NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/709.html




i always hated those goddamn PETA hippocrate bastards :headbang:

Penn and Teller rock.

Penn and Teller rock.
yeah I just started getting that show on my netflix, it is pretty good, I like how they aren't just blindly attacking things but actually back it up with facts.

(and besides watching Penn get really mad is pretty funny too.)

btw the chickens eating KFC? hilarious. :p

Ever see the movie 'Penn and Teller get killed'? Awsome!

PETA was owned by Penn and Teller.

What exactly are hippcrates anyway? I'm picturing large boxes of thighbones.:rolleyes:

yeah the way they prove there facts is what makes it funny to watch also that guy said he was like jesus and martin luther king jr. WTF!



i hate PETA and there hippy protesters with all my heart:mad:

What exactly are hippcrates anyway? I'm picturing large boxes of thighbones.:rolleyes:
they are like hypocrites only much worse and do not even deserve correct spelling when making reference to them;)

they are like hypocrites only much worse and do not even deserve correct spelling when making reference to them;)



exactly wen i spelle i doent west me tim on PETA bastords ;)

PETA was owned by Penn and Teller.

Hell yeah!:cool:

If PETA showed up at my college and started throwing around their crap, I'd go browbeat them until they ran away.

if they showed up at my high school i would first say everything that penn and teller said about them then i would buy a meat product at the caf and eat it in front of them,and ask if they wanted a bite.;)

If PETA showed up at my college and started throwing around their crap, I'd go browbeat them until they ran away.

Why not physical beating?

If PETA showed up at my college and started throwing around their crap, I'd go browbeat them until they ran away.
Hmm . . .
*Imagines Teh_pantless running after a bunch of protestor, weilding a giant eyebrow*
*Shudders*
That was the darkest 3 seconds of my life, including that time all the lights went out.

Why not physical beating?
Why do something illegal when I can just make them look like idiots?

And I would be doing my bit while eating some KFC.

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/709.html




i always hated those goddamn PETA hippocrate bastards :headbang:
You mean hypocrites.

Hippocrates was a Greek philosopher.

If PETA showed up at my college and started throwing around their crap, I'd go browbeat them until they ran away.

They showed up at mine. ;)

if they showed up at my high school i would first say everything that penn and teller said about them then i would buy a meat product at the caf and eat it in front of them,and ask if they wanted a bite.;)What an original idea!
Seriously, get a life. Buying food when you may not be hungry, and buying food that you may not be in the mood for to try to piss off people who you don't even know is just sad.

What an original idea!
Seriously, get a life. Buying food when you may not be hungry, and buying food that you may not be in the mood for to try to piss off people who you don't even know is just sad.



who says i wont be hungry :p

There's always room for steak!

exactly wen i spelle i doent west me tim on PETA bastords ;)


You mean hypocrites.

Hippocrates was a Greek philosopher.


i adressed this page one

buying food that you may not be in the mood for

One can never "not be in the mood for" meat.

Vegetables on the other hand...

What an original idea!
Seriously, get a life. Buying food when you may not be hungry, and buying food that you may not be in the mood for to try to piss off people who you don't even know is just sad.
Saying you want to liberate animals, and then killing them, is just sad.

What an original idea!
Seriously, get a life. Buying food when you may not be hungry, and buying food that you may not be in the mood for to try to piss off people who you don't even know is just sad.



and also i did not know hittler but knew what he stood for i dont know PETA but my bro uses medication from animal testing so does my dad.I dont have to know the fuckers to try and piss em off.What they stand for is sad when said medication helps people all around the world.:rolleyes:

There's always room for steak!Yeah.
On your thighs, and in your arteries. :p

What an original idea!
Seriously, get a life. Buying food when you may not be hungry, and buying food that you may not be in the mood for to try to piss off people who you don't even know is just sad.
Somehow less sad then throwing red paint on people you dont know

At least you are geting something out of it ( a meal)

One can never "not be in the mood for" meat.

Vegetables on the other hand...It's possible, trust me.
I haven't been in the mood for meat for over four years now.

Yeah.
On your thighs, and in your arteries.



what is that i did not here you i just made myself a steak and swiss cheese sandwich with dijon mustard on tosted bread....uhhhh my heart ohhhh god my thighs.

Saying you want to liberate animals, and then killing them, is just sad.I support euthanasia, of all animals, humans included. Most abandoned animals are in pretty rough shape, and I'm all for taking them out of their misery. I don't support everything that PETA does, and I don't know whether they were justifyied in killing those animals.
Killing suffering animals and liberating enslaved animals are not, however, mutually exclusive practices.

Yeah.
On your thighs, and in your arteries. :p
There's this thing called exercise.......

There's this thing called exercise.......
Yeah and that combined with animal proteen does have the advantage of helpin put on muscle :)

I haven't been in the mood for meat for over four years now.
My god, what a bleak existance you must have.

liberating enslaved animals
Animals can't be enslaved, you can't enslave a resource. Animals can no more be enslaved then you can enslave a timbre forest, or a ore mine.

Now if you will excuse me I have to go eat my battery-hen chicken lunch now.

and also i did not know hittler but knew what he stood for i dont know PETA but my bro uses medication from animal testing so does my dad.I dont have to know the fuckers to try and piss em off.What they stand for is sad when said medication helps people all around the world.:rolleyes:If you are not willing to become a test subject to find a cure for your illness, and either save your own life, or die and in so doing further medical research, then you have no right to demand that other living creatures undergo such testing. Especially given the fact that it is healthy animals that are made ill in order to become suitable test subjects, animal testing is unacceptable.

If you are not willing to become a test subject to find a cure for your illness, and either save your own life, or die and in so doing further medical research, then you have no right to demand that other living creatures undergo such testing. Especially given the fact that it is healthy animals that are made ill in order to become suitable test subjects, animal testing is unacceptable.
No its perfectly acceptable ... better a lab mouce or a rabbit then another human

Somehow less sad then throwing red paint on people you dont know

At least you are geting something out of it ( a meal)How is saying that there are other pathetic acts that have been committed in the past a rebuttal to my statement? :confused:

If you are not willing to become a test subject to find a cure for your illness, and either save your own life, or die and in so doing further medical research, then you have no right to demand that other living creatures undergo such testing. Especially given the fact that it is healthy animals that are made ill in order to become suitable test subjects, animal testing is unacceptable.

What disturbing individuals "animal liberationists" are. You would rather medical tests be conducted on humans then stupid animals? You people are sick.

then you have no right to demand that other living creatures undergo such testing
Actually, humans have every right, and that's why they have and always will conduct medical tests on animals. It is the animals that have no rights, they are merely property of humans to be disposed of as we wish.

If you are not willing to become a test subject to find a cure for your illness, and either save your own life, or die and in so doing further medical research, then you have no right to demand that other living creatures undergo such testing. Especially given the fact that it is healthy animals that are made ill in order to become suitable test subjects, animal testing is unacceptable.
And I thought I was a heartless bastard.

There's this thing called exercise.......And there's this thing called irreversable damage...
If you eat enough meat, no amount of exercise can clear all the plaque out of your arteries.

It's sort of like when someone says they are Pro-Life what htey really mean is that they are anti-abortion. When somone says they support animal rights what they mean is that they oppose human rights.

And there's this thingcalled irreversable damage...
If you eat enough meat, no amount of exercise can clear all the plaque out of your arteries.

If you want to have your radical fundamentalist ideolgy that is fine. Just don't invent this preposterous pseudo-science to support it. Eating meat is perfectly natural for humans to do, it is what we have evolved to do.

And there's this thingcalled irreversable damage...
If you eat enough meat, no amount of exercise can clear all the plaque out of your arteries.

If you drink too much water it will cause permenant dammage. Your point was?

Yeah and that combined with animal proteen does have the advantage of helpin put on muscle :)There's no such thing as "animal protein". Protein from an animal source, sure, but vegetables have protein, too. Almost all food aside from fat and sugar has protein. I never said that steak had no benificial nutrients. It just makes you fatter that you would be had you got those nutrients from plant sources.

And there's this thingcalled irreversable damage...
If you eat enough meat, no amount of exercise can clear all the plaque out of your arteries.

Tastes good though.

There's no such thing as "animal protein". Protein from an animal source, sure, but vegetables have protein, too. Almost all food aside from fat and sugar has protein. I never said that steak had no benificial nutrients. It just makes you fatter that you would be had you got those nutrients from plant sources.
Yet I seem to have no problem with fat ... hmmz oh well so far the costs do not outweigh the benifits (my pleasure in eating)

There's no such thing as "animal protein". Protein from an animal source, sure, but vegetables have protein, too.

The difference is that protein from any animal contains all essential amino-acids. The same is not true of plants.

There's no such thing as "animal protein". Protein from an animal source, sure, but vegetables have protein, too. Almost all food aside from fat and sugar has protein. I never said that steak had no benificial nutrients. It just makes you fatter that you would be had you got those nutrients from plant sources.

So your point was:
1. animal nutreints and plant nutreints are the same.
2. animal nutreints make you fatter than plant nutreints.

Ya'know for a veg you sure seem to enjoy the taste of your own foot.....

So your point was:
1. animal nutreints and plant nutreints are the same.
2. animal nutreints make you fatter than plant nutreints.

Ya'know for a veg you sure seem to enjoy the taste of your own foot.....
Well I think her point is that the process of getting thoes animal proteens means you injest more fat from thoes same sources

Which you can avoid with plants

My god, what a bleak existance you must have.What a bleak existance must you have that the thought of your life without meat is depressing? Is meat truely your only source of pleasure in life???

Animals can't be enslaved, you can't enslave a resource. Animals can no more be enslaved then you can enslave a timbre forest, or a ore mine.Humans are animals.
And yeah, we can all be enslaved.
Enslavement: noun A state of subjugation to an owner or master.

