Your points aren't valid. So if you're quitting, fine, but own up to your failure.
You're mistaken about the domestication of dogs. Please refer to my earlier post for a better explination. Dogs are genetically different from wolves. Please check your facts.
I love when you put words in my mouth. It's really not annoying or petty at all. Sarcasm.
I didn't say that the only options are that a dogs would be a pet or it should die. I'm advocating the prevention of animal overpopulation. As I would adovcate that humans use birth control. Not that we should sterilize the poor. But that we and have the mental capacity to understand and take action, and animals do not.
You seem to be advocating we let dogs breed until their numbers are so great that we have packs running in the streets and feeding off livestock. If this is incorrect, I apologize, but I believe that is what you have essentially said.
How is that working out for your country? Is that how you'd like every dog to live? Disease infested? Hungry?
You are really good at putting words in my mouth. That makes you a good liar, not a good debater.
I did not say the options are that an animal be a pet or they die. I only wish to keep the population down so that all animals have homes and vet care. It's the most humane option for everyone, including humans.
What do you suggest?
Oi... If you're not going to accept truth based on facts, then tell me now because I don't want to waste my time.
Dogs, unlike cats, evolved because of humans. Wolves, who were geneticaly less tempermental, trustee humans more and were fed by humans. Those particular animals survived and were anthropologically fitter. Which means that they bred more. So over time, through domestication, those wolves evolved into dogs. Some can survive in the wild, like huskys chows and such. Most can't, like my 12 lb. Poodle.
Secondly, that "hypothetical future" is the present. Animal shelters are overun with animals. So either we spay the animals now to prevent surpopulation, or we kill them in shelters. Your choice.
By suggesting that I want to spay the homeless human population, you admt your own ignorance. I advocate the spaying of all dogs, not just the strays. And by trying to make me seem somehow insensitive to homeless people, you only make yourself look stupid. Thanks.
It's birth control for dogs. It's humane, not immoral.
Okay.... So my dog doesn't love me. Fine.
I'll go put him outside and leave him there. And when he scratches at my door to get back in I'll ignore it.
Because what you're adovocating is that stray dogs have an equal or better qualty of life than those with homes.
Only stray dogs have far shorter lifespans, suffer more painful deaths, go hungry in metropolitan areas, endure lifelong pain from untreated injuries, always have fleas and ticks feeding off of them....
... But hey, they have a healthy sexual appetite. Right?
Edit: I also forgot to mention that you're wrong. Dogs are domesticated. While cats would survive outside without humans just fine, dogs would not.
Humans do not fix animals selfishly.
Animals are spayed because the pet population is so great that all of the animals cannot be cared for.
I don't know if you understand what actually happens when an animal is fixed, but the dog keeps his penis or her vagina. They can still have sex. They aren't mutilated, or harmed.
They certainly aren't concious of their balls to begin with, nor do they care that they are gone.
My dog had balls one day, then the next he had a big plastic cone. All he cared about was the cone and the fact that he had a home with a loving owner.
A lot of animals would have to go without homes and vet care and love of a human if it weren't for spaying and neutering.
It's what's morally right.
It depends on how broadly "culture" is defined. There is the culture of humanity, which is divided into sub cultures, with more sub cultures within them and so on. Until you reach the individual, which could in itself be a seperate culture.
If we all played the same part in the same play, we would all play it differently.
So it will take the pearl habour of climate change for you to care about it?
Ps. Don't you dare bad mouth recycling. Recycling is not just about climate change. It's about conservation of limited resources. Same as hybrid cars, and plenty of other things you probably don't care about.
Global warming, global cooling.... It's all climate change. You're more hung up on lables than facts.
I happen to believe that every precaution should be taken. Not just because I believe in it, but because this is something so serious that I'd rather bet on it being true, than be sorry that I didn't.
Hitler didn't seem like a problem worth dealing with until it was too late.
We don't get so lucky as to have our apocalyptic weapons of God come out and tell us they're coming. This isn't a movie. We aren't going to discover the asteroid in just enough time to destroy it. We aren't going to stop the atomic bomb with 1 second left on the clock.
We have to prepare for climate change because we have a lot of evidence in it's favor, and the consequences of not preparing for it are apocalyptic.
