Fuck you, you evil son of a bitch.
Credit cards and payroll advance places exist for a reason. How fucking dare you wait until it’s convenient for you to make a donation while people are starving and dying right now.
Obviously, you care more about your own immediate financial situation than the lives of other human beings. Asshole.
Last time I checked, it was humans that fouled the air, sullied the land, poisoned the waters and generally fucked up the planet.
Also, I can’t think of one animal who’s been as cruel and judgemental to me as humans have.
I’d rather help the animals, TYVM.
Yo, Unregistered Bull. If everyone is so fucking stupid, then might I suggest one of the following is happening:
I don’t need to change his opinion. He’s entitled to it. I think it is a bit of a hobby-horse issue for him, but that does not invalidate his point in its own right. Rather than simply presume that he stomps on bunny rabbits while twirling his Snedly Whiplash mustache, I think he may have a valid (and underrepresented here) perspective on the issue.
With the exception of posting the opinion in the wrong place and probably attack the issue too dogmatically and too often in general on these forums (I agree that he did kind of piss all over someone’s thread that wasn’t intended to debate that issue), I think his responses have been far more measured and reasoned than most of the responses against him.
Braindead Bullhockey keeps ranting about people wasting “resources”. OK, maybe I missed it. WHAT “resources” are people wasting by helping out a stranded puppy or kitten? It’s not like someone hijacked a food truck and took the food and water and fed it to a couple of dogs and cats.
Unregistered Bull is nothing more than a CLUELESS FOOL.
Yeah, like this measured and reasoned gem:
Comedy gold.
Unregistered Bullshitter, you contemptible, limp-dicked pustule, the irony of your single-minded crusade against anyone who shows kindness to animals is that I don’t believe for a second that you really have all that love and compassion in your heart for your “fellow man” in the first place. Your inexcusable behavior in pinkfreuds thread is already proof of that. All you care about is your fucking soapbox.
But I’m glad you’re not being rude. You wretched little shitstain.
The fact is, other people’s resources that they choose to give are THEIRS to give AS THEY PLEASE. It doesn’t matter if YOU think it would be better to give a hundred bucks here or there, any more than it matters what you think other people should watch on TV. If you are concerned about the people in NO or anywhere else, go help them. If somebody else wants to help the puppies and kitties, that is categorically none of your goddamned business. It’s THEIR time and THEIR money.
What’s really stupid about it is, if someone does nothing at all for any living thing, they are spared your judgment, but if someone decides to make personal sacrifice to stop suffering that he or she finds unbearable to contemplate, now they have to suffer the criticism of judgmental asshats. As many people have suggested, ALL resources COULD be sent to New Orleans right now. I could take vacation time and drive down and maybe give three people a ride back to Minneapolis, if my car wasn’t jacked or rolled over by the mob, and let them live in my home. For that matter, I could sponsor three homeless people right here in Minneapolis. I could give some kid in Africa $1.25 instead of having my morning coffee. There’s no reason resources spent on stopping the suffering of animals is especially suspect or wasteful or subject to criticism. Unless we live like monks, we could do more.
How many babies are fed by the time, money, and energy you are spending to get online and criticise some guy for saving a few cockatoos?
They have? When he accused the rest of us of being racist? That was reasoned and measured? How about his constant strawman that a bus full of animals (using what resources - the tablespoon more of gas that it’s gonna need to pull the extra weight?) means the driver cares more about animals than people - even when the driver is bringing relief to those in need while Unregistered Bull sits on a message board and masturbates? That strawman - to you, it’s a measured and reasoned response? How much reasoning goes into his statements that we’re all evil, and that animals are “irrelevant” and “silly”?
Unregistered Bull, cash don’t mean a thing next to the effort being put forth by pinkfreud’s husband, since the problem is one of logistics at this point. He’s taking a real risk to his own safety to help those in need, while you’re not doing a damn thing. And you dare to condemn him? You are the purest sort of hypocrite for condemning what someone else is doing to help when you’re doing nothing at all.