Now if you will excuse me I have to go eat my battery-hen chicken lunch now.Have fun.

No its perfectly acceptable ... better a lab mouce or a rabbit then another humanNot if the human is the only one who stands to benifit from the research, and is the only one who can give informed consent.

Well I think her point is that the process of getting thoes animal proteens means you injest more fat from thoes same sources

Which you can avoid with plants

What animal and which cut of meat? Which vegetables? Heroin is vegan ya'know!

What a bleak existance must you have that the thought of your life without meat is depressing? Is meat truely your only source of pleasure in life???
This was meant as a joke, obviously.

Humans are animals.
Well done. However, your smart-arse comment aside you no perfectly well which animals I refered to, namely the non-human ones.

And yeah, we can all be enslaved.
Nope, only a human can be enslave. Have I enslaved this desk? This computer? No. Even though they are in a state of "subjugation to an owner" only a fool would call them enslaved. The same goes for animals. Resources cannot be enslaved.

What disturbing individuals "animal liberationists" are. You would rather medical tests be conducted on humans then stupid animals? You people are sick.Either humans are willing to suffer for potential benifit, or they are not. Willing humans, or animals who are already sick, or no testing at all.


Actually, humans have every right, and that's why they have and always will conduct medical tests on animals. It is the animals that have no rights, they are merely property of humans to be disposed of as we wish.Charming. People who think like that are the sick ones.

And I thought I was a heartless bastard.Just because you think that I am doesn't mean that you can't be too. :)

Not if the human is the only one who stands to benifit from the research, and is the only one who can give informed consent.

Human's don't require consent from animals to use them in medical tests anymore than they require consent from the soil to plant crops in it. They are a resource and can be used anyway humans wish.

Not if the human is the only one who stands to benifit from the research, and is the only one who can give informed consent.
So, you think the millions saved from animal research should have died? Honest question. What about the fact that animal research has been used to find cures for animal diseases?

Also, stop with your semantics bullshit. We all have had highschool biology here, and we know that humans are in the Animal Kingdom. You know what we mean.

Either humans are willing to suffer for potential benifit, or they are not.
Of course humans aren't willing to suffer for the benifits of medical research, why should they when they can gain medical information from animals? What kind of a sick bastard would advocate human suffering?

Willing humans, or animals who are already sick, or no testing at all.
Or, instead (and it doesn't suprise me that you failed to consider this option), we could do the tests on any damn animal that scientists want to do medical tests on. Let's face it, you nutcases are only a fringe group and your warped views will never become mainstream so you are in no position to make demands on anyone. Policy isn't going to change because of you hypocrites.

What a bleak existance must you have that the thought of your life without meat is depressing? Is meat truely your only source of pleasure in life???



Nymphos are people too, Ox.

(I've been waiting to do a cock joke since you entered this thread:p )

It's sort of like when someone says they are Pro-Life what htey really mean is that they are anti-abortion. When somone says they support animal rights what they mean is that they oppose human rights.No....
No, that's really not what we mean at all. Bad comparison. Try again, though. A for effort.

No....
No, that's really not what we mean at all. Bad comparison. Try again, though. A for effort.

Anyone who wants humans to suffer in medical tests has no regard at all for basic human rights, simple as that.

Charming. People who think like that are the sick ones.
Guess what? That is how society as a whole thinks. Most people actually like modern medicine. Most people, believe it or not, actually don't want humans to suffer in inhumane medical tests.

And the vast majority couldn't give a shit how many animals are destroyed in the quest to improve medicine.

What some lunatic fringe group thinks, on the other hand, is irrelevent.

Not if the human is the only one who stands to benifit from the research, and is the only one who can give informed consent.
Then their caretakers are in the position to give informed concent ... ie their owners

If you want to have your radical fundamentalist ideolgy that is fine. Just don't invent this preposterous pseudo-science to support it. Eating meat is perfectly natural for humans to do, it is what we have evolved to do.tee hee
Cardiology is pseudo-science. Good one.
Please tell me you were joking. If not, :eek:

If you drink too much water it will cause permenant dammage. Your point was?Most Americans eat too much meat. We're killing ourselves. How many people drink (water) themselves to death?

tee hee
Cardiology is pseudo-science. Good one.
Please tell me you were joking. If not, :eek:

ZOMG!11!! If you eat meat you will die!!11!!1!!11!!ONE!!!

Nope, believe it or not humans actually evolved to eat meat. That might actually explain those incisors in your mouth.

Tastes good though.So does break fluid.

So does break fluid.
No ... I have gotten some in my mouth ... tastes like hell

So does break fluid.

.... You've tried break fluid?

On the subject though. To be honest as long as we stand to find cures for diseases and make new medical procedures from animal testing I see no problem with it. This is not purely cosmetic testing rather research that is used to save humans. Now if some mice, some monkeys, and a few sheep have to die for this I don't really see the problem with it. I see biomedicine as more important than the "rights" of animals.

On the topic of eating meat. I say eat what you want but don't force it on others. If you don't want to eat meat more power to you. But don't come around saying I can't have steak.

Yet I seem to have no problem with fat ... hmmz oh well so far the costs do not outweigh the benifits (my pleasure in eating)Skinny people do not have exclusive rights to heart disease. You can eat meat and still be healthy, though, if you eat it in moderation.

So does break fluid.

Cool. Thanks for the heads up.

OTOH, brake fluid tastes worse than horse shit.

The difference is that protein from any animal contains all essential amino-acids. The same is not true of plants.Yep, it is. Only soy has all the essentials, but it is, indeed a plant.

So your point was:
1. animal nutreints and plant nutreints are the same.
2. animal nutreints make you fatter than plant nutreints.

Ya'know for a veg you sure seem to enjoy the taste of your own foot.....I don't consider cholesterol to be an essential nutrient. If you're looking for a good source of that, then yeah, plants aren't the way to go. Sorry for being unclear there.

Yep, it is. Only soy has all the essentials, but it is, indeed a plant.
You obviously didn't bother to read what Xirnium wrote. He said you gain all essential amino acids from any animal. You certainly can't get all essential amino acids from any plant, only very few plants have them or else you need special complements of plants.

I suggest you read others' posts carefully.

As for the topic of animals used in medical research? Let's face it, its a non-issue. We need medical research and we need animals to do it, simple as that. I'm not going to lose any sleep no matter how many animals have to die to find cures for diseases.

People who claim to be against medical tests on animals truly are hypocrites. Will you honestly tell me you have never used any medicines? Because if you have, then you have certainly benefited from medical testing on animals.

And I agree with others on this thread, your suggestion that all medical tests should not be done on animals but instead on humans is both illogical and frightening.

Skinny people do not have exclusive rights to heart disease. You can eat meat and still be healthy, though, if you eat it in moderation.
And I dont eat it in moderation ... but I also work my ass off every day ... either way that 40 oz stake with potatos and my chicken sandwitch are well worth it

What animal and which cut of meat? Which vegetables? Heroin is vegan ya'know!Upward Thrust didn't say that all plants were healthy, and neither did I. Many are poisonous. All plants are low in fat, though. Especially heroin.

Does Teller ever speak?

I noticed that Penn said a lot about how ridiculous the PETA people were for an exaggeration that involved comparing meat eaters to NAZIs but then he exaggerated by calling the members of PETA terrorists. I guess Penn must not know what a hypocrite is. Teller, look it up!

"Who wouldn't want to treat animals ethically?"
"Teller and I would personally kill every chimp in the world with our bare hands to save one street junky with AIDS."
He answered his own question.

This was meant as a joke, obviously.???


Well done. However, your smart-arse comment aside you no perfectly well which animals I refered to, namely the non-human ones.And my point was that we can all be enslaved. My statements still stand.


Nope, only a human can be enslave. Have I enslaved this desk? This computer? No. Even though they are in a state of "subjugation to an owner" only a fool would call them enslaved. The same goes for animals. Resources cannot be enslaved.Please don't make me google enslavement again. Any living creature can be enslaved, according to the english language. Argue your point using other words, or not at all.
We can all be enslaved.

Upward Thrust didn't say that all plants were healthy, and neither did I. Many are poisonous. All plants are low in fat, though. Especially heroin.

Not avocado. That mother is fat filled, it has twice the fat of filet mignon. That's why it is so tasty though.

"Who wouldn't want to treat animals ethically?"
"Teller and I would personally kill every chimp in the world with our bare hands to save one street junky with AIDS."
He answered his own question.

Actually, he didn't. He simply has a different definition of ethics than you do. Some people actually value human life more then animal life, and I for one agree with them.

Actually, he didn't. He simply has a different definition of ethics than you do. Some people actually value human life more then animal life, and I for one agree with them.
Me as well

I noticed that Penn said a lot about how ridiculous the PETA people were for an exaggeration that involved comparing meat eaters to NAZIs but then he exaggerated by calling the members of PETA terrorists. I guess Penn must not know what a hypocrite is. Teller, look it up!


They were supporting that firebombing dude. That's terrorism, right there.

So, you think the millions saved from animal research should have died? Honest question. What about the fact that animal research has been used to find cures for animal diseases?As I said, sick animals are suitable test subjects. Giving an animal a disease to find the cure is ridiculous. If the disease is widespread enough, there will be many suitable test subjects.

Also, stop with your semantics bullshit. We all have had highschool biology here, and we know that humans are in the Animal Kingdom. You know what we mean.It's like saying people when you are refering to white people only. It's incorrect. I'll stop pointing out the error when people stop making it.

Most Americans eat too much meat. We're killing ourselves. How many people drink (water) themselves to death?
No matter what you eat or drink, you are going to die. Every breath you take brings you closer to death. So what's the answer? Stop breathing? Of course not. Appreciate life while you have it. Besides, you may live to be a hundred if you ate nothing but high fiber grains, but would you want to live that long under those conditions?

