No, it's morally wrong to breed your animals (un/intentionally), bringing more unwanted animals into a world that is already overflowing with them.
(Bear in mind that I find this also to be greatly true for human animals as well as non-human animals.)
The race card--or the gender card--is utter bullshit. It's not an excuse for anything, and playing it is just pathetic and not taking responsibility for yourself.
In most cases.
Hmmm, good point about the subcultures. But I still believe that in general and in some specifics, it's entirely possible that diversified culture will be eliminated. I mean, it's a subculture, not a culture. Perhaps the definition of culture will change?
This is interesting, how we're both using the same evidence to draw different conclusions. Like you said, the globalization of cities and the gentle outspread of the same media to the entire world is destroying culture by 'diversifying' the exact same way everywhere, and, thus, not diversifying at all.
I mean, Americans are very similar to Europeans, Canadians, whatever, who all have access to the same media. But check out tribes in South America, Africa, etc. They have little or no access to media, and they are vastly different from common culture. Once these tribes are given access to global media, it's inevitable that they begin to trend towards an American/European/Canadian/whatever lifestyle.
With the spread of all sorts of media worldwide, I'm sure that soon enough the majority of people will partake in a culture that is essentially the same. The same movies, the same music, the same clothing, the same traditions and customs (or lack thereof), and, most importantly, a way of thinking that is essentially the same.
Well, that's cute.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
(Although it doesn't stop you....)
Nobody "wins" a war. Although maybe I'm just a fucking hippie.
I would be extremely upset if I could never again hear the impassioned voice of a storyteller.
I'd be extremely upset if I could never crack a binding again, or sniff the glue holding the bindings together, or turn a page and get a papercut, or carry around a huge hardback... I love books.
The environment is forever; the condition of Earth affects the entire world and will affect the future as well as the present. The economy is a situation that is very much rooted in the right now and is affecting a (relatively) small amount of countries, although the countries that are being affected are the largest contributors to the world economy. Regardless, we need to take care of our home before we can worry about money.
Obviously, an idealistic worldwide nuclear disarmament is nearly impossible. But, maybe, one day....
But although your second argument is correct, I absolutely hate it. It signifies no respect for human life, whether it's civilian or military. It makes my skin crawl.
Obviously, one nation abolishing nuclear weapons is useless, but if there was a UN-mandated disarmament, perhaps we could be looking at something positive. I mean, does anyone disagree that nuclear weapons do more harm than good?
Exactly. Workers need their work too badly. The demand for work is too high. The companies who pay better can't provide for all workers. Inevitably, someone will end up working for next-to-nothing, because s/he doesn't have any other choice.
I believe that minimum wage should be raised, healthcare should be taken care of, and taxes should be raised to take care of all these things. Consumers can pay higher taxes if they don't need to pay for necessities such as healthcare.
My boyfriend just broke up with me, and I'm 100% aware that this, too, shall pass, no amount of money could make me happy right now.
It's a fact that all animals suffer. It's a fact that this suffering can be reduced, and it's a fact that I'm doing all I can to reduce it. That's all I know.
I wasn't implying anything. I certainly wasn't calling you insane/delusional/unrealistic/
Perhaps now I do feel "holier than thou," though, since I've managed to not attack you. I feel pretty damn good about my debate and my conduct. You've just been rude.
But, really, this is just enough now. Do both of us need to have the last word?
Which I've been saying. I'm glad you agree. I've had enough.
Again, I simply choose to not cause suffering and death in my life. Of course life is painful; to make it more so for yourself or others is sadomasochistic and cruel, in my opinion. This opinion does not make me delusional or living in my own reality. I don't believe I ever said anything about your opinions making you delusional. I try not to use personal attacks/judgments in what should be an impersonal argument.
I find it very self-righteous of you to believe that you are absolutely right here, with no room for other opinions or other thought processes. I'm quite done with this.
We're really just running circles. I clearly don't think meat should be a main dish, a side dish, an ingredient, a... drink? (Ew.) Or any animal by-products. I've thoroughly stated my opinions on animal ab/use, as have you. Neither of us seem to be swaying, and it seems that both of us want the last word.
So... good debating with you? Or shall we continue?
That's still declaring that their lives exist solely for your benefit.
Let me modify my statement then:
When other options are available, I don't believe in using animals.
One of the primary suggested causes of CCD: malnutrition. Another huge cause: commercial beekeeping. Commercial beekeepers rent their hives to farmers to pollinate their plants, causing unrest to the hives. Also, commercial hives are constantly shifted arrive, causing stress.
It is absolutely impossible to feed the world on a truly free-range diet. I've already mentioned this.
What I meant is that we don't exist solely for the benefit of others.
Modern technology has made it unnecessary to use animals. In our past, there weren't other options; now there are. We don't need carrier pigeons; we have telephones. We don't need wool; we have synthetics. In most places. Where there are no options, there are no options. But considering that you are using you a computer and have access to the internet, I'd say you have options.
Your argument about how humans are "used" is unsound and, quite frankly, angsty. We are lucky enough to choose our jobs and how we are "used"; I've been working since I was twelve, although I do have rather a lack of experience and I'm always looking for more knowledge, experience, and information. I don't profess to be a better person or to know everything; I accept that I'm ignorant in some areas, as we all.
Nature always provides more than it has to; that's how species are a success. But do you think that before commercial fish farming/netting was invented, fish laid less eggs? Before factory farms caged chickens, they laid less eggs?
I'm finding your argument rather judgmental and offensive. Maybe you should rethink the personal attacks and concentrate on the debate.