After seeing three different threads that he’s pissed all over in complete violation of board rules, I’m not sure why it is that Unregistered Bull hasn’t been suspended. You can surely get away with holding unpopular views around here, but he’s doing it by throwing puerile tantrums in a thread about someone risking their life to help people and animals in New Orleans. This adds nothing to the debate. What’s more, none of those three threads contained even an official warning, as far as I can tell. I’m generally loathe to shout about moderator caprice, but after some of the warnings that I’ve seen (and hell, received), the graffiti he has smeared all over multiple threads about this subject deserve an actual response.
This is a really good response to my question of where you draw the line. It is an honest response that does not somehow pretend that resources are not finite or that a choice is not made.
It is not a strawman. It is a statement that by choosing to use your time and energy to do activity X, you are not doing activity Y which would help humans more than animals. You might reasonably disagree with his point, but that does not make his point a strawman.
His statements are more measured and reasoned than that one, for example.
I give to multiple charities. By UB’s logic, because I give $100 to charity x and $1000 to charity y, I must value charity x more than charity y, because otherwise why wouldn’t I give all my charitable donations to charity y? I don’t (currently) give to animal-related charities, but that’s my own personal preference; it’s a valid cause and I wouldn’t presume to discourage others from doing so.
UB seems to suffer from a very rare form of colour-blindness; he can only see in black and white.
And that we make that choice every day, not only in times of calamity. New Orleans had a very high number of homeless people already, and they didn’t need a hurricane to need our help.
The strawman is his constant statement that anyone who disagrees with his reasoned, cogent analysis of the situation, “cares more about people than animals.”
I realize it was a long sentence, but try to make it all the way to the end before you flap your gums.
Which ones? The one where he called us evil? Or the one where he called pinkfreud’s husband a racist?
I’m just curious as to why he doesn’t take the argument to its logical extreme and say that we should pick the single most important activity in the universe and do that to the exclusion of everything less important - it makes every bit as much sense as does the argument that liking animals a bit means you completely hate humans.
That’s a good question. I generally give more of my time and resources to things that I value more, or that I believe need more help. Don’t you?
Yep, here we go. Someone does not parrot your line exactly, so it’s time to start up the, “You’re a moron, you are too stupid to read,” line of argumentation. Good call.
No, the ones where he stated his position that resources dedicated to saving animals are not dedicated to saving humans. Which were met with, “You fucking tool, you hate animals, I bet you slit the throats of horses for fun,” type responses.
Much like anything even questioning what you say is met with a, “Oh my god, you’re so dumb, maybe if I type it slower you’ll be able to read it,” response.
Good question. That’s why I asked him where he personally would draw the line, because as cricetus also referenced, the logic applied (resources to X are not going to help Y) also applies outside of times of natural disasters; there are always humans in need. It’s a fair question; I think cricetus’s response is about as honest and reasonable an answer as you can get. That response also let’s others say that you have made the wrong choice (it is their right to say that, while it is your right to say, “Yes, but it is my choice to make.”).
As I read this, I’m reminded of the Timecube guy.
Unmitigated Bullshit has so far let me know that I am vile, too fucking stupid to realize the truth, devoid of compassion toward my fellow man, disgusting, and evil.
Obviously, UB and anyone who shares his views can be trusted to donate toward human needs, so all further donations by me will be to animal rescue groups. I can’t imagine that human beings would want to accept money from someone as despicable as I.
Apparently he does. But in Unregistered Bull’s insightful, thought-provoking analysis, the tiny effort pinkfreud’s husband is making to rescue animals matters more than the enormous gift he’s giving to the refugees in New Orleans. Based on what you’re saying here, it sure sounds like you didn’t read what Canadjun wrote.
In fact, your giving strategy is very like Canadjun’s example. If Canadjun gives a small gift to his local public TV station, and a large gift to the WHO’s effort to eradicate schistosomiasis, it stands to reason to think he cares more about schistosomiasis than about public TV. But Unregistered Bull’s rational, coherent argument is that supporting public TV with a small gift means you’re not doing enough about schistosomiasis. A tiny effort to help animals and a large effort to help humans was interpreted by Unregistered Bull, with all his usual perspicacity and incisiveness, as signifying that one cares more about animals than about humans, even if the giver spent more time and resources on humans than animals.
So apparently, Unregistered Bull’s gift-giving modus operandi - which is apparently to give only to one cause, the one that is most important, and to condemn others for supporting anything else - differs from your own. If you’d read more carefully, you might have noticed that before you defended it.