As I said, sick animals are suitable test subjects. Giving an animal a disease to find the cure is ridiculous. If the disease is widespread enough, there will be many suitable test subjects.

Quick question why is giving an animal a disease in order to test a vacine that could save human lives rediculous?

Nymphos are people too, Ox.

(I've been waiting to do a cock joke since you entered this thread:p )I would like to clarify, then, that I do eat meat.
Just not dead animals. ;)

Please don't make me google enslavement again.

Why not use a real dictionary? From the New Oxford English Dictionary:

slave noun a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

An animal is not a person. Therefore, an animal cannot be enslaved. Seems that Xirnium is completely right.

Also:

enslave verb [with obj.] make someone a slave.

An animal is not someone, but something. Also, as we have already established, only a person can be made a slave. Therefore, "according to the English language" you are completely and utterly wrong, animals can not be enslaved.

Any living creature can be enslaved
Nope, see above.

according to the english language.
I suggest you shoot both your English and History teacher, because you obviously don't understand the meaning of slavery.

We can all be enslaved.
We can, because we are humans. Animal's, however, cannot be enslaved.

Why not use a real dictionary? From the New Oxford English Dictionary:

slave noun a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

An animal is not a person. Therefore, an animal cannot be enslaved. Seems that Xirnium is completely right.

Also:

enslave verb [with obj.] make someone a slave.

An animal is not someone, but something. Also, as we have already established, only a person can be made a slave. Therefore, "according to the English language" you are completely and utterly wrong, animals can not be enslaved.


Nope, see above.


I suggest you shoot both your English and History teacher, because you obviously don't understand the meaning of slavery.


We can, because we are humans. Animal's, however, cannot be enslaved.
Seems webster would agree with your deffinition as well

I would like to clarify, then, that I do eat meat.
Just not dead animals. ;)

:cool:

ZOMG!11!! If you eat meat you will die!!11!!1!!11!!ONE!!!.I know that you're mocking me, but if I may point out... You die no matter what you eat.

Nope, believe it or not humans actually evolved to eat meat. That might actually explain those incisors in your mouth.How about our intestines? Or do you only know that one cliche arguement for eating meat? Human anatomy is actually more like that of an herbivore, but yes, we can eat nothing but meat for short periods of time in an emergency. We're healthiest when we eat very little overall, though.

It's like saying people when you are refering to white people only. It's incorrect. I'll stop pointing out the error when people stop making it.
You know the assertion by animal activists that what they consider to be the mistreatment of animals is equal to racism, and slavery has only hurt the movement among blacks, right?

I feel like making you eat your own shit,
an·i·mal n.
1.A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
2.An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.
Clearly, both are accepted definitions. Reasonable people go by what definition of a word is meant, not argue semantics.

As I said, sick animals are suitable test subjects.
You obviously don't have an appreciation for what science is. You need actual controlled, laboratory conditions where you can manipulate variables.

Giving an animal a disease to find the cure is ridiculous.
The only ridiculous thing is your statement right here. That is how medical science, which you no doubt have ungratefully benefited from, is done.

If the disease is widespread enough, there will be many suitable test subjects.
What kind of a monster wants cruel medical tests done on humans?


It's like saying people when you are refering to white people only. It's incorrect. I'll stop pointing out the error when people stop making it.
Nope, equating animals with humans is the only error here, and it's a disgusting one at that.

No ... I have gotten some in my mouth ... tastes like hellIt's incredibly sweet, and looks like kool-aid, was more what I was getting at. That's why it should be locked up if there are small children around.
It is not, admittedly, very appealing to most adults.

Seems webster would agree with your deffinition as well

Yep, obviously we need to go and get the Radical Ideologues' and People with Warped Agendas' New Dictionary of English to find Oxwana's definition.

Yep, obviously we need to go and get the Radical Ideologues' and People with Warped Agendas' New Dictionary of English to find Oxwana's definition.
Ok ... to be fair dictionary.com had an abigous enough deffinition of slave that she could be using that as her base


While hardly a scholory work it is at least neutral

if I may point out... You die no matter what you eat.
Very astute observation. :rolleyes:

How about our intestines?
How about them? You think other omnivores don't have intestines? And spare me the rest of your "emergency only" rubbish. Human teeth did not evolve to eat meat only in "an emergency". Like other omnivores, eg. bears, humans are designed to use meat to complement their diet. It actually benefits the human organism to add meat to their diet. Only crazed radicals can't see this.

While hardly a scholory work it is at least neutral

Oh, my comment wasn't a remark on the quality of Dictionary.com, though it is anything but a good dictionary.

It was more a comment on how she "fished" for the definition that suited her agenda, rather then the proper one. She knew what she "wanted" slavery to mean long before she looked it up on Dictionary.com.

Comparing human uses of animals with slavery or the Holocaust is deeply insulting (as well as inaccurate).

Like other omnivores, eg. bears, humans are designed to use meat to complement their diet. It actually benefits the human organism to add meat to their diet. Only crazed radicals can't see this.
Right. The difference between us and bears is that a bunch of skinny bears don’t bitch when other bears eat meat.

Right. The difference between us and bears is that a bunch of skinny bears don’t bitch when other bears eat meat.

But if a bear did decide it didn't want you eating meat, it would pretty much just rip your fucking face off.

Bears 1 Humans 0

But if a bear did decide it didn't want you eating meat, it would pretty much just rip your fucking face off.

Bears 1 Humans 0

Not if you wield a friggin' katana.

Katana > Bear

Bear 0 Katana 1

But if a bear did decide it didn't want you eating meat, it would pretty much just rip your fucking face off.

Bears 1 Humans 0
Not if I shoot it in its face with an illegally sawed off shout gun, first.

Humans: 256 Every other living thing:PWND

Not if I shoot it in its face with an illegally sawed off shout gun, first.

Humans: 256 Every other living thing:PWND

Beat you to it, but yours is still a very valid point. :fluffle:

Actually, he didn't. He simply has a different definition of ethics than you do. Some people actually value human life more then animal life, and I for one agree with them.I do too, but Penn didn't say he would take one chimp life to save one human life. He didn't say he would take two chimp lives or ten. He said he would kill every chimp in the world.

Not if I shoot it in its face with an illegally sawed off shout gun, first.

Humans: 256 Every other living thing:PWND

I'd like to see you try. You wouldn't even know the bear was there till it clawed out your guts, pal.

bear>>j00

Wow. I don't think I have ever seen a thread in which one person had to argue against every single other person in the thread. I've really got to admire Oxwana's courage.

That said, I also have to ask her: since you have decided that there is no distinction between animals and humans and that as such it is immoral for humans to eat animals, who says that there is a distinction between animals and plants that allows you to eat vegetables in good conscience?

(By the way: I just noticed that Heron-Marked Warriors quoted me in his sig. Woohoo! First time that's happened to me. Thanks, man.)

Since when is Oxwana in the business of forcing her morality on other people?

Since when is Oxwana in the business of forcing her morality on other people?
To be fair, discussion isn’t forcing.
It is odd the exceptions people will make sometimes, though.

(By the way: I just noticed that Heron-Marked Warriors quoted me in his sig. Woohoo! First time that's happened to me. Thanks, man.)

No worries. Just remember, bears >>j00

No worries. Just remember, bears >>j00

I will remember.

http://www.kodiak.org/images/bear-e2.jpg

To be fair, discussion isn’t forcing.
It is odd the exceptions people will make sometimes, though.
As far as farm animals and other bred creatures are concerned, it's pretty much the same as with land.
People didn't produce land, yet they own it. How can that be?
The answer is probably that people change and modify land by applying their labour to it.
Same goes for a cow. When the first semi-caveman caught some sort of Ur-Ox and turned it into a cow over the generations, he/she applied labour to it and thus made it his/her own.

So just like we found out in a thread I made earlier, no matter what it is (in my thread it was the US consitution), if you own it, you can destroy it at will.

Same goes for the animal, and by the same logic I guess for Human Slaves, if they were somehow bred by the owner.

Either that or you reject that notion of property, and in that case: :D

They were supporting that firebombing dude. That's terrorism, right there.Similar to what one of the interviewees said,...

Penn is trying to make the suggestion that burning a building with no one inside is no different from crashing an airliner into the World Trade Center. He believes that what happened to concrete and steel is morally identical to what happens to tens of thousands of people each year. Hey, after all, Al Qaeda destroyed several buildings; the firebombing guy burned some laboratories. We at Bullshit see no difference. Penn loves buildings and not humans. It's clear. That's why he would so trivialize 9/11.

Similar to what one of the interviewees said,...

Penn is trying to make the suggestion that burning a building with no one inside is no different from crashing an airliner into the World Trade Center. He believes that what happened to concrete and steel is morally identical to what happens to tens of thousands of people each year. Hey, after all, Al Qaeda destroyed several buildings; the firebombing guy burned some laboratories. We at Bullshit see no difference. Penn loves buildings and not humans.

No, see, you missed the point, although the inflammatory rhetoric is almost worth listening to for the imagined hyperventialtion. You need to remember that there is more to terrorism than just "ZOMG the Al Qaeeedaa111". Let's see what the dictionary says

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terrorism&x=20&y=15

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

See? So none of this "that's not terrorism because ZOMG teh Al Qaeeeedaa111" nonsense in future, okay?

I do too, but Penn didn't say he would take one chimp life to save one human life. He didn't say he would take two chimp lives or ten. He said he would kill every chimp in the world.
In that case he holds human life to be infinitely more important then animal life, and I also agree with that assertion. If you don't it doesn't mean it's unethical, merely that it doesn't conform to your own morals.


See? So none of this "that's not terrorism because ZOMG teh Al Qaeeeedaa111" nonsense in future, okay?

