Rich Ass Sick person
-
Jace Tsunami
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2002 5:56 am
- Location: Los Angeles, Ca
- Contact:
I have only read up until this post, I feel tho who ever has yelled at Hatter for this, he deserves to be yelled at again.The_Mad_Hatter wrote:Hypocrites. Loath the suffering and destruction of one animal but condone the same to another. Have you eaten YOUR McDonalds cheese burger today?
Mercilessly slaughter up cows left and right but tigers, OH NO, can't have that! Cause tigers are "cute" and cows aren't.
The only REAL argument I can see here is the fact that if they're endangered we kill them off completely, however with the ever growing advances in genetic engineering, it's only matter of time before that becomes a moot point.
Cows are LIVE STOCK, Tigers are a ENDANGERED SPECIES.
Animals die, so the fuck what? Almsot no one cares. You know, people die too.
The diffrence here tho that makes Tigers dying a big deal is numbers.
There are hundreds of thousands of cows on this earth, they will NEVER be extinct at human hands. We raise them, just so we can use their meet.
Tigers are endangered, the more we kill, the less of a chance there is of them even existing.
How can you be so dumb to not see the diffrence here? Really?
Tigers = $40,000
Cows = Probably less $ than the food they consume
Tigers = Hundreds
Cows = Countless
-
gadoo
- Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 4:04 am
- Location: LA
- Contact:
-
The_Mad_Hatter
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 7:05 am
- Location: The Interstice Between Reality And Oblivion
- Contact:
Hey look everyone, it's my number one fan boi on a-m-v.org!
What do I look like, your personal philosopher? You wanna mercilessly slaughter animals and come up with pretty labels to use as failing justifactions for it, hey, be my guest, not my problem.
(actually what's interesting is that many countries do in fact eat cats)
Hey, that's fine, really it is. You must not have been paying very close attention cause I believe I said that was the only real logical reason for not doing it. My post was actually in reference to the "we can't slaughter them because they're cute" people. BUT, in your hasty path of stupidity, you were more interested in "getting back" at me for verbally smackin you around in countless other threads, so you just jumped in without even thinkin...and now are you really surprised to be on your face again?
...now get up...so I can smack you again! `, )
Translation - It's the ONLY post in this thread he's bothered to look at. Fucking obsesso.Jace Tsunami wrote: I have only read up until this post,
Is it time for your insane troll logic yet? Gosh I hope so. ^_^I feel tho who ever has yelled at Hatter for this, he deserves to be yelled at again.
I'm so glad we have you to act as God and tell us which animals are okay to breed and mercilessly slaughter by the millions. You and Hitler...boy I'm telling ya, the paraleles are just...WOW!Cows are LIVE STOCK, Tigers are a ENDANGERED SPECIES.
*shrugs*Animals die, so the fuck what? Almsot no one cares. You know, people die too.
What do I look like, your personal philosopher? You wanna mercilessly slaughter animals and come up with pretty labels to use as failing justifactions for it, hey, be my guest, not my problem.
Well Africa is kinda over crowded...maybe we should start killing all those people off? Oh wait, human animals we can't kill, but other animals we can. Ahhh, there's that wonderful hypocristy again! ^_^The diffrence here tho that makes Tigers dying a big deal is numbers.
WOW! THAT many? ROTFL...There are hundreds of thousands of cows on this earth,
So as long as we raise animals for slaughter then it's okay to slaughter them. Hey can I start raising cats to slaughter? I mean, we have so many of them, strays and what not, and the shelters just kill them anyway. I say we put all these cats to use and help feed the starving children of the world! Here kitty, kitty, kitty... ^_^they will NEVER be extinct at human hands. We raise them, just so we can use their meet.
(actually what's interesting is that many countries do in fact eat cats)
So if tigers weren't endagered you wouldn't mind having them slaughtered to feed yer pudgy little appetite?Tigers are endangered, the more we kill, the less of a chance there is of them even existing.
Hey, that's fine, really it is. You must not have been paying very close attention cause I believe I said that was the only real logical reason for not doing it. My post was actually in reference to the "we can't slaughter them because they're cute" people. BUT, in your hasty path of stupidity, you were more interested in "getting back" at me for verbally smackin you around in countless other threads, so you just jumped in without even thinkin...and now are you really surprised to be on your face again?
