Originally posted by BlackDove:nod:
Boobies. :yes:
Originally posted by Mongoose
Did I miss something? Does every thread in here have to automatically denigrate into Bush-bashing? Is that some unwritten rule of this forum? This thread has absolutely nothing to do with oil, the Middle East, the UN, or Iraq.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Hence, ladies and germs, why Dave B left. I can't blame him. All this Bush-bashing is pathetic. No, really. Pathetic.
Originally posted by StratComm
Especially since "hate the french" is something that England had a monopoly on for a very, very long time. I think that statement is intended as a cultural reference in that light, not some half-assed attempt to stand by the "Freedom Fries" incident. Especially how this "evil" (using household pets as bait) is being compared to "evil" as in cartoon-bad-guy evil. Aside from one comment, which could really have been interpreted in any number of ways, there's nothing even relating to the French people in general or their government specifically.
And while I never thought I'd have to use RTFA on an admin here, really. The whole story is about someone IN FRANCE campaigning IN FRANCE about an animal rights cause ON A FRENCH ISLAND IN THE INDIAN OCEAN. What in god's name does this have to do with US politics?
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Faulty analogy. The deer actually have a chance. The puppies? Not so...
IDontLikeYouInThatWay.com posts accurately reported facts, as well as rumor, conjecture and gossip. We make a concerted effort to present facts as accurately as possible and to present any commentary as clearly distinguishable from any factual reporting. Although, keep in mind, I also just make up a bunch of this crap. Except for that one about your mom likin' it rough. Man, that chick's a freak. Any real stories will be linked and the source attributed.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Hence, ladies and germs, why Dave B left. I can't blame him. All this Bush-bashing is pathetic. No, really. Pathetic.
Originally posted by StratComm
Have you read the rest of his articles Maeg? Because from everything I can tell that site is just full of pompous crap. Is there a greater meaning behind it? Maybe, but when viewed in context of the rest of the posts from that month that article is basically more of the same. And none of the others mention France. The article isn't political, it's a shock-jock-wannabe with a website. There really isn't any reason to read any pointed politics into it.
EDIT: plus, Jetmech at least tried posting a link from a french website that pertained to the story. Which pretty much rules out the possiblity that the whole thing was fabricated for some french-bashing.
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]The link does not appear to work, what was the content of the second URL?
You should take any of Brigitte Bardot's claims with a rather significant pinch of salt in any case: Link (msnbc.msn.com/id/5181642/)
[/color]
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]
The relatively recent wave of French hating has come about for only one reason: The american media has reinforced France's no support stance in the american people's minds.
[/color]
Originally posted by mikhael
I thought DaveB left because most of the populace are pretentious, egocentric, uptight dickheads who honestly believe their opinion constitutes fact?
Originally posted by aldo_14
Ok, then make it hunting moose - you could just about kill a moose with a rolled up newspaper, it's a cow as drawn by a 3 year old.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Nope. I believe the quote was "rampant anti-americanism".
1. I am NOT advocating hating of the French.
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
Thats a joke right? A crash between a moose and a car is considered likely fatal for both the moose AND the motorist:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/moose.asp
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
1. I am NOT advocating hating of the French.
Jesus ****ing christ, will you all just shut the hell up? Why the **** is the "comments section" on Bush getting more attention than the actual ****ing article? I post a bunch a goddamn people using LIVE KITTENS AND PUPPIES AS SHARK BAIT and it's automatically "America is t3h 3v1L.
Originally posted by Bobboau
[edit]I started writeing this before Ford posted[/edit]
the fact that you are a human and I am one, the fact that we have this huge geneticly built in need to form a society with our own kind, and not to love every potential meal in the world.
what made humanity so specal that it's the only specese that can't exploit other animals?
do you ever scold loins for tearing the throught out of a zebra, or a bear for impailing a seal on it's claw, or an eagle for pulling a fish from a lake, or what about a shark tearing a hole in the side of a human? I sure as hell have no problem with these preditors useing there skills to get food, much like I have no problem with our own speciese useing it's skills (cultivation, and domestication not unique in the animal kingdom, but there some of the things were especaly good at)
there are other animals that are knowen to use bait, what do you sudgest we do about them?
they are not human, and I don't give a damn about there brain, the reason why it is important is because I am human, and I realy don't have much sympathy for a competeing speciese.