Good point, we'll use an even better definition from the New Oxford Dictionary of English:

terrorism noun [mass noun] the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

It seems absurd to me that someone would consider the arson of buildings either nonviolent or not intimidating, and it was certainly done in the furtherance of political goals, therefore it is clear terrorism.

Pantylvania's "9-11" argument is a red herring.

No, see, you missed the point, although the inflammatory rhetoric is almost worth listening to for the imagined hyperventialtion. You need to remember that there is more to terrorism than just "ZOMG the Al Qaeeedaa111". Let's see what the dictionary says

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terrorism&x=20&y=15

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

See? So none of this "that's not terrorism because ZOMG teh Al Qaeeeedaa111" nonsense in future, okay?According to the definition you linked to, terrorism is not what the firebombing guy did. So none of this "OMG Rodney Coronado is a terrorist" bullshit in the future, okay?

I do too, but Penn didn't say he would take one chimp life to save one human life. He didn't say he would take two chimp lives or ten. He said he would kill every chimp in the world.

I think you are wrong.

The definition he posted: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

Firstly, was the firebombing systematic?
systematic adjective done or acting according to a fixed plan or system

The firebombing was definitely planned, therefore systematic.

Secondly, did they use "terror"?
terror noun the use of such fear to intimidate people, especially for political reasons: weapons of terror.

Now, it is clear to me that firebombing a building is done to cause fear and to intimidate people. Frankly I can't see how it wouldn't cause fear. It is also clear that it was done for political reasons. Therefore, they did use terror.

Now, was this terror used as a means of coercion?
coerce verb [with obj.] persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats

Was terror used as a means to persuade? Yes, the whole aim of the "animal liberationists" is to persuade people to stop these medical tests. Did they use threats? If firebombing a building isn't a threat, then frankly I don't know what is.

Therefore, by that definition (an even more stricter definition of terrorism than Praetoria Novus') it was also terrorism.

terrorism noun [mass noun] the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

It seems absurd to me that someone would consider the arson of buildings either nonviolent or not intimidating, and it was certainly done in the furtherance of political goals, therefore it is clear terrorism.

Pantylvania's "9-11" argument is a red herring.Violence against an inanimate object is not at all intimidating, nor does it have anything to do with politics. It seems absurd to me that someone would consider arson of unoccupied buildings to be the moral equivalent of car bombing a market. But if trivializing terrorism is what it takes to make your case, I'm sure the other side would love for you to say it more often.

Violence against an inanimate object is not at all intimidating
Violence to inanimate objects is not intimidating? What dream world do you live in? If you found your home vandalised you wouldn't feel intimidated? Rubbish.

It seems absurd to me that someone would consider arson of unoccupied buildings to be the moral equivalent of car bombing a market
It seems absurd to me that you think terrorism is exclusive to car bombing markets, even after you have been shown the English definition of the word twice.

nor does it have anything to do with politics.
This is the biggest joke of all. Firebombing and vandalising buildings while putting graffiti on them with "Animal Liberation Front" and other slogans in order to advance your goal of ending medical tests is not political? I'm sorry, but it is quite idiotic to think that the "animal liberation" movement is not political.

Was the burning down of the Reichstag in the 30s likewise not political?

But if trivializing terrorism is what it takes to make your case
The only person trivialising terroism is the person here who is claiming that firebombings are not acts of terror.

Violence against an inanimate object is not at all intimidating, nor does it have anything to do with politics.

Of course. If someone deliberately burnt down my house (provided I wasn't in it at the time) I wouldn't feel the least bit intimidated. And also, arson is by definition non-political. Whenever you hear of a building being torched, you can always be absolutely certain that politics had nothing to do with it because violence against inanimate objects is never political.

It seems absurd to me that someone would consider arson of unoccupied buildings to be the moral equivalent of car bombing a market. But if trivializing terrorism is what it takes to make your case, I'm sure the other side would love for you to say it more often.

Arson of unoccupied buildings and car bombings are morally equivalent in that they are both wrong. You can say that one is worse than the other, but that doesn't mean that they are incomparible. Why shouldn't terrorism be defined to include destruction of property?

Now, it is clear to me that firebombing a building is done to cause fear and to intimidate people. Frankly I can't see how it wouldn't cause fear. It is also clear that it was done for political reasons. Therefore, they did use terror.

Now, was this terror used as a means of coercion?
coerce verb [with obj.] persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats

Was terror used as a means to persuade? Yes, the whole aim of the "animal liberationists" is to persuade people to stop these medical tests. Did they use threats? If firebombing a building isn't a threat, then frankly I don't know what is.

Therefore, by that definition (an even more stricter definition of terrorism than mine) it was also terrorism.I am not at all afraid of some unoccupied building burning. People burning? Yes. Buildings burning? No. If you're afraid of someone who burns unoccupied buildings, that's your problem.

He didn't mention any change in public policy as his goal so it's not clear that it was done for political reasons.

He didn't force anyone to support animal rights. He didn't threaten to do it again. If your definition of terrorism is more general than needed to include burning an unoccupied building, get ready to call a lot of people terrorists.

I am not at all afraid of some unoccupied building burning. People burning? Yes. Buildings burning? No. If you're afraid of someone who burns unoccupied buildings, that's your problem.

So . . . it's perfectly alright to burn any building to the ground for any reason, as long as no one is inside at the time?

I am not at all afraid of some unoccupied building burning. People burning? Yes. Buildings burning? No. If you're afraid of someone who burns unoccupied buildings, that's your problem.
Whether you would or wouldn't feel intimidated if your place of work was burnt down by political activists is quite irrelevant. It is intimidating and it is designed to cause intimidation.

He didn't mention any change in public policy as his goal so it's not clear that it was done for political reasons.
What a joke, the whole act was done to put an end to medical testing of animals. That's a political goal/

He didn't force anyone to support animal rights.
I suppose burning down a medical testing centre to "support animal rights" is not forcing his political belief? Please.

He didn't threaten to do it again.
Irrelevant even if it's true.

If your definition of terrorism is more general than needed to include burning an unoccupied building, get ready to call a lot of people terrorists.
Burning buildings in order to achieve political goals is terror, pure and simple.

People burning? Yes. Buildings burning? No.
They are both acts of violence and they are both calculated to cause fear.

He didn't mention any change in public policy as his goal so it's not clear that it was done for political reasons.
His change in policy aim is "animal rights" and it is all to clear. That's the whole reason why he burnt the medical testing facility to begin with.

He didn't force anyone to support animal rights.
That is precisely what the firebombing was aimed at doing.

If your definition of terrorism is more general than needed to include burning an unoccupied building, get ready to call a lot of people terrorists.
Do you think that a Protestant burning down a Catholic Church in Northern Ireland (or vice versa) is not terrorism unless someone dies?

Violence to inanimate objects is not intimidating? What dream world do you live in? If you found your home vandalised you wouldn't feel intimidated? Rubbish.Of course I didn't feel intimidated. No threat of harm to me was made. My parents took steps to prevent their stuff from being stolen again, but there was no fear involved.

It seems absurd to me that you think terrorism is exclusive to car bombing markets, even after you have been shown the English definition of the word twice.It seems absurd to me that you think I said terrorism was exclusive to car bombings. If you have to make up things for me to have said so you'll have a return argument, you might as well argue with a wall.

This is the biggest joke of all. Firebombing and vandalising buildings while putting graffiti on them with "Animal Liberation Front" and other slogans in order to advance your goal of ending medical tests is not political? I'm sorry, but it is quite idiotic to think that the "animal liberation" movement is not political.He delayed the tests in some labs. If he thinks burning a laboratory will scare politicians, he hasn't been paying attention to politics.

The only person trivialising terroism is the person here who is claiming that firebombings are not acts of terror.While you've got that dictionary open, you might as well look up "trivialize." You just implied that arson is less bad than real terrorism.

So . . . it's perfectly alright to burn any building to the ground for any reason, as long as no one is inside at the time?No. I never said that. You must have me mistaken for someone else.

Of course I didn't feel intimidated. No threat of harm to me was made. My parents took steps to prevent their stuff from being stolen again, but there was no fear involved.
Burning someones place of work is a threat of harm.

It seems absurd to me that you think I said terrorism was exclusive to car bombings.
Then why talk about bombing markets when it isn't relevant?

He delayed the tests in some labs. If he thinks burning a laboratory will scare politicians, he hasn't been paying attention to politics.
Whether he was foolish or not isn't relevant. Most terrorist acts will never achieve results.

While you've got that dictionary open, you might as well look up "trivialize." You just implied that arson is less bad than real terrorism.
Where exactly? I said nothing of the sort.

I'm not in the business of adding up the "badness" of different acts, I leave that to moralists like you. Something either is terrorism or it isn't. It's you who is coming up with all these convoluted arguments of comparisons and other rubbish. The act was a violent political act aimed to intimidate. It was therefore terrorism. Case closed.

His change in policy aim is "animal rights" and it is all to clear. That's the whole reason why he burnt the medical testing facility to begin with.He most likely burned it to stop the scientists, not to stop the government from supporting the scientists. The only change in public policy I can imagine coming out of this is an increase in security at animal testing labs.

That is precisely what the firebombing was aimed at doing.Unless he said that he expected people to support animal rights because of the incident, you're just making stuff up.

Do you think that a Protestant burning down a Catholic Church in Northern Ireland (or vice versa) is not terrorism unless someone dies?If they're hurting or threatening to hurt people for political reasons, then no. People don't change their religious beliefs just because someone burns a building, unless the religious belief has something to do with buildings burning, but that would be a case of experimentation.

My parents took steps to prevent their stuff from being stolen again, but there was no fear involved.

If they took steps to prevent their stuff from being stolen, that would imply that they were afraid that their stuff would get stolen. It wouldn't have to be quaking in the boots fear, but if there was no fear involved, there would be no incentive to take preventative action.

Burning someones place of work is a threat of harm.No, it is not.