...now get up...so I can smack you again! `, )
I will obey the <a href=http://www.animemusicvideos.org/phpBB/v ... =289>forum rules</a> for avatar image size.
-
Jace Tsunami
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2002 5:56 am
- Location: Los Angeles, Ca
- Contact:
you had several posts, you said nothing of the sort in your first one, and actually, I read every post up until yours.
Your an idiot, I can't believe you compared me to God, Hitler, and a mas murderer or african americans.
Your post is totaly bogus and stupid.
(there you go, on a line all by itself so you can quote me nice and easy like you do everything anyone types. )
And no, I wouldn't care if we killed and ate Tigers, not a bit. But then there's the matter of, will there be more Tigers tomarrow? That answer in our world is no.
You know, on the whole "God" thing, determining what we can and can't kill, animals kill other animals for food all the time, it's not like the human race is evil.
Atleast we ration the meet we use. You don't eat much more than chicken, beef, turkey, and ham. Everything else is quite espensive and tends to be special order, like buffalo and other shit.
The only thing we kill just about anyhting of, and eat countless thing of is sea food. But like ti fucking matters dude, fish have their whole own little food chain, and they're going to die anyways. It's not like we're eating whales or dolphins, i don't remember anyone crying the last time some one ate a shrimp.
Your an idiot, I can't believe you compared me to God, Hitler, and a mas murderer or african americans.
Your post is totaly bogus and stupid.
(there you go, on a line all by itself so you can quote me nice and easy like you do everything anyone types.
)And no, I wouldn't care if we killed and ate Tigers, not a bit. But then there's the matter of, will there be more Tigers tomarrow? That answer in our world is no.
You know, on the whole "God" thing, determining what we can and can't kill, animals kill other animals for food all the time, it's not like the human race is evil.
Atleast we ration the meet we use. You don't eat much more than chicken, beef, turkey, and ham. Everything else is quite espensive and tends to be special order, like buffalo and other shit.
The only thing we kill just about anyhting of, and eat countless thing of is sea food. But like ti fucking matters dude, fish have their whole own little food chain, and they're going to die anyways. It's not like we're eating whales or dolphins, i don't remember anyone crying the last time some one ate a shrimp.
-
gadoo
- Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 4:04 am
- Location: LA
- Contact:
I feel bad for the cows....for like a milisecond! then I chow down! yummy yummy!The_Mad_Hatter wrote:I'm so glad we have you to act as God and tell us which animals are okay to breed and mercilessly slaughter by the millions. You and Hitler...boy I'm telling ya, the paraleles are just...WOW!
noThe_Mad_Hatter wrote:So as long as we raise animals for slaughter then it's okay to slaughter them. Hey can I start raising cats to slaughter? I mean, we have so many of them, strays and what not, and the shelters just kill them anyway. I say we put all these cats to use and help feed the starving children of the world! Here kitty, kitty, kitty... ^_^
how about rats or something.-
EarthCurrent
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:27 pm
Tigers can be viewed as an Umbrella species, which through protection of them and their habitat is beneficial to other species in the same environment. Additionally, charismatic species like tigers are seen as "desirable" and funding and approval for their protection is usually more easy to come by than it might be for lesser known species (like the Kendal's Dace, for example).
Oregon and Washington's Spotted Owl was selected as the flagship of the environmental movement in the Pacific Northwest not because it was the most threatened of the species in that region (though indeed it's population needs help), but because it was a charismatic bird that people woould want to protect, and through protecting the owl's habitat, other species were also helped out. So, while protecting a specific species of megafauna may seem selective and biased toward other animals it actually has broad impact.
Certainly, too, we should not overlook the importance of maintaining carnivor populations in the wild. One need only look to the devestation to White Tail deer herds in New Mexico following the extinction of the Mexican and Gray wolves in the American Southwest as proof that maintaining predator/prey ratios is important to keeping an ecosystem populations in balance.