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
BTW, are you really Bobbaou? Your spelling is notably worse than usual...
Originally posted by aldo_14
So does colliding with a tree. It doesn't make the tree a challenging hunt, does it?
Originally posted by Bobboau
I hate people who place there own kind as lower than an animal, people who think that they are some how smarter than every other human who has exsisted because they have decided to extend what a person is to include non-humans. you are right on my list of people I hate, just below evagelicals.
do wolves care about any other animal besides themselves?
do dolphins care about any other animal besides themselves?
do lions care about any other animal besides themselves?
do ants care about any other animal besides themselves?
do any other socal animal I've forgoten care about any other animal besides themselves baring one or two isolated incedents were humans forced them to accept some foren animal?
these people are exploiting animals to get food. that's it. I doubt the animal realy cares that it's being used as bait rather than being eaten directly, and nither do I, the fact that they are cute is the only reason you are upset. I don't kare if it's painful, I don't care if it's unnessisaraly unpleasent, I don't care if it's torture. (though torchureing animals is usualy a sign of mental problems and it should be discuraged as to keep the mass murderer rate down, but on the face of it i don't care)
I have never used 'self aware', or if this was the only means of getting food or 'tradition' as part of any of my arguments, I have simply stated that we are animals like all other animals, and we are eating like all other animals and we don't give a fcuk about the animals we are exploiting, just like every other animal that exsists doesn't give a fcuk about the animals that it exploits. becaus if they did they would go extinct.
you keep asking me why I think humans are better than all other animals, I have repetadly said I don't, it is you who are placeing humans on a pedistal by saying we should extend our culture to animals who are not biologicly capable of being a part of it, _justify that_
and you aparently haven't had much contact with me, my 'specal' spelling is one of my trademarks.
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
Bull****. Show me where I said that Humans are universally worse than animals. The best you'll find is me saying "cats and dogs are better than humans in some respects." Or the fact that I called humans wasteful and degenerate
that's prety much what I was refering to.
MY POSITION is that Humans aren't divine beings, with every right to torture and harrass and needlessly kill anything not human.
but every other animal is given this right? have you fcuking seen a lion eat _anything_ it's prety fcuking brutal, and the only reason most preditors don't slauther in masses is because it's too much work, when you have catle in a coral for instance and a pack of wolves finds it, they will kill every fcuking one of them
Do other animals care about other animals? Hmm, most probably don't. But then again, like I said, neither do they use each other for live bait out of tradition, or torture and maim other animals, and most don't kill needlessly.
ok, I know this is prety poor, but I'm SURE, I've heard of other animals useing other animals as bait, are you so willing to put your entier line of argument on the line that I won't be able to find a single instance in the animal kingdom of an animal useing another animal as bait, I am almost positive that there is a spider or something.
As for tradition, killer whales teach there young to beach them selves to catch seals, killing them in the most horrable way posable before devouring them, usualy they try to go for the cute little baby seals too, I supose this would depend on your definition of tradition though. and is the whole bait thing realy such a inherently horable thing? why do you keep focusing on this? they are killing an animal in order to eat. I don't know maybe your winning some emotional points on the other people reading this, but you seemed obsesed over this.
Could I live with these people killing animals for food purposes with as little pain and suffering as possible? Yes. A persons gotta eat.
Could I live with people baiting them while alive and killing them slowly, ESPECIALLY infants? **** NO.
why does it matter? as you said, 'gotta eat' why are you pissed that they're getting far more food out of the deal
You don't know **** about me or my beliefs. I only care if because they're cute? Sorry, but thats just coincidence. If you had a something butt ugly being treated in the same manner, I'd still be outraged, ESPECIALLY when it's an intelligent creature.
should I get out the picture of the monkeys with the tops of there heads capped off?
Originally posted by Bobboau
and the only reason Humans seem 'waistfull' is because were spreading out across the world and all the animals are either in a symbiosis with us (dogs, cows, rats, roaches) or are getting out competed by us, if you take just about any animal and look at it with a wrathfull eye it'll look waistfull, look at horses, or eliphants, look at how much plants they eat, and look at there crap, they barely absorb any nutrients from the vast amount of plant matter they consume, this is how all sorts of scavangers are able to survive off of nothing but eliphant siht there entier lives.