Then why talk about bombing markets when it isn't relevant?I gave an example of what terrorism is. Car bombs are something I could reasonably be afraid of. The threat of a car bomb could conceivably change my political opinions, though I would hope not. The threat of burning a laboratory would make me want to improve its security, but doesn't affect the government's support of the experiments going on in the lab.

Whether he was foolish or not isn't relevant. Most terrorist acts will never achieve results.What goal you made up for him to have had is not relevant either.

Where exactly? I said nothing of the sort.Random House Webster's College Dictionary
trivialize: to cause to appear unimportant, insignificant, etc.

So, how does claiming that arson without intent to hurt anyone nor change public policy is not terrorism make real terrorism seem insignificant?

I'm not in the business of adding up the "badness" of different acts, I leave that to moralists like you. Something either is terrorism or it isn't. It's you who is coming up with all these convoluted arguments of comparisons and other rubbish. The act was a violent political act aimed to intimidate. It was therefore terrorism. Case closed.There was no attempt to intimidate. There was no attempt to change politics. Rod Coronado is a terrorist? Bullshit!

If they took steps to prevent their stuff from being stolen, that would imply that they were afraid that their stuff would get stolen. It wouldn't have to be quaking in the boots fear, but if there was no fear involved, there would be no incentive to take preventative action.Fear is not the only possible motive. I don't experience fear every time I lock my appartment. If someone breaks in and steals my stuff, it would be a huge inconvenience, but not something that would scare me.

Fear is not the only possible motive. I don't experience fear every time I lock my appartment. If someone breaks in and steals my stuff, it would be a huge inconvenience, but not something that would scare me.

Have you ever had it happen to you? I haven't, but I would imagine that if I came home and found out that someone had been in my house and had taken my belongings, I would be frightened. Of course, theft isn't necessarily (or even usually) an act of terrorism, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be used by someone to deliberately terrorize.

The only reason I lock my door is because, simply put, I am afraid. I don't experience fear everytime I lock my door, but I might experience fear if I realized that I had forgotten to lock my door, and I would certainly experience fear if I realized that someone had managed to get into my house because I had forgotten to lock my door.

He most likely burned it to stop the scientists, not to stop the government from supporting the scientists.
I don't think you are listening to what I am saying. He burnt the lab to stop the practise of medical testing. It doesn't matter who he was trying to stop, it's still terrorism.

The only change in public policy I can imagine coming out of this is an increase in security at animal testing labs.
That's not the point. Whether he achieves his goal has nothing to do with whether it is terrorism.

Unless he said that he expected people to support animal rights because of the incident, you're just making stuff up.
We aren't talking of "suporting animal rights" but ending medical testing on animals. That was his goal. He didn't have to want people to support animal rights to be a terrorist, only to want to achieve his poitical goal of ending animal testing.

If they're hurting or threatening to hurt people for political reasons, then no. People don't change their religious beliefs just because someone burns a building, unless the religious belief has something to do with buildings burning, but that would be a case of experimentation.
I don't know where you got this strange idea that the goal has to be changing opinions to be terrorism.

No, it is not.
Well, this is getting us nowhere. If you don't think that the burning by political activists of someone's place of work is threatening then there is nothing else we can say.

I gave an example of what terrorism is.
Ahh, and that must neccessarily mean that firebombing laboratories is not terrorism! :rolleyes:

The threat of a car bomb could conceivably change my political opinions, though I would hope not.]
Ok, enought with this rubbish. Nowhere in the definition of terrorism does it mention anything about changing political opinions. Let's stick to the definition please.

The threat of burning a laboratory would make me want to improve its security, but doesn't affect the government's support of the experiments going on in the lab.
Irrelevant. What you would do is not what we are discussing. What the government might do is likewise not important.

What goal you made up for him to have had is not relevant either.
Are you trying to say, with a straight face, that the "animal liberationists" do not want to end animal testing? Please.

Random House Webster's College Dictionary
trivialize: to cause to appear unimportant, insignificant, etc.

So, how does claiming that arson without intent to hurt anyone nor change public policy is not terrorism make real terrorism seem insignificant?
It doesn't. Nowhere in the definiton of terrorism does it mention harm or "changing public policy". These are things you have added, and as such are pointless additions.

If it was the use of violence in the pursuit of political goals it was terrorism. That there are other, more horrifying forms of terrorism does not trivilise something in the slightest, and even if it did so what? It doesn't warrant arbitrarily changing the English definition.

There was no attempt to intimidate. There was no attempt to change politics. Rod Coronado is a terrorist? Bullshit!
That you seriously claim that burning down a laboratory is not intimidation is beyond belief.

Fear is not the only possible motive. I don't experience fear every time I lock my appartment. If someone breaks in and steals my stuff, it would be a huge inconvenience, but not something that would scare me.

It does scare other people though. And stealing of property by thieves is not the same as destruction of property by political activists.

In the former, we might infer that the robber's intentions are porbably not harmful. In the other, this is much less certain, causing fear.

If they're hurting or threatening to hurt people for political reasons, then no.

So if the church was burnt when the aim was not to hurt or even to threaten to hurt is not terrorism?

Your support for this needless distinction is? I don't see anything about "threaten" or "hurt" in the definition of terrorism.

My dad would be dead right now if it weren't for animal medical experimentation, so as far as i'm concerned there is no debate. If an animal rights moron thinks they are inferiour to animals, they probably are, and are welcome to volunteer themselves for testing in the name of saving a few poor wittle cutie wootie animwals. However, if they try attacking innocent scientists trying to do good for the world and save lives we should just use our superiour meat fuelled muscles to beat their weakling, unhealthy, skinny asses to the ground.

Yeah and that combined with animal proteen does have the advantage of helpin put on muscle :)

Synthetic protein is much better.

What the hell is going on now?

Why are we discussing this crap?

I shall settle it. ALF are terrorists; PETA supports terrorism. Deport PETA.

This was meant as a joke, obviously.


Well done. However, your smart-arse comment aside you no perfectly well which animals I refered to, namely the non-human ones.


Nope, only a human can be enslave. Have I enslaved this desk? This computer? No. Even though they are in a state of "subjugation to an owner" only a fool would call them enslaved. The same goes for animals. Resources cannot be enslaved.

People for the Ethical treatment of ofice furniture will have you shot for that you know!:mp5:

Do you think that a Protestant burning down a Catholic Church in Northern Ireland (or vice versa) is not terrorism unless someone dies?

In Northern Ireland that is generally considered to be sectarian vandalism, rather than actual terrorism.

Oxwana
I have a few questions.

you mentioned something about how animals shouldn't be tested on because they did not consent.... How exactly would an animal go about consenting to anything?


you also seem to be anti-anyone who eats meat, are you a vegan?
if not how do you justify the "enslavement" of dairy cows?

also you mentioned something about heroine being a plant, I hate to tell you that heroine may start out with plant beginings but it is a highly processed chemical substance

kinda like cocaine isn't a plant even though it started out as a cocoa plant.

also when you are talking about brake fluid I think you mean antifreeze.;)

Yeah, you want anti-freeze, not break fluid.

Oxwana
I have a few questions.

you mentioned something about how animals shouldn't be tested on because they did not consent.... How exactly would an animal go about consenting to anything?


you also seem to be anti-anyone who eats meat, are you a vegan?
if not how do you justify the "enslavement" of dairy cows?

also you mentioned something about heroine being a plant, I hate to tell you that heroine may start out with plant beginings but it is a highly processed chemical substance

kinda like cocaine isn't a plant even though it started out as a cocoa plant.

also when you are talking about brake fluid I think you mean antifreeze.;)


Yeah brown and yucky does not look like coolaid to me

But that yummy blue or green stuff mmmmmm

I am not at all afraid of some unoccupied building burning. People burning? Yes. Buildings burning? No. If you're afraid of someone who burns unoccupied buildings, that's your problem.

He didn't mention any change in public policy as his goal so it's not clear that it was done for political reasons.

He didn't force anyone to support animal rights. He didn't threaten to do it again. If your definition of terrorism is more general than needed to include burning an unoccupied building, get ready to call a lot of people terrorists.
I don’t know the idea that my life’s work could go up in fire is pretty terrifying to me, specialy if it was just because some jackass who did not agree with me commits arson

I don’t know the idea that my life’s work could go up in fire is pretty terrifying to me, specialy if it was just because some jackass who did not agree with me commits arson

Well, here in Virginia, if I see someone committing arson on my property, it's perfectly legal for me to take my pistol out of the holster, and pop a 230 grain jacketed hollowpoint right through the side of their head.

Then call the police and fire department. Perfectly legal shooting.

Well, here in Virginia, if I see someone committing arson on my property, it's perfectly legal for me to take my pistol out of the holster, and pop a 230 grain jacketed hollowpoint right through the side of their head.

Then call the police and fire department. Perfectly legal shooting.
Yeah I mean he was trying to say that it was not an act of terror just because people were not in the building … I was trying to contradict that

Actually, he didn't. He simply has a different definition of ethics than you do. Some people actually value human life more then animal life, and I for one agree with them.I value human life over animal life. I do not value human life over any entire species. Big difference.

Yeah I mean he was trying to say that it was not an act of terror just because people were not in the building … I was trying to contradict that

I used to think that the reason I carried a gun was to provide a deterrent to idiocy. But now, when I hear people tell you that burning a building is all in good fun of the political type, I can't wait for someone to do something completely stupid and give me a clean, legal excuse to nail them.

Why not use a real dictionary? From the New Oxford English Dictionary:

slave noun a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

An animal is not a person. Therefore, an animal cannot be enslaved. Seems that Xirnium is completely right. My Oxford dictionary says: "slave, n. helpless victim of or to some dominating influence, a drudge, (arch.) a mean creature". The word slave is, without a doubt, most often used in reference to humans. The definition of the word can, however, be applied to animals.


enslave verb [with obj.] make someone a slave.My dictionary says: "enslave, v.t. (-vable). Make a slave."
I vote that we pit our Oxfords against each other in a fight to the death.