Now as to cows and other livestock. Livestock, per se is not the issue, but rather how humans raise and utilize livestock. In all cases, livestock compete with wild herbevoirs for resources. If they are grazed, then they compete with ungulates and other herbiferous megafauna, for plant resources. If they are fed on a lot, the feed source from agricultural areas means that thre is a need for cultivated which alters land production values. Anywho, the main feed for cattle in lots is corn. Unfortunately for cows, their stomach is not designed to digest corn very well and the high corn diets result in ulcers in the cattle. To counteract this, the cattle are pumped full of antibiotics to keep them from getting stomach infections and dieing before they are brought to slaughter.
Range fed cows impact the environment simply because they are an arteficial presence in the landscape as they are introduced into an area by humans. Most high breed species of cattle are inneficient users of water, as a result, they like to congregate near water sources which impacts stream beds, alters sediment loads, introduces abnormally high amounts of fecal material into the water source, etc. Their habit of congragating near water also means that nearby vegetative cover is usually highly impacted (usually more so than it might by native herbiviors acept perhaps under stressed environmental conditions). As a result, water sources become intrenched forcing a decline in the depth of the water table. Some plants tap directly into the watertable for water during dry seasons, and with the drop in waterlevels, they have a difficult time surviving, weaken and are usually replaced by other strains of plant which may or may not be typical of what might have once been considered "untrammeled" wilderness.
In those areas, however, where native herds of animals have been erradicated or reduced, there has been some argument that cattle, when properly managed can be used as a sarogate stimulous. Savory is the most notable advocate for this approach though some environmentalist think that he is perhaps too pro-cattle. This also lends itself to other theories, such as the idea for the re-creation of the "Buffalo Commons" of the American midwest.
Oregon and Washington's Spotted Owl was selected as the flagship of the environmental movement in the Pacific Northwest not because it was the most threatened of the species in that region (though indeed it's population needs help), but because it was a charismatic bird that people woould want to protect, and through protecting the owl's habitat, other species were also helped out. So, while protecting a specific species of megafauna may seem selective and biased toward other animals it actually has broad impact.
Certainly, too, we should not overlook the importance of maintaining carnivor populations in the wild. One need only look to the devestation to White Tail deer herds in New Mexico following the extinction of the Mexican and Gray wolves in the American Southwest as proof that maintaining predator/prey ratios is important to keeping an ecosystem populations in balance.
Now as to cows and other livestock. Livestock, per se is not the issue, but rather how humans raise and utilize livestock. In all cases, livestock compete with wild herbevoirs for resources. If they are grazed, then they compete with ungulates and other herbiferous megafauna, for plant resources. If they are fed on a lot, the feed source from agricultural areas means that thre is a need for cultivated which alters land production values. Anywho, the main feed for cattle in lots is corn. Unfortunately for cows, their stomach is not designed to digest corn very well and the high corn diets result in ulcers in the cattle. To counteract this, the cattle are pumped full of antibiotics to keep them from getting stomach infections and dieing before they are brought to slaughter.
Range fed cows impact the environment simply because they are an arteficial presence in the landscape as they are introduced into an area by humans. Most high breed species of cattle are inneficient users of water, as a result, they like to congregate near water sources which impacts stream beds, alters sediment loads, introduces abnormally high amounts of fecal material into the water source, etc. Their habit of congragating near water also means that nearby vegetative cover is usually highly impacted (usually more so than it might by native herbiviors acept perhaps under stressed environmental conditions). As a result, water sources become intrenched forcing a decline in the depth of the water table. Some plants tap directly into the watertable for water during dry seasons, and with the drop in waterlevels, they have a difficult time surviving, weaken and are usually replaced by other strains of plant which may or may not be typical of what might have once been considered "untrammeled" wilderness.
In those areas, however, where native herds of animals have been erradicated or reduced, there has been some argument that cattle, when properly managed can be used as a sarogate stimulous. Savory is the most notable advocate for this approach though some environmentalist think that he is perhaps too pro-cattle. This also lends itself to other theories, such as the idea for the re-creation of the "Buffalo Commons" of the American midwest.
-
Jace Tsunami
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2002 5:56 am
- Location: Los Angeles, Ca
- Contact:
-
The_Mad_Hatter
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 7:05 am
- Location: The Interstice Between Reality And Oblivion
- Contact:
No, no, no, we can't eat rats...cause, ya know, they're ugly. ^_^gadoo wrote:no
I will obey the <a href=http://www.animemusicvideos.org/phpBB/v ... =289>forum rules</a> for avatar image size.