There are also other bonuses to preveting climate change, both environmental and economic.
Well, with evolution, extinction is the norm, not the exception. And there are often periods of mass extinction.
Those facts apply in business as well.
And yes, people are being screwed. But if we don't fix the environment, well have a real mass extintion on our hands.
What, you looked at the wikipedia page?
Understanding the concepts of two of the many problems facing our environment does not qualify you to assess the state of the environment today or forcast it's future.
And that said, I'm sorry to say that you probabbly know more than the average person. But probably less than the average fourth grader....
I'm going to have to defend the bar crowd.
Drunk political debates are a favorite passtime of mine.
Yes, there are some guys and gals who don't know shit. But the only reason you think popitcs, or other issues of importance, can't be discussed in concurrance with drinking is because those people talk so loud.
The deaths of weak corporations paves new road for stronger businesses. When the economy recovers, stronger businesses emerge to replace those that fail.
Another good thing to mention is that Crocs is failing.
Had Bush invested in the environment, those people could already be employed in green jobs. But because we cannot expand as fast as if we had already begun this process, they are out of work.
We can improve the economy by reducing global warming, but we cannot reduce global warming by improving the economy.
Thats why I suggested we fix the economy by fixing the environment.
I conceeded that both are important for many reasons. But I happen to believe that yes, the environment fixes itself, but it may get a lot worse before it gets better. So while the environment will eventually survive us, will we survive it?
I don't want to take that chance. The environment is more important to me.
Everything political aside, these are both big problems that effect everyone.
But in the end the economy is a crapshoot, and will always be up and down. But the environment is precious and limited. So while we should focus on fixing the economy by investing in fixing the environment.... I feel the environment is much more important.
It's okay. I hadn't even noticed.
Well, money can't always make your family love you, but it makes it easier. You can take family trips, go to therapy, and the stresses that lack of money bring evaporate.
And money can't directly make someone love you, but you can afford to look good and to wine and dine them so that they give you the chances you need.
No one wants to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't love them, so I doubt they would pay for that.
u must be high because that idea is half baked.
Do you know what they pay overseas workers? Nothing. But relative to the economies of the country those people live in, it's tollerable.
If we paid the workers here the same wages, even accounting for taxes and shipping, they would still be suffering. Minimum wage keeps the workers above the poverty line.
So if we worked for third world wages, we'd allow ourselves to become a third world country.
Money buys security, it buys experiences, it buys fun, it buys indulgence without consequence, it buys time.
You can meet the love of you life, a lovely woman with a homely face... then overhaul her.
It's simple. Money can't buy love, but it can make it.
Then again, you can be happy without money. Ie. I wouldn't be happy in a mansion.... I'd be happy in a small cottage style house. I also wonder if maybe the homeless might be very happy, and often I find myself wanting that freedom from stuff and things.
That is all you know. And yet you threw around a whole bunch of accusations at me.
I resented that. I'm sorry for calling you names, but I felt attacked by nonsense. It infuriates me to have to waste my time knowing I'm not going to change my mind, and you're not going to change your mind. So why the fuck don't we both shut up?
You can't blame a child for their mother's actions.
I conceded that someone is innocent until proven guilty. That's why he was found innocent, because they could not prove him guilty in the courts. That doesn't make it true.
Our opinion differs, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. And now we may never know.
But don't think I'm blind. I didn't read the tabloids or watch the trial. I didn't think he was amazing or a genius or an icon either. I judged him as a man and found him to be a psycho. That doesn't make me blind.
Obviously.
But you've insulted me quite a lot. I've been having to defend my opinion with facts, while you with opinions and I resent your intollerance. You insulted my opinion based on a bullshit websites and no actual knowledge of situations at organic free range farms. When I grew up on one and worked for years to stop factory farming. So bascally all you have is your opinion which you used to label me as a user and as a whole bunch of nasty things.
That is certainly not what you've been saying.
When I said, "If your opinion differs, that's fine. But I love and respect animals."
You said, "That's just a difference of opinions.
I am an abolitionist. I am against the use of animals, both human and non-human. I campaign for equal rights and compassion for all sentient creatures. That's how I'm different."
Thinking you're all holier than thou. Shove it.
How is everything you just said not speculation?