An animal is not someone, but something. Also, as we have already established, only a person can be made a slave. Therefore, "according to the English language" you are completely and utterly wrong, animals can not be enslaved.
I suggest you shoot both your English and History teacher, because you obviously don't understand the meaning of slavery.I understand the meaning. I also think that you only understand it in one context.

If you are not willing to become a test subject to find a cure for your illness, and either save your own life, or die and in so doing further medical research, then you have no right to demand that other living creatures undergo such testing. Especially given the fact that it is healthy animals that are made ill in order to become suitable test subjects, animal testing is unacceptable.

People are subject to medical testing and trials all the time.
It is part of the process. I even allowed myself to be used in medical trails.
It happens all over the world. So I demand animals be used to find cures for AIDS, Cancers, Spinal Cord Injuries and what ever else comes up.
I am sure you are not going to turn down treatment to save your life just because animals were used to test the treatment.

Regards,

JMayo

PETA workers face 25 felony counts in North Carolina
By DARREN FREEMAN, The Virginian-Pilot
© October 15, 2005 | Last updated 11:24 PM Oct. 14



WINTON, N.C. — The cats and dogs two PETA employees have been charged with euthanizing and dumping in an Ahoskie garbage bin were killed by injections of pentobarbital, a barbiturate commonly used to put down animals, according to new warrants issued and served on Friday.

Additionally, the two employees were charged with three felony counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. The charges allege that they euthanized three cats from an Ahoskie veterinarian after promising to find the animals new homes, according to the new warrants.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=93730&ran=57036


PETA euthanizes approx 80% of the animals it "saves". ALl those idiot Hollywood types that continue to fund these morons should be indicted as well.

You know the assertion by animal activists that what they consider to be the mistreatment of animals is equal to racism, and slavery has only hurt the movement among blacks, right?I used it as an example, and you were all too eager to misinterpret my statements, weren't you?
I don't support equal rights for all animals, but I do support the civil rights movement. I would never equate animal cruelty with racism, but I can draw comparisons. I could compare being kicked in the shin with murder, but would you assume that I was suggesting that those acts were equally wrong?

I feel like making you eat your own shit,Classy.

What kind of a monster wants cruel medical tests done on humans?What kind of monster wants cruel medical tests performed on any living creature?


Nope, equating animals with humans is the only error here, and it's a disgusting one at that.Comparing is not equating.

What kind of monster wants cruel medical tests performed on any living creature?


Are all medical tests "cruel"? I think not.

Very astute observation. :rolleyes:


How about them? You think other omnivores don't have intestines? And spare me the rest of your "emergency only" rubbish. Human teeth did not evolve to eat meat only in "an emergency". Like other omnivores, eg. bears, humans are designed to use meat to complement their diet. It actually benefits the human organism to add meat to their diet. Only crazed radicals can't see this.Human intestines are more like those of herbivorous animals than those of meat-eater. If we don't eat enough plant matter, we get colon cancer. Cats don't exactly have that problem because they are supposed to eat lots of meat. Humans are a different story. There are many biological characteristics that suggest that humans are not meant to eat large quantities of meat. Here are just a few http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm

Wow. I don't think I have ever seen a thread in which one person had to argue against every single other person in the thread. I've really got to admire Oxwana's courage.Awww.
How sweet :fluffle:

That said, I also have to ask her: since you have decided that there is no distinction between animals and humans and that as such it is immoral for humans to eat animals, who says that there is a distinction between animals and plants that allows you to eat vegetables in good conscience?I don't think that it's immoral to eat animals. I'm a vegetarian because I see how the over-consumption of meat is killing our planet, and I'm doing my bit to balance the scales a little. I'm also not going to have children, though obviously I don't think that it's immoral to do so. Other people have too many kids, and the world is over-populated, so I don't get to have my own :(
If everyone were reasonable about the amount of meat they ate, I'd probably still be eating meat. I became a vegetarian for the environment, and have fully realized the health benifits. I'm hardly here to convert you all. I really don't care what you eat. I do care how you treat the animals that are to become your dinner.
I have certainly never claimed that there is no distinction between humans and other animals.
No, I do not think that it is immoral to eat meat. Causing unnecessary suffering to any living creature, however, is immoral.

What kind of monster wants cruel medical tests performed on any living creature?


.
If it helps preserve human lives …
Attempt to make it as painless as possible but whatever needs to be done. (short of extermination of a species)

According to the definition you linked to, terrorism is not what the firebombing guy did. So none of this "OMG Rodney Coronado is a terrorist" bullshit in the future, okay?

Pantylvania, while it has already been explained to you that you are wrong, you maintain that the firebombing was not done to cause terror. Take a look at this

“I think [food producers] should appreciate that we’re only targeting their property. Because frankly I think it’s time to start targeting them.”
— "Conference on Organized Resistance," American University, 1/26/03

Source:http://www.activistcash.com/biography_quotes.cfm/bid/3255

So, as you can see, he wants those people to be afraid of what he is going to do to them. That is systematically using fear to coerce someone. It's terrorism.

It seems absurd to me that you think I said terrorism was exclusive to car bombings. If you have to make up things for me to have said so you'll have a return argument, you might as well argue with a wall.

They do seem to be arguing with a wall, don't they?

Regards,

JMayo

Take a look at this
“I think [food producers] should appreciate that we’re only targeting their property. Because frankly I think it’s time to start targeting them.”
— "Conference on Organized Resistance," American University, 1/26/03
Source:http://www.activistcash.com/biography_quotes.cfm/bid/3255

assuming that that quote is accurate (and there aren't relevant clauses hidden in the brackets or in the context they dropped), that isn't the right attribution for
where it was delivered - there is a 'national' in the name of the event. somebody should tell activist cash to not play quite so loose with things like that. otherwise they just look like that joke of a database horowitz made - more so than they usually do even.

In Northern Ireland that is generally considered to be sectarian vandalism, rather than actual terrorism.

how dare you make distinctions! you're letting the vandalists win! you're either with us or with the saboteurs.

how dare you make distinctions! you're letting the vandalists win! you're either with us or with the saboteurs.

Fortunately, where I live, I don't have to make the distinction.

My property is well posted with No Trespassing signs.

Arsonists found on the property at night will be laying in the coroner's office at dawn.

They're the second worst terrorist group in the U.S.A., second only to NAMBLA.

They're the second worst terrorist group in the U.S.A., second only to NAMBLA.

What was the last terrorist action carried out by NAMBLA? :confused:

What was the last terrorist action carried out by NAMBLA? :confused:

Raping little boys?

The majority of animal testing that goes on is related to cosmetics & other normal consumer products; toothpaste, razors etc.

If you lot had actually seen any footage of these things, I'd question whether you could still be considered human if you continued to condone such acts.

Most people in the western world seems to have some sort of rosy read image of the aggri business. In general, lifestock isn't treated humanely. Gross cruelty is the order of the day.

I am more or less a vegan, at least when it comes to the shit I stuff my face with, but I am not advocating everyone stop eating animal products. But please consider what was involved in producing the milk you drink. It's perfectly possible to obtain animal products that haven't involved cruelty to the animals. It's just more expensive.

If you can't pay, then don't use the products.

The majority of animal testing that goes on is related to cosmetics & other normal consumer products; toothpaste, razors etc.

If you lot had actually seen any footage of these things, I'd question whether you could still be considered human if you continued to condone such acts.

Most people in the western world seems to have some sort of rosy read image of the aggri business. In general, lifestock isn't treated humanely. Gross cruelty is the order of the day.

I am more or less a vegan, at least when it comes to the shit I stuff my face with, but I am not advocating everyone stop eating animal products. But please consider what was involved in producing the milk you drink. It's perfectly possible to obtain animal products that haven't involved cruelty to the animals. It's just more expensive.

If you can't pay, then don't use the products.


Here's the neat part - battery houses are apparently going to become mandatory, because free-range birds are at risk for getting and spreading avian flu.

So the "inhumane" growing of chickens in cages will be forced - even on farmers who don't want to do it.

The majority of animal testing that goes on is related to cosmetics & other normal consumer products; toothpaste, razors etc.
I don't think anyone here is advocating testing such as this. I think the point of the arguement going on here is that organizations like PETA want animal testing to stop period which means testing in the biomedical area would be stoped. People don't want that to happen because there are plenty of life saving medicines and procedures developed because of this testing.

If you lot had actually seen any footage of these things, I'd question whether you could still be considered human if you continued to condone such acts.

Most people in the western world seems to have some sort of rosy read image of the aggri business. In general, lifestock isn't treated humanely. Gross cruelty is the order of the day.
I really don't give a damn about how my food is treated. As long as I get my 12oz. New York strip steak I'm happy.

I am more or less a vegan, at least when it comes to the shit I stuff my face with, but I am not advocating everyone stop eating animal products. But please consider what was involved in producing the milk you drink. It's perfectly possible to obtain animal products that haven't involved cruelty to the animals. It's just more expensive.

If you can't pay, then don't use the products.
Or we could continue to use whatever process we want as long as we meet the overall health standards set by the government. I tend to take a capitalistic view here on if its cheap but still meets the health standards they should be allowed to do it.

Here's the neat part - battery houses are apparently going to become mandatory, because free-range birds are at risk for getting and spreading avian flu.


And are you telling us that's a bad thing?

And are you telling us that's a bad thing?
for me, it's a good thing.

For a vegan, or animal rights activist, battery houses are one of the ultimate horrors.

for me, it's a good thing.

For a vegan, or animal rights activist, battery houses are one of the ultimate horrors.

Okay. I wasn't quite sure what your agenda in bringing that up was.