Lions typically go for the jugular, which is essentially a quick kill. Don't matter what you do to it dead, it's not aware when it's already been killed. This goes in line with my "don't torture" stance.
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
Why do you reply like that? It makes it difficult to respond.
so I can respond point by point to your multi-point post
Where does it say that Humans are universally worse than animals then?
duknow, you were the one bringing up us degenerate waistfull humans
Lions typically go for the jugular, which is essentially a quick kill.
um... no, they go for the throught, were they cruch the wind pipe suficateing there victum ensureing a very slow and painful death in the jaws of a preditor
Don't matter what you do to it dead, it's not aware when it's already been killed. This goes in line with my "don't torture" stance.
Since when? Typically, IIRC you'd find 1 or 2 dead, not all. Show me please.
the wolves in a coral thing, remember seeing a bunch of dead cows in a national geographic and five minnutes with goolge netted me nothing, it's an unnatural setting, the cows can't get away from them, so they keep killing because they can
I SAID MOST. The Animal Kingdom is too diverse for there not to be a FEW types of animals that behave this way, but typically, MOST don't.
And please, find me a creature that behaves that way, torturing and baiting animals over extended periods of time. I'm already covered, but I can't think of 1 single animal that does this. For future reference, I'd like to know.
Bait isn't the main problem. It's LIVE bait, especially intelligent, self-aware bait. And the needless pain.
alright so you admit that there might be an animal that uses another animal as bait for a thrid animal, this wouldn't suprise you, and I swear it's right on the tip of my mind! (someone help me here) but the overall point is the bait thing is just you trying to score points, like I said, it's one animal useing another animal to catch a third animal, if it looks bad is irrelevent, because all preditory behavior looks bad
They aren't getting "far more food out of the deal,"
1/8th pound dog vs 2 ton shark
and even if they are, thats not what pisses me off. Here, Emphasis on my points: Torture. Alive. Pain. Infants. Self-Aware.
yes, it is emotionaly upsetting, do bring it up once more.
It wouldn't matter. I say what I mean, and I mean what a say. Looks don't count for much when it comes to torture. If you had a person horribly burned and crippled, or born deformed, would you not feel as bad about torturing them as you would a healthy person? I would. Worse, maybe.
and this is in relation to... what? I've made the simplest easiest destinction posable, human, one value to be measured here, and you keep bringing up the 'undesireables' and asking me if I'd have a problem with that. yes, I would, human, there, easy
Adult cats tend to be mean nasty creatures when it comes to some things, but again, didn't say no animal was this way.
it certanly seemed like you were implying that humans were to be singled out for there evil nastyness, if a cat gets near a puppy, much like the ones in this story, and the mother is not around, the cat would kill that cute little puppy, either by snapping it's neck or sufocateing it, I supose it wouldn't use it as bait for a fish 32000 times it's mass, but that's only because it's not smart enouth to try, I'm sure it wouldn't have any problems with doing that
Bah, forget it. Just go on not caring.
and you can just continue liveing in your world were lions mearcats and warthogs sit around in the jungle holding hands and singing coombia
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
No, but neither does it make a tree easy to kill/destroy/chop down.
With a chainsaw it's piss easy. Or a knife if you're patient (strip a ring of bark off; kills the artery effect drawing water up the tree).QuoteOriginally posted by Jetmech Jr.
And moose can be aggressive. Attacking cars, people, and the like.
Only when hungry, tired or threatened by proximity of cars, people or the like; moose only chase a short distance in defense. Either way, it's scarcely a fair fight between them and an Armalite; a moose (or deer, or pretty much any of the hunted herbivores) has about the same chance of escaping from a bullet as a puppy has once on a hook.
Albeit it's worth noting that the moose (and this illustrates how stupid it is) response to car noise is to run onto the road.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Nope. I believe the quote was "rampant anti-americanism".
Originally posted by mikhael
I must, however, point out that anti-bush tirades does NOT constitute anti-americanism.