He had books of photographs of nude young boys. Art or not. You seemed to miss that scrap of information.
They have an entire taped tour of his mansion. You can see the secret rooms full of ridiculous stuff. I know he did it. More than a few times.
I'm not celebrating his death. But if I were molested by someone, I'd be glad they were dead. So I'm happy for his victims.
Do I not write English????
I already explained that the jury has to abide by the laws of the court. They could only go off of certain evidence. Had i been on the jury I might of had to find him innocent based of the presented evidence. But as a person seeing all of the evidence out there, and the things he's said, I'm able to arrive at my own opinion.
Plus, I said his music doesn't forgive his molestation. Not that his music wasn't good or that he wasn't an icon. But I will never hear his music again without being reminded that he was sick, and didn't get help.
He could have gotten therapy, as all child molesters should. But he didn't. He didn't think it was a problem.
I think that you're having been molested so much makes it difficult. This is just a theory, I'm not a psychologist and I don't mean to impose on you, but you may be identifying that it's "normal" or "okay." But it isn't. Anyone who molests a child should be put to justice and through therapy or in a support group.
...It's nothing personal if the person didn't do anything to you specifically....
I'm sorry, but I fight for the rights of children to grow up without being molested. If you think it's okay to let a molester get away with it because it wasn't done to "you specifically" then there would be a whole bunch of serial molesters still out there.
I don't like Nancy Grace as a person... but what she does is important. And what prosecutors do in the name of children's rights is important.
I don't forgive molestation, and I don't believe anyone should. I'm sorry that you as a molested person don't feel the same way.
I couldn't find specific statistics either, but I don't believe yours at the moment. Please let me know if you find something solid, I'm very interested.
This study shows that 4.8% of males were molested, and 7.7% of females. That's 1 in 20 males, and 1 in 11 or 12 females. This study is probably skewed, because it would be mostly upper or middle class kids in a college population.
It's not being anal. It's being correct. You put in quotes and italics. You acted as if I had used the word certainty. Where did you get that word? If not the film about the topic of child molestation in the same light, that used that word quite famously.
With the information I have at my disposal, yes, I am certain.
You did put words in my mouth. You just put the word certainty in my mouth, and I never used the word "certainty". That slip makes me think you're only doubting me because you might have watched the movie Doubt, and now you might think this is the same situation. If that's the case, it isn't the same situation and you need to check yourself.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/
You just don't have all that stuff, and the accusations, without something nasty going on. No sane person does that! It's wrong and sick. That's how I know he did it. If you'd like to come up with anything that says that crap was planted, or something else, I might be able to change my mind. But he was a whack job child molester as my opinion stands today. Nothing I have seen has said otherwise.
Again, I don't want anyone to be a pedophile. Of corse I wish he was innocent. His creep factor is a big deal. It's the creepy things he said and did with children in broad daylight, along with accusations brought on by the now older children that are what I call creepy.
And again, you continue to tell me what I believe, which is false. I have asked before, and I will ask again for you to not do that. My opinion is not based on a disbelief in the court system. Yes, the courts make mistakes. I believe that juries have far less evidence than is actually available. They are bound to make decisions only on evidence brought to them in the trial. If I had been a jury member I might of had to find him innocent based on that evidence alone. But I wasn't. I can base my opinion on the things I know to be true. That includes things not presented in court. Like what he said about how beautiful it is to tale children to bed with you, the secret doors to rooms that seemed to be set up to molest boys, the testemony of the families and boys who were traumatized by him. I believe them. I feel for them. And now I'm glad for them that he is dead.
Courts have to abide by certain rules. Innocent until prooven guilty. That keeps us protected from false imprisonment. But it also keeps a lot of criminals free too. I think that was the case with Michael Jackson.
If you reply to this, do not misinterpret my words for your own benefit. I won't take it anymore. And also, when you accused me of it, I had simple states that charity does not forgive pedophilia, not that you had said that.
Do you always trust a courts findings? Are
Juryies and judges always right? In my opinion, they make mistakes.
It's intuition. I have a right to an opinion that differs from from yours. We all have access to them same information on a lot of issues. There is enough evidence out there for me to know that he did it.
"Speculation" is just a negative word that you are using to make it seem like none of the evidence is of value because the court found him innocent. Well the "Speculation" I go off is the nasty stuff that he has said, and the creepy things he does. You can convict others with less than we had on him.
