General Chat / Global Warming

*coughkevinisanassholecough*

then i should effectivly back up this,
hmm..... do i realy have to?

No, my morals are killing something that is not as good as a human is not a tragedy, travety or wrong.
Ahhh, we agree.
Well if he was your brother wouldn't you try and help him?

It isn't up to you to decide that you are better than a living creature. It isn't up to me. No animal is better than a human. No human is better than an animal. We are all animals. Only difference is we have the ability to fuck with the other animals and cause them to suffer which in my opinion is no worse than a human suffering. Ultimately if I had to make a choice between the suffering of an animal or a person, I wouldn't want to make the choice but most of the time it would be the animal, depending on the human. To suffer under law you should have done something wrong, so it is not fair to the animals that they can suffer anytime. But that's my view and I know you disagree with it.

I'm just wondering, what if there was another species that was technically better than us, just because we are not as good them then they should kill us, right? Your first resort seems to be violence.

As for my brother. How can you help someone who doesn't believe there is a problem? I've done all I've can and so has my family, but he is just not listening.

if I had to make a choice between the suffering of an animal or a person

id chose the person
people suck, animals are hundres of times better than humans, they sit w/ you, love you, and dont question you, so if i had a choice right now, id love to live in the mountains as far from everybody as i can, just with animals, away from all this hatred & evilness in the world. and when the bombs fall, i wont have to worry about the millions dead, because i wont know

Edited by marsh, 09 November 2008 - 06:51 PM.

You know, there are some good efects of global warming,
cheap beach-front property,
Lower heating costs, and
Less auto accidents due to less ice on the road.

Edited by marsh, 09 November 2008 - 10:17 PM.

No, I think humans/people/organisms with capacity to think/derive morals/act based on judgment/have a soul are infintitely more important than all others.

This and your bear comments are distressing. What role do morals play in human existence? I believe we create them to give order to a world without order, and to given meaning to action, in a world without meaning. The only thing that makes a praying mantis immoral for eating its mate after sex, or a tiger immoral for killing its cubs, is us. We believe that our perception of reality is the only possible way to exist, when in fact there are infinite possibilities. Our minds limit our potential for existence.

What is most distressing is that you consider one species more important than another. All animals make judgements and decisions. Humans lead funny lives because of our unique ability to manifest our own environments. We have removed ourselves from the understanding that we exist on Earth and are ecologically interdependent on everything on this planet. If colony collapse disorder (CCD) wipes out all the world's bees, we have no means of pollinating plants, and we can no longer grow food. Perhaps the connection of bears to our survival is less obvious, but their connection to ecological stability is undeniable. We cannot afford to be as arrogant as we have in the past and assume that we completely understand our connection to the planet how it all interrelates. If we were to get rid of bears because, "I don't think we need bears," we could end up with unimaginable consequences.

To quote David Suzuki, a renowned biologist, "You could study all the properties of an atomic hydrogen, and all the properties of atomic oxygen, but if you then ask a physicist what happens when you take two atoms of hydrogen, put them together with one atom of oxygen to make a molecule of water, what will be the properties of H20? The physicist has to say, 'I'll be damned if I know.' Because physicists understand those parts interact and there are what physicists call 'emergent properties.' ... the whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

That's great, but I think I like you better when you're making horror-themed parks.

My point was not to deliberately seek out and kill every bear anyways, it was that if a number of bears died, it's no good to get overexcited. But I see now if bears dies that affects us - then, we must be vigilant and ensure a minimum of bears lives, for our benefit, not theirs. It's when people start saving animals 100% for the animal's sake that I get sick.

In response to the question of would I save my dog or my brother?

Assuming evolution is correct, and organisms are naturally ingrained with the desire to pass on their genes, organisms will always pass on their own genes. There's been a lot of debate among biologists on the existance of an altruistic gene and if it did exist, how could it ever have survived in a world governed by laws supporting the strong. If you sacrifice yourself for another animal, how exactly are you going to pass on that altruistic gene?

