Whatever. Cats are property. End of argument.
rofl. idiot. we've already ascertained that a whole category of 'offences against property' exists. so it doesn't make any sense to say "cats are property, end of", as if that establishes legal inviolability. your thinking is lousy and contradictory. just like your "i have great compassion for all animals, but i think it's fine if a man wants to beat his dog into a pulp, and i should mind my own business". you may like to check the legal statute appertaining to 'offences against property', and a dictionary definition of 'compassion'. you really are scraping the intellectual barrel, here.
I am not going to give you attention if you start saying nasty things to me. If you want to play stupid little games go waste your time with Dilbert and Roc.
fucking facepalm. i just gave you a solid argument and then you reply with "whatever". now when i challenge you again you basically say "stop bullying me". don't forward an argument in a debate if you don't have the fibre to back ti up. idiot.
So if you're fine with someone torturing their "property", what would you say if someone just goes out and starts hacking off limbs of wild animals? I'll accept that a lot of people are hypocritical towards animals because they'll gladly stomp a spider because they're "scary" but could never hurt a "cute animal" that's bigger, even they are both living, breathing organisms, but it doesn't sound like "compassion" at all if you can chill out in the same room where someone else could be wrist deep in the guts of a living animal and maliciously causing it pain.
Yawn, and develped countries have laws in place to discourage perverts torturing them for kicks.Macbeth wrote:
Whatever. Cats are property. End of argument.
Bad luck.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
One shouldnt condone the killing of organism unless they have a good reason, or they are going to use the organism for something productive. Human beings are exempt of course.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
Sport hunting is wrong
why
Depends, if its for food I have no problem with it, its no worse and in someways better than farming.Macbeth wrote:
Sport hunting is wrong
If its for kicks, which much of it is, then its another form of animal cruelty.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Macbeth, fine with cruelty to animals so long as ownership is on a piece of paper, but against hunting?
yeah. if you need food for sustenance and nutrition, you are an evil and contemptible human being.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Macbeth, fine with cruelty to animals so long as ownership is on a piece of paper, but against hunting?
if you're a rich dude who can afford to buy thoroughbred horses, big cats, or suchlijke, you are welcome to torture them and turn them into glue.
macbeth really hasn't thought his position on this through. he's basically just trolling. you can tell from his posts above.
...and having seen many a Macbeth posts in my time.
I'm sorry I said you and Uzique were retarded. I clearly hadn't argued with Macbeth yet.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
...and having seen many a Macbeth posts in my time.
I think killing animals for no reason is wrong. As I stated before. But I think people have a right to do it. Sport hunting is wrong because they are killing an animal for fun but I think they have a right to do it. The same way throwing a dog out of a window is wrong but they still have a right to do it. I don't take part in a lot of things that I think are wrong but I won't stop a person from doing it.
You guys just can't seem to comprehend that I don't like hurting animals but don't begrudge someone else for it.
Also sport hunting is one step away from kitten stomping in my eyes.
You guys just can't seem to comprehend that I don't like hurting animals but don't begrudge someone else for it.
Also sport hunting is one step away from kitten stomping in my eyes.
Whatever hick. Catch a tornado.Extra Medium wrote:
I'm sorry I said you and Uzique were retarded. I clearly hadn't argued with Macbeth yet.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
...and having seen many a Macbeth posts in my time.
I actually do comprehend that. It just doesn't make any sense to me.Macbeth wrote:
You guys just can't seem to comprehend that I don't like hurting animals but don't begrudge someone else for it.
Now if you said that you don't like smoking but don't begrudge someone else for it, that would make perfect sense.
isn't that a contradiction in terms though? a bit of an antinomy? you can't be 'against' animal cruelty or harm, but then shrug your shoulders when someone else does it. that's like saying "i'm not a fan of racism but i'm fine with the KKK lynching people". takes 'turning the other cheek' to a rather absurd degree, doesn't it?Macbeth wrote:
You guys just can't seem to comprehend that I don't like hurting animals but don't begrudge someone else for it.
I still think it's funny that people insist on saying that there is a real thing called animal rights. Like there is a doggy bill of rights or a kitty Geneva convention. As if animals are important enough to have their own rights. What a vague thing. Where do you draw the line? Do butterflies have the same rights as a cow? A fish the same as a bear? Plankton the same as a rhino? It's perfectly acceptable to poison an anthill and kill off an entire colony of ants but if a guy kicks his dog that's not ok? That means that we attach varying degrees of importance to all animals based on what the individual in charge thinks of it.
Animal rights is stupid. To reiterate my point, I would point you to the case of the reintroduction of the white wolf to the wilderness of south eastern Montana. A species eradicated there in the 1800's for being a menace to the local sheep, cattle and horse herds and not missed by anyone. Then some California and Idaho greenpeace losers decide that they should reintroduce the wolf because it's endangered in Alaska and because it's majestic and because Native Americans worship it and other assorted bullshit. Now the wolves are killing livestock, prowling into peoples property potentially endangering lives and worse off than that, every year some wolves are killed to keep the population in check. Good fucking job animal rights people.
Animal rights is stupid. To reiterate my point, I would point you to the case of the reintroduction of the white wolf to the wilderness of south eastern Montana. A species eradicated there in the 1800's for being a menace to the local sheep, cattle and horse herds and not missed by anyone. Then some California and Idaho greenpeace losers decide that they should reintroduce the wolf because it's endangered in Alaska and because it's majestic and because Native Americans worship it and other assorted bullshit. Now the wolves are killing livestock, prowling into peoples property potentially endangering lives and worse off than that, every year some wolves are killed to keep the population in check. Good fucking job animal rights people.
i even said there is no such thing as animal rights. it was one of my first posts. there are no such thing as 'human rights', either. they don't exist. they are legal fictions that only come into play when a claimant believes that are being infringed upon/contravened. no 'innate rights' exist. it's a matter of what sort of respect/dignity we wish to accord our fellow beings.
So essentially what is and is not acceptable comes down to what a majority believes is tolerable/intolerable?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
it's a matter of what sort of respect/dignity we wish to accord our fellow beings.
That's pretty much the definition of Democracy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
If there are no animal rights then there are no human 'rights' to anything either, such as killing animals for fun, are there?Macbeth wrote:
I think killing animals for no reason is wrong. As I stated before. But I think people have a right to do it. Sport hunting is wrong because they are killing an animal for fun but I think they have a right to do it. The same way throwing a dog out of a window is wrong but they still have a right to do it. I don't take part in a lot of things that I think are wrong but I won't stop a person from doing it.
You guys just can't seem to comprehend that I don't like hurting animals but don't begrudge someone else for it.
Also sport hunting is one step away from kitten stomping in my eyes.
God didn't give us 'rights', we have various conventions which seem like rights but can be withdrawn or changed at any time.
But yeah 'sport' hunting is just another form of animal cruelty for kicks.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dilbert_X wrote:
But yeah 'sport' hunting is just another form of animal cruelty for kicks.
I shot this coon off the top of a deer feeder at 40 yards with a .40 Sig P226 in the dark using only headlights for visual. I did this for no particular reason other than coons are destructive. After the photo was taken, I threw the coons body into a ditch and left.
So you're right, it is just for kicks. It does however control the population.