Before I respond, you ignorant skunk-cabbage, do you accept my wager?
Daniel
No thanks on the bet. I also see no reason to insult my mother either.
LOL
I figured you were an early unsuccessful attempt at in vitro fertilization: you know, wank a bull, shove the jizz in a test-tube, bury it under rooster dung on the night of the new moon, and hope something results.
Shame on your not accepting the wager, though; I could use some good whiskey.
No, you insignificant douchebag, of course I’m not saying that; nor did I say that. If your ignorant ninnyisms are the best that the pro-animal-cruelty crowd can put up, no wonder you’re losing so bad, so widely.
Daniel
Also if somewhere in my angered speach, I have insulted your mother, I apologize.
LOL. You’re pretty pathetic. You obviously lost the bet. Animal users are not losing that badly. Louisiana has a constitutional ammendment now protecting hunting, trapping, and fishing. Democrat governor Bill Richardson even supported cock fighting in NM (though we will ultimately lose that one as it’s not very popular with the masses). Celebrities like J-Lo and may rappers love fur and leather. Kerry made it a point to be a hunter when he ran as President.
If I’ve obviously lost it, why not agree to the terms, you skanky bottle of rat-smegma?
Daniel
Gross. When I said that AR people had bizzare fetishes for animals, I didn’t mean it in a sexual sense. Please don’t prove me wrong here.
Take the bet, or admit you’re a cowardly, idiotic liar.
Of course, the fact that you’re cowardly means you won’t take the bet, and the fact that you’re a liar means you won’t admit what you are. But at least we can make that crystalline for everyone else.
Daniel
I’d be happy to adjudicate the bet, but seeing as my first post in this thread was an insult aimed at one of the participants, I’m not sure I’d be accepted as sufficiently impartial.
No need to apologize. I agree completely. And dropping napalm bombs is part of our nature. Where’s the problem?
Well, obviously, there’s not really an analogue for politics in the animals world, that I can think of. But economic reasons? Animals kill each other for “economic” reasons every day. It’s all about competeing for limited resources. Two dogs fighting over a bone is, at its base, an economic struggle. The only real difference is scale: humans operate at a larger scale than any other animal, but we don’t do anything that is radically different than the rest of the animal kingdom.
Does it matter to the fly why it’s in the web? Spiders… No, let’s go with cats. Cats are a better analogy. Cats catch and torture birds and small mammals for food and sport. Human catch and torture other humans for political or military advantage, or more rarely, for sport. Why is one natural and the other un-?
No, actually, there aren’t. There is nothing humans can do that is not a part of nature. We are a part of nature, and everything we do is contained by nature. There are, of course, a few things that humans do that are unique to our species: religion seems to be one (although I sometimes wonder if dogs haven’t picked up the idea from us), representational art is another. Laws and the concept of justice are, I guess, a third, although I’m not entirely certain of even that. A lot of animals have complex social structures, and its possible that they also have the concept of social transgressions, and punishment for those transgressions. If I’m wrong, though, it does nothing at all to support your argument. Humans would be unique in nature in being able to recognize their destructive habits and attempting to reign them in. This would, I think, place us above most other animals.
Ant hives routinely invade and slaughter other hives, murdering every foreign ant they can get their mandibles on. That’s war, by any other name. Genocide, too, for that matter. Honestly, if you’re going to be the advocate for the natural world, shouldn’t you actually learn a little about it, first?
The Earth does not have opinions. [i}Captain Planet* was not a documentary.
Yes, all the time. Extinction is not a human invention.
Also, it’s “tacks,” not “tax.”
I’ve stated no such thing. Nature does not have harmony. It is not a stable system, but one that is in constant flux. The natural “order” is one of calamity and recovery, calamity and recovery. Forest fires are a part of nature. Overpopulation followed by famine is a part of nature. Volcanos are a part of nature. Giant fucking rocks falling out of the sky and annihilating 80% if the species on the planet is part of nature. When our sun finally goes nova and burns every scrap of life off of this sphere, that, too, will be part of nature. Nature is not harmonious: it is brutal and chaotic.
Okay, hang on. Animals do all the same nasty stuff humans do. But because we’re aware that this stuff is nasty, and try to avoid doing it, we’re going destroy ourselves? Huh? You’re not making a whole hell of a lot of sense, here. Try taking a couple deep breaths and try again. I think you’re getting a little over-excited.