Man I can't wait for someone to say that it is a bad idea.

Okay. I wasn't quite sure what your agenda in bringing that up was.

Man I can't wait for someone to say that it is a bad idea.

Oh, I've already heard PETA people locally express horror at the idea.

They would rather that millions of people die from avian flu, than take any measure to stop it that involves putting a chicken in a coop.

Raping little boys?

Abominable as that is, I hardly think it qualifies as a terrorist action.

Okay. I wasn't quite sure what your agenda in bringing that up was.

Man I can't wait for someone to say that it is a bad idea.

Sorry, but I've just got to do it.

It's a bad, bad idea. :mad:

That will most likely be my only contribution to this pathetic excuse of a discussion.

PETA is a terrorist support network as well as a group of brazen attention whores who never put their money where their mouth is. Anyone who thinks it's not terrorism just because people haven't been injured or kill to date are just not waiting long enough.

Sadly though, the only way PETA would ever climb up on the top of the Homeland Security watchlist is if Ingrid Whatshername said anything that remotely sounded like "Allah" or "Jihad."

Oh, I've already heard PETA people locally express horror at the idea.

They would rather that millions of people die from avian flu, than take any measure to stop it that involves putting a chicken in a coop.

They also oppose any form of hunting. This provides meat that is free of additives and is much more healthy than store bought. It is also the most effective form of stabalizing wild populations.

They also oppose any form of hunting. This provides meat that is free of additives and is much more healthy than store bought. It is also the most effective form of stabalizing wild populations.

The problem is that you can't keep poultry from being exposed to avian flu unless they're in a battery house.

Free-range birds are going to get it.

Sorry, but I've just got to do it.

It's a bad, bad idea. :mad:

That will most likely be my only contribution to this pathetic excuse of a discussion.

Well, I will admit that it might prove an unnecessary step. Bird flu might never reach wherever it is you are (I'm pretty sure it will reach the UK at some point) However, I think it's better to take preventative measures than to gamble with the lives of thousands upon thousands of people, despite the slightly unsavoury nature of the measures needed.

They also oppose any form of hunting. This provides meat that is free of additives and is much more healthy than store bought. It is also the most effective form of stabalizing wild populations.

PETA's ultimate goal is the full-assed notion of "Animal Liberation." Which means total abolition of animals in human society. No food products, no testing, no leather, no wool, not even housepets are acceptable to these disingenuous publicity whores.

They love animals just as much as they hate themselves and other humans. And they are in a position of status and finance where they can be very dangerous.

The problem is that you can't keep poultry from being exposed to avian flu unless they're in a battery house.

Free-range birds are going to get it.

They don't even have to be free-range. My in-laws keep birds (as well as a neighbor). The domestic Tom Turkey they have has mated several times w/ wild hens who fly over the 12' fencing.

It's going to be a big mess.

They don't even have to be free-range. My in-laws keep birds (as well as a neighbor). The domestic Tom Turkey they have has mated several times w/ wild hens who fly over the 12' fencing.

It's going to be a big mess.

They're talking about sealed battery houses. No domestic birds outdoors, ever. Sitting in their cages from birth to death.

Abominable as that is, I hardly think it qualifies as a terrorist action.

terrorism = actions i disapprove of

it's the only definition that covers all the common uses. that it's nonsensical and pretty much means that the entire discourse about 'terrorism' is nothing more than the use of a general term of abuse doesn't seem to matter much.

They're talking about sealed battery houses. No domestic birds outdoors, ever. Sitting in their cages from birth to death.

Besides being effectively unenforcable, that would destroy the local avian industry. There would be no small breeders.
Have you heard about a USDA program they're trying to implement that would require tagging and registration of EVERY SINGLE domestic farm animal in the US?
Either way, flu or red tape will destroy it. I'm sure PETA will cheer.

And there's this thing called irreversable damage...
If you eat enough meat, no amount of exercise can clear all the plaque out of your arteries.
Depends on the type of meat. Unless you're eating fatty steak and/or hamburgers constantly that's not that likely. Now, if all you eat is fatty meat you're likely to get gout if you inherited the chance for the condition.

However, I think it's better to take preventative measures than to gamble with the lives of thousands upon thousands of people, despite the slightly unsavoury nature of the measures needed.

Problem- birds with disease may be eaten, thus killing humans
Preventative meausre- stop eating birds

Problem- birds with disease may be eaten, thus killing humans
Preventative meausre- stop eating birds

Diseased birds are removed from the food supply by inspection.

According to the CDC, the primary route is from bird feces to humans - the dust from the fecal matter.

Cooking the meat removes the virus completely.

Problem- birds with disease may be eaten, thus killing humans
Preventative meausre- stop eating birds
... though its not just eating birds taht transfer the flu ... so that would not be a complete preventitive measure

Problem- birds with disease may be eaten, thus killing humans
Preventative meausre- stop eating birds
That would make sense, if it wasn't transferred because raw duck was a delicacy.

Diseased birds are removed from the food supply by inspection.

According to the CDC, the primary route is from bird feces to humans - the dust from the fecal matter.

Cooking the meat removes the virus completely.

Though if these animals were not being killed for food, they would not be raised like this, and the situation would not be present.

Problem- birds with disease may be eaten, thus killing humans
Preventative meausre- stop eating birds

Better preventative measure: don't let birds get disease.

Though if these animals were not being killed for food, they would not be raised like this, and the situation would not be present.

That's like saying if there were no humans, there wouldn't be any influenza A H5N1 virus.

The virus likes birds, pigs, and people.

As long as any one of them even exists, even if not raised for food, you'll have the problem.

Though if these animals were not being killed for food, they would not be raised like this, and the situation would not be present.

Influenza has jumped species more than once. Viruses can be passed through feces of many animals - some are passed through the feces of rodents (one of the reasons it is dangerous to allow a mouse/rat infestation in your home). There is no way to know if avian influenza would have arisen in the wild. There is no way to know if it would have made the jump to human beings in the absence of bird-eating.

Meanwhile, do remember that the avian flu was first seen in Asia - where most people with domestic birds have small numbers of birds and tend to keep them outside in coops, not in a large-scale structure with individual areas as we have.

terrorism noun [mass noun] the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.


Ok, enought with this rubbish. Nowhere in the definition of terrorism does it mention anything about changing political opinions. Let's stick to the definition please.

What the government might do is likewise not important.

It doesn't. Nowhere in the definiton of terrorism does it mention harm or "changing public policy". These are things you have added, and as such are pointless additions.You don't need to be angry at me just because the definition of terrorism that you posted doesn't justify your claim that Rod Coronado is a terrorist. The definition that you posted is what requires the political goal. That's not something I added. That supposed rubbish is the definition you posted. If you have a problem with terrorism being about politics, complain about it to the people who wrote your dictionary. Until you get your dictionary changed, what Rod Coronado did was, by definition, not terrorism.

Since we're on terrorism, what's the difference between "terrorism" and "shock and awe"?

Since we're on terrorism, what's the difference between "terrorism" and "shock and awe"?

Semantics. And what Ph33rdom said.

Terrorism targets civilians, Shock and Awe targets military capability.

Terrorism targets civilians, Shock and Awe targets military capability.


I would say that terrorism is indiscriminate with it's targets, whereas Shock and Awe is strictly military.

Also, which side you're on

terrorism = actions i disapprove of

it's the only definition that covers all the common uses. that it's nonsensical and pretty much means that the entire discourse about 'terrorism' is nothing more than the use of a general term of abuse doesn't seem to matter much.

:eek: Pop music is terrorism!

Can anybody tell me why God won't speak to me?
Why Jesus never called on me to part the fucking seas?

Nice ;)

Join PUTPN

People for the Unethical Treatment of PETA Nutters

terrorism = actions i disapprove of

it's the only definition that covers all the common uses. that it's nonsensical and pretty much means that the entire discourse about 'terrorism' is nothing more than the use of a general term of abuse doesn't seem to matter much. :headbang:
Today's Word: Terrorism (Noun)

Pronunciation: ['te-rê-riz-êm]

Definition 1: Use of the threat of violence and destruction to gain or maintain political, economic, or other objectives.

Usage 1: In the new age of global terrorism, we now face "ecoterrorism" on ecological issues, the "narcoterrorism" of drug lords in Columbia, Mexico, and other nations, and now—of all bizarre concepts—religious terrorism. (Should we call it "religioterrorism"?) All who resort to any sort of terrorism are "terrorists."

Suggested Usage: The difference between criminals and terrorists is not simply the fact that terrorists use political or philosophical justification for their illegal acts. Terrorists use the threat of violence to frighten a population into compliance with their beliefs. Terrorism hence works only with a population whose fear petrifies them; those who retaliate are less susceptible to terrorism and hence represent the greatest threat to it. Such resisters often become the focus of terrorists but they also represent the best hope for defeating it.

Etymology: Today's word originates with the "Reign of Terror" of the French Revolution (1789-1799) and first appeared toward the end of that revolution. 1794 was known as the year of "Red Terror" because so much blood flowed from the guillotines. In Russia, Trotsky wrote about how revolutionary organizations could use "red terror," now meaning communist terror, to fight the terror of the tsarist government. When the Bolsheviks assumed power, he proposed using it to establish governmental control much as the Jacobins did in France, a suggestion Stalin actually followed. History has thus manifested as much "state terrorism" as covert subversive terrorism.

—Dr. Language, yourDictionary.com

What was the last terrorist action carried out by NAMBLA? :confused:

Child molesting is terrorism, is it not?

Child molesting is terrorism, is it not?

Personally, I was fine with calling it a sex crime.

May as well say leaving chewing gum under seats is terrorism.