And no, you could convince me he didn't do it. If you had proof. But no one has proof either way. Most of the evidence was testemony. I can make my own opionion based off of that, and more than that. And based off everything I know, I know he did it.
No matter how much good you do, you can always do more. Any money towards a castle could have gone towards helping indigent children or others.
And PS, Charity doesn't forgive child molestation, nothing does.
For you, the fact that he had enough money to get away with it, is enough proof.
That's not what I said at all. I'm saying that in his particular situation, his money and fame worked in his favor.
My opinions are based on what he has said, and what vibes he gave off. He fit the profile of a serial molester. He was creepy, and had the opportunities.
I know he did it.
So basically, whatever the facts, you WANT him to be guilty regardless.
I don't want anyone to be a child molester. I just want those who are held accountable for it.
What is your's based on?
My opinion is based on his actions, and on the weird creepy things he has said about sleeping with children. You call it rumor, I call it victims speaking out for their rights not not be violated as children.
A recurring theme in your last argument was that you rephrased all of my arguments. Nothing you said I said or thought, was true. Please refrain from this practice in the future.
That's pretty selfish. You could do a lot of good with that money, too. And yes, he had enough money to get away with molesting children quite a few times. He had enough money to lure them there, to abuse them and their families. To cover it up. And to get away with it.
He molested children.
You have your opinion, and I have mine. There really isn't anything I can do to change yours, because obviously his music was so great it forgives pedophilia.
But, all in all, yesterday was a good day for his victims, and society.
I got 3 minutes into that before I tuned out. I'm actually pretty proud.
If a man has enough time to dress up, and make a you tube video about how angry he is that we accommodate the values that the country was founded on, then he should have enough time to do something constructive, instead. Like, iunno.
Volunteer to teach an ESL class to immigrants.
Being supportive and welcoming is always better than being a whiny bitch. Let them pay taxes, let them educate their children, let them thrive.
Maybe then we'll have enough workers to support social security and medicaid.
Duuuuhhhhhuuuhhhh!
That's why I specified local beekeepers, known as hobbyists. Commercial beekeeping is essentially factory farming. I have done nothing but denounce factory farming.
Who do you think the biggest opponents of commercial beekeping are? It's the hobbyists.
Also, I didn't say we should eat meat all the time and as much as we do. I've already stated it should be a side dish. If we reduced the intake of meat, we could support the entire world on a omnivore diet.
I don't advocate 5lb stakes with a side of stake. Just like a salad with two tablespoons of tuna made with hummus. Or a stir friend veggie plate and a half a breast of chicken. We eat too much meat for our own good right now, yes. But that doesn't mean we have to.
But those eggs that are unfertilized then go to waste.
Bees produce honey to feed off of during the winter. But they make much much more than they will ever need. They are also having a rough time right now, with everything that contributes to CCD. Because of hobbyist beekeepers honey bee populations are stabilizing on the west coast. And they are also placed in places that pollinate their environment so that plants can thrive too.
And while cows don't mind being milked, they might mind being mechanically raped to become impregnated so they'll begin to produce milk, then having their babies taken from them to go their separate ways (if they're female, they'll have the same fate as their mother; if they're male, they're turned into veal), then being hooked up to machines that cut their udders and fill the milk with blood and pus. And, actually, the US allows more pus in milk than any other nation, I believe.
That's factory farming, again. And organic, free range farming isn't bullshit. Cows don't have to be raped to get pregnant. They can also be milked by hand, and that's the kind of milking I was talking about.
And even in organic farms, yeah, we eat the males. It's for the good of the heard.
Animals, human and non-human, do not exist to serve others.
That sounds pretty selfish. We serve the animals. We care for calves abandoned by their mothers. We treat their wounds and illnesses. We find food for them in drought or flood. It sounds like you underestimate the value of teamwork.
Think of it as mutual earthling support.
Net fishing on the bottom can cause those kinds of problems. So eat Tuna. It's caught with mid level nets which don't do much damage. They're also not terribly endangered. Of course if everyone ate just tuna, they would be. But that's what diversity and choice is about.
Commercial fish farming is nothing like schools of fish. Nothing.