There are not aberrations in nature, per se. Nature exsists as it does because of these “aberrations”: it’s how evolution works, after all. The problem with your mindset is that you are fixated on a concept that simply does not exsist: the “unnatural.” There is nothing on Earth or in the stars that is unnatural: it’s all a part of nature. The opposite of natural, you see, is not “unnatural.” It is “supernatural.”
Now you’re flat out contradicting yourself. Option two is to keep increasing our technology until we all die, but option three is to use Star Trek-style super technology to live in some sort of a perfect vegan society? Which is it, man? Make up your mind.
What the hell are you even trying to say, here? Who are the “normal people?” Who has the gall? What’s wrong with NASCAR? If we’re losing all our culture, where are you getting a violin from? I respect that you’ve got a lot of passion for the issue, but a little less passion and a little more coherence would go a long way towards convincing others of your viewpoint.
I know farmers that enjoy hiking and camping. I don’t have any money to spend, but I still enjoy the outdoors. I know you said you were painting with a broad brush, but I think even your broad generalization is wrong. People that truly enjoy the outdoors don’t live in the city. They move to the country.
Unregistered Bull, you’ve piqued my curiosity with your tradition argument. I think you don’t even understand your own reasoning. I think that your mind is telling you something like this “traditions are important, and since protecting animals is not very important at all, it’s very offensive that people want to end these traditional practices.” Failing to realize that you’ve assumed the falsity of the premise you’re trying to disprove, you spout your vitriol about how AR people are immoral and the cause is evil for wanting to end traditional uses of animals. Is that about it?
Or are you really arguing that if something is traditional it cannot be unethical.
If I were you, I’d pick the first choice, it still makes you look stupid because it’s so circular, but it’s less embarrassing than admitting you’re arguing the latter.
Of course there are farmers that enjoy rafting. But if you’re outdoors, doing manual labor in hot sun or freezing rain all day, every day, I bet your idea for fun during vacation is not hiking in hot sun or freezing rain, but comfort, if your budget will allow it.
As for moving to the country - that’s something else. May I suggest reading “Collapse” by Jared Diamond, to see what he has to say about this. I’ll give you a hint - it’s wreaking the nature. Becaue people don’t move to boring and mundane rural places, like Indiana or somewhere outside Lincoln, Nebraska. They move to places where there are seas, ocean or mountains. And they develop communities that aren’t in harmony with nature.
We’re on different levels here, since this is Bull’s pitting. It just grates me when people talk about the harmony of nature, because there really is no such thing (see Miller’s good post a little way up thread).
Miller: Just wanted to congratulate you on a truly excellent post.
I don’t think we disagree. I read “delight in the splendor of nature” as appreciation for outdoor recreation such as hiking and camping. I don’t think you meant it that way – you meant it as sanctimonious reverence for “the natural” which is pretty much an artificial construct anyway.
Yes.
I like nature. But *The Highwayman has some very romantic notions that aren’t supported by facts.
ROTFLMAO 
If the community at large gains nothing else from this thread, at least note how someone reacts when confronted with irrefutable reasons that they are wrong and being an ass. It starts with feeble replies, moves to anger and name-calling, transitions into outright lying, and ends, apparently, in insane laughter. Very interesting.
AR people are bigots because they feel that they are culturally superior to others that don’t adhere to their philosophy. They want to force their culture on others. They lack a tolerance of those that are different. Their desire, and success, at getting the government to implement their bigotry makes them not so nice people.
I am arguing that cultural / traditional / religous animal use is something that the State shouldn’t bother with in a free society. It is simply something that should not be used for official government discrimination. It’s this way because animals are not humans, and their treatment in no way harms humans. They in no way even approach being on same level as humans.
When a traditional / cultural / religous activity harms a non-consensual human being, it’s a different thing. And I’m pretty sure that I’ve stated something similar in GD.
You are really a fucking moron. Lefthand’s the only liar. The replies are only feeble only to someone taking your side. And then, they fall into the same category of being a certifiable lunatic as well as a bigot who wants the government to enforce their bigotry. I have no respect for them. They are my enemy.