding the cattle which feed us.
The plants will grow just fine even if there are no cattle to feed XD
Sure you can live a meat free life but for those of us who don't, meat is pretty damn good .
If you've never lived any other way, how would you know how good it really is?
I definitely don't see that changing anytime soon.
We'll see
|
On July 06 2012 17:13 Bigtony wrote:
You can make the case that "we don't need to eat any meat, just eat plants!!!!" but there are plenty of reasons to keep eating animals.
List five.
|
On July 06 2012 17:15 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 16:59 RockIronrod wrote:On July 06 2012 16:54 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 16:46 RockIronrod wrote:On July 06 2012 16:41 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 16:39 RockIronrod wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE So what's your message? Being too obsessed with saving every animal and not caring about animals are equally stupid. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of hunting as a whole to be honest, but I'm not naive enough to think the world should bow to my phobias. I think that it's stupid to go through life tolerating things you find uncomfortable Yeah, I don't think gay marriage should go through either. The point here is sometimes shit doesn't go your way, not everything fits into your little box of comfort, and not everything will back the fuck off your irrational fears and thoughts. And you deal with it because you're not the most important person in the world. My fear of spiders doesn't mean all spiders should be killed. A teens discomfort at physical affection doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Peoples hard-on for whales doesn't make them exempt from hunting. I guess I desire more freedom in life than you do. Who benefits from your tolerating suffering? You certainly don't...
Or maybe I respect others freedom more than you do.
|
On July 06 2012 17:23 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 17:15 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 16:59 RockIronrod wrote:On July 06 2012 16:54 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 16:46 RockIronrod wrote:On July 06 2012 16:41 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 16:39 RockIronrod wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE So what's your message? Being too obsessed with saving every animal and not caring about animals are equally stupid. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of hunting as a whole to be honest, but I'm not naive enough to think the world should bow to my phobias. I think that it's stupid to go through life tolerating things you find uncomfortable Yeah, I don't think gay marriage should go through either. The point here is sometimes shit doesn't go your way, not everything fits into your little box of comfort, and not everything will back the fuck off your irrational fears and thoughts. And you deal with it because you're not the most important person in the world. My fear of spiders doesn't mean all spiders should be killed. A teens discomfort at physical affection doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Peoples hard-on for whales doesn't make them exempt from hunting. I guess I desire more freedom in life than you do. Who benefits from your tolerating suffering? You certainly don't... Or maybe I respect others freedom more than you do.
Yet here you are trying to tell me that I shouldn't feel free to fight against my own discomfort XD
What freedoms of others have I encroached upon?
|
On July 06 2012 17:27 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 17:23 RockIronrod wrote:On July 06 2012 17:15 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 16:59 RockIronrod wrote:On July 06 2012 16:54 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 16:46 RockIronrod wrote:On July 06 2012 16:41 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 16:39 RockIronrod wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE So what's your message? Being too obsessed with saving every animal and not caring about animals are equally stupid. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of hunting as a whole to be honest, but I'm not naive enough to think the world should bow to my phobias. I think that it's stupid to go through life tolerating things you find uncomfortable Yeah, I don't think gay marriage should go through either. The point here is sometimes shit doesn't go your way, not everything fits into your little box of comfort, and not everything will back the fuck off your irrational fears and thoughts. And you deal with it because you're not the most important person in the world. My fear of spiders doesn't mean all spiders should be killed. A teens discomfort at physical affection doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Peoples hard-on for whales doesn't make them exempt from hunting. I guess I desire more freedom in life than you do. Who benefits from your tolerating suffering? You certainly don't... Or maybe I respect others freedom more than you do. Yet here you are trying to tell me that I shouldn't feel free to fight against my own discomfort XD What freedoms of others have I encroached upon?
You're here telling me I should only care about what makes me comfortable, and that I should fight anything I dislike, regardless of what anyone else wants. I call that selfishness.
|
On July 06 2012 17:29 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 17:27 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 17:23 RockIronrod wrote:On July 06 2012 17:15 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 16:59 RockIronrod wrote:On July 06 2012 16:54 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 16:46 RockIronrod wrote:On July 06 2012 16:41 Mstring wrote:On July 06 2012 16:39 RockIronrod wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE So what's your message? Being too obsessed with saving every animal and not caring about animals are equally stupid. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of hunting as a whole to be honest, but I'm not naive enough to think the world should bow to my phobias. I think that it's stupid to go through life tolerating things you find uncomfortable Yeah, I don't think gay marriage should go through either. The point here is sometimes shit doesn't go your way, not everything fits into your little box of comfort, and not everything will back the fuck off your irrational fears and thoughts. And you deal with it because you're not the most important person in the world. My fear of spiders doesn't mean all spiders should be killed. A teens discomfort at physical affection doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Peoples hard-on for whales doesn't make them exempt from hunting. I guess I desire more freedom in life than you do. Who benefits from your tolerating suffering? You certainly don't... Or maybe I respect others freedom more than you do. Yet here you are trying to tell me that I shouldn't feel free to fight against my own discomfort XD What freedoms of others have I encroached upon? You're here telling me I should only care about what makes me comfortable
I didn't tell you that.
and that I should fight anything I dislike
Why wouldn't you? You don't like being uncomfortable, right?
regardless of what anyone else wants
These are your words not mine. I'm not telling anyone what to do; it's all open for debate. I'm not telling people they can't eat meat or kill animals; I'm just telling them what I believe to be the facts and what my experiences are.
If you can't figure out how to fight against your discomfort without encroaching on the freedoms of others then that speaks to your lack of creativity, not my selfishness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/471160_245425128884404_299480293_o.jpg)