How so? Have you ever been to a commercial fish farm? Because that's almostexactly how it is. Sure, farmed fish don't swim as far as ocean or river fish, but I doubt they are uncomfortable. Yes, fish feel pain. But they're also stupid (in the scientific sense).
Think of the Africans who still live in small villages, and have never heard of cars or air conditioning. They're plenty happy. But you put some bitch from Malibu out there, and she's miserable. Fish are the bush people, we're the bitch from Malibu. (I'm not saying that the Africans are stupid, just "uneducated" by modern terms).
Can't you accept that my opinion is not wrong? That it's my opinion? Why does that make me delusional, or misled?
Right back at ya. You can have your opinion, and there is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. If we were all vegetarians the environment would be better off. But there are also environmentally responsible ways to eat small portions of meat. And as omnivores we can decide for ourselves to eat meat or not.
The delusional part is that you believed that website about the free range farming. Which is a pile of bullshit, in my educated opinion. And also the part about "equality and peace and happiness." Death is part of life, and so is eating.
Most fish aren't caught on hooks, but in nets. And a quick smack to the brain does the trick. And regarding fish farming, they are just as overcrowded as they would be in a school of fish. It's how they swim... I doubt the fish mind.
You may accept being delusional, but just be careful about who you believe.... You'll figure it out someday.
I believe it's meaningful, sure. Just not equal.
As I said before, it really is the circle of life. Everyone dies somehow. We all become food for something. Whether that be microscopic or larger it doesn't matter to me.
In fact, eat me. I don't mind as long as I'm dead when it happens.
Yeah, that is pointless. Because in my last post I already told you:
I wouldn't kill someone to eat them.
For multiple reasons:
1) It's illegal.
2) I would be difficult and messy. Humans fight back, animals are easier to kill humanely.
3) There are plenty of people who die in car crashes and whatnot else to go around. I wouldn't need to kill someone to get my hand on a bit of meat.
I'm sorry for being rude, but it's frustrating when uneducated people try to assume they know everything.
No, it's not typical. But, as I said before, if people ate less meat and took an interest in where their meat comes from it could become typical. Which I do. I only buy meat when I know where it comes from. In fact I usually only eat fish from the local market where I can see the boat it was brought in on and know the fishermen.
But if all animals were raised and killed humanely, I bet you would still have a problem with it. Because you don't agree that Humans and animals aren't equal. That's fine. But that's delusional.
To be called a "bullshitting, angry little girl" is not why I'm here. That's enough.
I'm not trying to hurt your feelings or scare you or whatever, and I'm sorry that a went to that level. I'm just trying to shock some sense into you. It's not a perfect world and humans and animals aren't equal. If you want to spend your time trying to change something so widely accepted, fine. But you wont win. People like meat, they crave it.
But that website is the bullshit. The creators probably have good intentions, but they know the have to exaggerate to make a point, and that's what they've done. It's bullshit.
Because it's illegal. I've actually always wanted to try human. I wouldn't kill someone to eat them. But if someone died, why not?
After death, it's just a body. Just a lifeless pile of flesh. I assume that nutritionally, human meat would be fantastic like wild deer. I'd love to try a really well toned person's thigh. Maybe with an '07 Chardonnay.
I guess that's why I nibble on the gym rat boys I sleep with.
That is bullshit. I fought against factory farming for my entire middle school and high school career, when I was your age. I visited factory farms, and free range farms both. I grew up raising goats and chickens of my own, and named them all.
There is a difference between Free Range and Factory Farmed animals. And you're just a bullshitting, angry little girl if you let a fear-mongering website like that sway you.
Animals are not equal to humans. That is a foolish statement. Sure, animals love and care for each other. Animals feel pain and heartbreak. But animals are not humans.
That's my opinion. I'm sorry you're not on the same page as me. Better start reading.
You're not being rude, just silly. That list was a waste of your time. Humans are omnivores.
Humans: no sharp front teeth, with rear molars for grinding?
http://www.uic.edu/classes/orla/orla312/
We weren't created to do anything. We have simply, as of now, evolved to a point where we can eat both meat and plants. If you choose to not eat meat then that is fine.
I grew up on a farm where I cared for and loved every type of animal. And, at times, we ate them. Death is an aspect of life.