:headbang:
Today's Word: Terrorism (Noun)

Pronunciation: ['te-rê-riz-êm]

Definition 1: Use of the threat of violence and destruction to gain or maintain political, economic, or other objectives.

that's an even worse definition than the normal government one. it declares most examples of regular old crime to be terrorism - vandalism, theft, murder, extortion, arson, and littering are now all terrorist acts. also, you are aware that it declares most actions of the state to be terrorism, right? what is a military for, what do cops do? oops.

and, of course, it still doesn't cover all instances of common usage.

:eek: Pop music is terrorism!

clearly. especially the indiscriminate use of it.


Nice ;)

have you heard against me!'s new album yet?

You don't need to be angry at me just because the definition of terrorism that you posted doesn't justify your claim that Rod Coronado is a terrorist. The definition that you posted is what requires the political goal. That's not something I added. That supposed rubbish is the definition you posted. If you have a problem with terrorism being about politics, complain about it to the people who wrote your dictionary. Until you get your dictionary changed, what Rod Coronado did was, by definition, not terrorism.

I'm still not sure as to how you haven't associated Coronado's actions with any sort of political goal. He wanted to stop scientific experimentation on animals--experimentation an issue in politics--so he set a laboratory on fire to express his desires about that policy. Through that expression he--deliberately or nondeliberately--made a threat, be it to the scientists at that specific lab or to politicians/groups in favor of experimentation.

Coronado didn't just one day go "Hum dee dum dum. Oh! I think I'll set fire to an animal lab today with no outer meaning at all! That couldn't possibly be terrorism!" He destroyed property belonging to people in favor of animal experimentation with the intent to stop that experimentation. That is a political aim. That is inciting fear. That is terrorism.

that's an even worse definition than the normal government one. it declares most examples of regular old crime to be terrorism - vandalism, theft, murder, extortion, arson, and littering are now all terrorist acts.
And yet you ignored this bit:
Suggested Usage: The difference between criminals and terrorists is not simply the fact that terrorists use political or philosophical justification for their illegal acts. Terrorists use the threat of violence to frighten a population into compliance with their beliefs. " also, you are aware that it declares most actions of the state to be terrorism, right? what is a military for, what do cops do? oops. Clue: Actions taken bu a Government entity within its own jurisdiction can not, definitionally, be terrorisim because their activities are "Legal". They CAN be considered to be international crimes in their own right, but they cannot be terrorisim.

And yet you ignored this bit:
Clue: Actions taken bu a Government entity within its own jurisdiction can not, definitionally, be terrorisim because their activities are "Legal". They CAN be considered to be international crimes in their own right, but they cannot be terrorisim.

so the definition you provided wasn't anything like the definition you intended to hold? perhaps you'd care to try again, this time including all the clauses you think necessary.

have you heard against me!'s new album yet?

Alas, no.

Any good?

Was thinking of getting second hand, but haven't got around to it yet.

1. My definition of terrorism: The use of violence to non-military targets, living or not, to install fear in the target group, thereby helping achieve a political goal.
Yes, the US did use terrorism during WWII, but it wasn't illegal until a few years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US used legal terrorism. Al-quieda is using tactics clearly banned by the Geneva convention. It is using illegal terrorism. PETA supports clearly illegal acts of terrorism. It supports illegal terrorism.

2. Animal cruelty is illegal for a reason. It's unnecesary and many serial killers got their start by torturing animals. If you can seriously torture a dog or a fox to death, there's little to stop you from going up a knotch and putting a bullet in someone's head. It's a snowball effect. Since animal cruelty often leads to cruelty against people, stopping the cruelty to animals helps cut back on crime against people by removing a cause of it.

3. There should be alot less testing on animals. Cures and Vaccines only. No pouring shampoo in a chimp's eyes. No slashing a dog's throat with the latest razor blades. If it actually has a chance of curing aids or cancer, run some tests on it before amionistering it to animals. Also, make sure that the animal isn't too different from people. What saves a cat might kill a person, after all. Maybe human testing should be allowed, but only on the desperate. Give a felon on death row a choice between execution or being a human guinea pig. We get new medicines. Felon gets a longer life span. Win-win.

4. If I could save every fox on earth by killing a person, I would. After all, that species might help us cure cancer, thereby saving millions. Wouldn't hurt.

so the definition you provided wasn't anything like the definition you intended to hold? perhaps you'd care to try again, this time including all the clauses you think necessary.
I'll spell it slowly for you:

R...E...A...D. I know you ideology is blinding, but unless you want to continue to be known as an ineducatable idealogue, READ, and read contextually. :rolleyes:

Today's Word: Terrorism (Noun)

Pronunciation: ['te-rê-riz-êm]

Definition 1: Use of the threat of violence and destruction to gain or maintain political, economic, or other objectives.

Usage 1: In the new age of global terrorism, we now face "ecoterrorism" on ecological issues, the "narcoterrorism" of drug lords in Columbia, Mexico, and other nations, and now—of all bizarre concepts—religious terrorism. (Should we call it "religioterrorism"?) All who resort to any sort of terrorism are "terrorists."

Suggested Usage: The difference between criminals and terrorists is not simply the fact that terrorists use political or philosophical justification for their illegal acts. Terrorists use the threat of violence to frighten a population into compliance with their beliefs. Terrorism hence works only with a population whose fear petrifies them; those who retaliate are less susceptible to terrorism and hence represent the greatest threat to it. Such resisters often become the focus of terrorists but they also represent the best hope for defeating it.

(Western) Governments (Police/Revenue/etc) do not threaten "destruction". They, by definition, threaten (and sometimes perform) legal (authorized/legislated/whatever) violence against their citizens/subjects, but they do not threaten destruction (they usually only perform limited destruction as an ancillary to Legislated acts of violence - as in kicking in your door when they come to arrest you). The key is that, as stated in the definition you couldn't read, the terrorist is using illegal acts to coerce compliance with their beliefs. "Illegal" normally precludes government action and compliance with their beliefs precludes random criminality.

So I suggest that (you stop) apologizing for Terrorisim. I really don't think you have any credibility left to lose.

You broke my brain. Now I'm going to break something of yours. Prepare for your brain the shatter.

You broke my brain. Now I'm going to break something of yours. Prepare for your brain the shatter.
:confused: You gots a liquid nitrogen ear-squirter and Maxwell's silver hammer? :confused:

;)

My rebuttel will come with the force of ten thousand squids. Prepare for total social annihilation. Thou whilst experience thy doom fore the idle of November. It has to be an idle for some reason and Nove,ber's is the next one.

I'll spell it slowly for you:

R...E...A...D. I know you ideology is blinding, but unless you want to continue to be known as an ineducatable idealogue, READ, and read contextually. :rolleyes:

where you come from is it customary to see a passage like this

thing 1: blah blah blah blah blah

thing the second: blah blah blah blah blah

thing 3: blah blah blah blah blah

and think that parts of thing 3 are part of thing 1?

more specifically, where you come from is it customary to use the word 'definition' not to refer to a single statement defining a word, but rather to an entire passage that claims to be about 'suggested usage' in addition to a statement that claims to be a definition?

(Western) Governments (Police/Revenue/etc) do not threaten "destruction".

except against property in foreign countries, or owned by drug manufacturers, or when necessary to get a property owner to obey some law, or in the dozens of other cases where they do in fact threaten destruction.

The key is that, as stated in the definition you couldn't read, the terrorist is using illegal acts to coerce compliance with their beliefs. "Illegal" normally precludes government action and compliance with their beliefs precludes random criminality.

what does that little turn of phrase say if it is someone's belief that you ought give them all of your money and they coerce you into compliance with that belief?

and i wouldn't lightly hang my hat on mere legality. it is entirely within the realm of possibility that a state somewhere could legalize actions that would almost certainly fall under any useful definition of terrorism.

if we're going to use this word for anything, we ought to be able to fairly use it against state and non-state actors alike. "i'm the dictator and i say it's legal" isn't much in the way of a compelling basis of distinction.

Alas, no.

Any good?

Was thinking of getting second hand, but haven't got around to it yet.

i likes it. not quite as many sing-alongs on it, but it certainly has its moments.

speaking of sing-alongs - when i went to a show of theirs recently, i was rather impressed by the size of the crowd. but people really need to not try to collectively pretend they know the words to the new songs before they actually do. and to try to not get fooled by mid-song stops that are on the album.

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/709.html


I always hated those goddamn PETA hippocrate bastards :headbang:
About time someone made a video pointing out the MAJOR problems with people blindly following what they believe to be an ethical organization when it is nothing more then a money grubbing sceme! If peta had their way All pets would be taken away and killed. As a hand breader of Love birds I most strenously am against peta but all for the guidelines for ethical and proper treatment, breeding, raising and Loving of animals. No to you perverts not beastiality but the love you can see in a child's eyes when they first get their pet to go home after visiting them as they have been hand-raised over the previous 6 weeks or other as the pet may be. Anyone dumb enough to not actually look into the organization they are joining or supporting, at all levels, deserves to be ripped off and then shot! Don't be an Idiot check out anything you are joining and supporting FIRST!

The thing I dislike about PETA fanboys is their "you are either in full support of us or you want all animals abused and tortured to death for your enjoyment" stance. Well, I'm firmly against shooting animals so others don't have a chance to. PETA sounds desperate. The only time they aren't killing animals is when the cameras are rolling. They also support a form of terrorism. Terrorism isn't just blowing up people. It's the use of atack on non-military targets to achieve a goal by fear. Basicly, when you use violence to scare your target into submission, or at least attempt to, it's terrorism. A group of people burns down a lab. They do it to scare their target group because the target group is doing something they(terrorists) don't like. The goal of the attack was to scare the target, thereby getting the target to stop. That's terrorism. The terrorists go to jail. PETA pays the bond. PETA pays for the lawyers. PETA clearly supports the criminals.

I say we form our own environmental group. One that uses legal means to achieve our goal. We will also stop supporting those who do illegal things, whether the person is the janitor or the top banana, it matters not.