The theory is, that your family carries on your genes for you assuming you die saving them. Your siblings and children, on average, have about 1/2 of your genes, and cousins and grandchildren have 1/4. So by saving them your genes are carried on and your life was successful.

(This is all bullshit to Kevin, though.)



Long story short, it'd be better to save your brother. But my dog is pretty fucking cool.

^ My brother is gay so it would make no difference lol. So I'm sure Kevin would prefer I let him die anyways.

My point was not to deliberately seek out and kill every bear anyways, it was that if a number of bears died, it's no good to get overexcited. But I see now if bears dies that affects us - then, we must be vigilant and ensure a minimum of bears lives, for our benefit, not theirs. It's when people start saving animals 100% for the animal's sake that I get sick.

Hahaha you can't be serious, can you? You are fuckin ridiculous. Wait, Kevin, would you save the unborn life of a bear? Believe it or not, the world exists in spite of humans, not because of them.

^ My brother is gay so it would make no difference lol. So I'm sure Kevin would prefer I let him die anyways.

Hahahha....no. Why would I want to see a gay man die? That would mean he would burn in hell forever, a thing so horrible, I have periodic nightmares about it, and would never wish it on any but the very worst of people. So, no, if anything, I would rather die than your brother, because some other Christian might save him one day.

Hahaha you can't be serious, can you? You are fuckin ridiculous. Wait, Kevin, would you save the unborn life of a bear? Believe it or not, the world exists in spite of humans, not because of them.

I can and I am. I just have a good old fashioned worldview.

Why?

I don't give a FLYING FUCK about the unborn life of a bear, it's not, nor will it ever, be a human being. If your question was serious, that was an answer that was serious. If your question was not serious, well, I just wasted space.

So what?

I can and I am. I just have a good old fashioned worldview.

There's generally a reason why things go out of fashion.

There's generally a reason why things go out of fashion.

Some things ought to go out of fashion, but others ought not.

Wait, Kevin, would you save the unborn life of a bear? Believe it or not, the world exists in spite of humans, not because of them.

A quest for survival is one of the few constants between species. All government sanctioned stewardship of the environment is not for the well being of the animals, its for our long term survival. Morality is a human invention. What is interesting is that Kevin says:

It's when people start saving animals 100% for the animal's sake that I get sick.

But then humans would be exercising their morality, the very thing you, Kevin, said made people more important than any other species.

Very true, but morality is not saving animals for the animals sake. Morality is reseecting rights of human beings to life, libery, the pursuit of happiness, PROPERTY and privavy and so on and so forth. Animals, in and of the themselves, imo, have no rights, just like a brick which is not owned by a person has no rights.

^ But you can admit unlike a brick animals and have feelings and can suffer

Some can. Some can't. Of course, by some definitions, flies and other such insects are not animals.

Even so, that doesn't mean they are as good as a person, who can understand that making someone suffer is wrong ethiclaly.

^ I'm sure some animals can understand that. And Denying the fact that flies and other insects aren't animals is just wrong. They can suffer it's just we can't really pick up that they are and most don't really care cos they are so small. I personally don't mind snakes being killed as they deserve it

Some can. Some can't. Of course, by some definitions, flies and other such insects are not animals.

This is by far the dumbest thing I've ever seen you say, and you've said some shit schizophrenic retarded people wouldn't be able to come up with.

Edited by Midnight Aurora, 11 November 2008 - 03:42 PM.

In fact, to try and even comprehend what the fuck you're talking about, I found a bunch of definitions to make your job easier.

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/animal
Just find me one that says an insect isn't an animal.

Edited by Midnight Aurora, 11 November 2008 - 03:45 PM.

All I meant was insects don't look like animals.

And I fucking hate spiders, but I wouldn't want to see them tortured, I'd have nightmares about them looking at me in revenge, I'd rather they all just disappear off the face of the earth.