If your opinion differs, that's fine. But I love and respect animals. I'm not every religious, but whenever I pass road kill I say a little prayer that if the animal had any specific beliefs about their afterlife that it be realized. I think of animals as companions, friends and food. I'm sorry that you aren't on the same wavelength as me. But as long as an animal is treated well, killed humanely and respected then I don't have an issue eating their meat.
The goal of an immirant is to become a citizen. I was speaking of once they become citizens.
The only thing I disagree with is the idea that citizens should get preferencial treatment when applying for a job. I think the best candidet for the position should be hired.
We're predators, sweety.
Have you ever seen the Lion King? Because it really is the circle of life, and it moves us all. Would you rather feed a lion tofu? Would you like sharks to go around chanting, "fish are friends, not food!"? Or would you like to embrace the real world that we all know, love, and evolved into?
Because Disney mimics life, life doesn't mimic Disney.
Legality I agree with. But why do they have to learn English? Why can we kick them out if they do something illegal? Why do they have to be skilled at something?
Either we treat immigrants as equals and grant them full citizenship, or we treat them as second class citizens. That doesn't sound right to me. Once someone immigrates they should be able to live just like any other citizen. Freedom of speech would dictate they can speak whatever language they please. They can break the law if they wish, and be punished for it, too. And I doubt every American is skilled at something... we need people to fill labor jobs, and they would have the opportunity to pursue school here.
That may be how you see it, but I don't see children as an inconvenience.
I'd rather have prospective parents wanting the children. But, again, it is not an easy decision. There is a lot to think about, and no woman simply shrugs it off as an "inconvenience."
You don't have to be married to be a selfless person... I get hit on by a lot of married guys... they seem to be pretty selfish. Marriage is pretty frivolous these days...
A life is priceless. If we had universal health care, this wouldn't be an issue. I would forfeit half my income on an annual basis to ensure better health care (amoung other things). So I suppose the answer is 20,000 a year. But it wouldn't be one life saved, it would be millions.
I believe you're thinking of Japan, not China. On top of that, your misconceptions about global warming are not relevent to this debate. The plants have been breathing for millions of years, they don't need humans to help them.
The world cannot support humanities' numbers as they are now, let alone more. I mentioned global warming or other events. So a lack of food, or other resources is what I meant. This is not a debate about that. Please respect that.
Oh dear. You're mistaken. We should take land from national parks? Are you trying to be funny? Or are you seriously serious? If you are, that is scary.
We need to control the population. We cannot grow exponentially as a species without incurring consequences of global warming or other events. If we don't control the population we will all suffer together. So this debate is about how, not if.
Pssshh.
Meat is murder, but hey, it's natural. We eat meat, we also eat plants. We shouldn't eat as much meat as we do, and we should treat our live stock better. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't eat meat. It's part of of our natiral diet.
It's not the next step, it was the last step.
We are not a manogamous species, but the social contraints of society make women terretorial over men. Men are programmed to wonder and procreate. It's their nature.
I think monogamy is a choice that someone has to make for themselves, and no one should be forced into that role until they want it. Otherwise you're holding humans, who are essentially animals when sexually arroused, to unatainable standards.
they use everything. You may stay intact if you go to like a medical student, but you could also be cut up and sent to specialists.
I read this book called stiff and found that my favorite use for my cadaver would be decomposition research. They lay you out in a field and let you rot.
I am a healthy, young, non smoker. Yes, I am a registered donor, and I am proud of it.
But my donor registration states that I don't want my body used for plastic surgery instruction. If I ever finally get fake boobs, I want to be able to enjoy them.
It's bad for your posture, and your wrists and phalanges. It's bad for your eyesight, which can't be avoided by exercise. It's bad for your social life and probably takes away from your responsibilities.
If you are on the computer for more than 3 hours a day for recreational use, you need a new hobby.
They don't have to be religious stances, but they are. It wouldn't even be a question if it weren't for religion.
And it's fine that you believe that. But who does your belief effect? Everyone.
You, as a religious person, have a choice. I as a non-religious person have a choice. That's how it should be. I'm not religious. So why do I have to conform to your religious point of view?
Democratic ideals understand that it's a diverse world out there. Not everyone is religious, and we shouldn't have to be.
