Political Crossfire Forums

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Sailor Moon wrote: People are the rulers of the earth, really. Alot of people work hard for other humans to conserve energy, stop global warming, etc, etc.. and then, I guess I am using an example that I am unsure of, but GDawg, for example, seems to think with all this we have no control over the earth. Well, we have a great deal of control, obviously. Even environmentalists believe that humans rule the earth, it seems, or else they wouldnt push so hard to get people to rule it more responsibly, in order to achieve a healthier planet...

So, I mean, if humans dont rule the earth, then why is it we feel we can reverse all the negative damage we have done to it?

--- Did you agree with this part?
I agree that as far as someone can rule an insensate thing such as a planet, then humans rule it, there are none to contest us. Some of the effects we see on the weather we 'probably' caused. The jury is still out on how much of it is us.

As far as controlling the earth I don't think there is any doubt that she can still show us what an unruly girl she can be, eg Tsunami..etc. We can control some gross affects, but we don't have any fine control, look at weather forecasts. Most of them drop to 50% (or only as good as guessing) more than a week ahead. So no we don't control the earth.

We can help the planet repair itself, if such a thig is possible, we can't 'fix it' at our current level of technology.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Selfish_Meme wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: People are the rulers of the earth, really. Alot of people work hard for other humans to conserve energy, stop global warming, etc, etc.. and then, I guess I am using an example that I am unsure of, but GDawg, for example, seems to think with all this we have no control over the earth. Well, we have a great deal of control, obviously. Even environmentalists believe that humans rule the earth, it seems, or else they wouldnt push so hard to get people to rule it more responsibly, in order to achieve a healthier planet...

So, I mean, if humans dont rule the earth, then why is it we feel we can reverse all the negative damage we have done to it?

--- Did you agree with this part?
I agree that as far as someone can rule an insensate thing such as a planet, then humans rule it, there are none to contest us. Some of the effects we see on the weather we 'probably' caused. The jury is still out on how much of it is us.

As far as controlling the earth I don't think there is any doubt that she can still show us what an unruly girl she can be, eg Tsunami..etc. We can control some gross affects, but we don't have any fine control, look at weather forecasts. Most of them drop to 50% (or only as good as guessing) more than a week ahead. So no we don't control the earth.

We can help the planet repair itself, if such a thig is possible, we can't 'fix it' at our current level of technology.

Actually tsunamis ARE caused by us. Global warming adds to the effects on waves. We are warming the planet, bu releasing more Carbon Dioxide into the air, and obviously desalinizing the oceans through our freshwater waste- that this also melts the glaciers, and when that cold water meets with hot water, it doesnt just suddenly get warm, it has to do other things first.

Hurricanes are caused by humans, also. These shouldnt be anything worse than tropical storms, but with global warming, we create hotter temperatures in African deserts, which then meets with the dropping cool air, from the melting ice up north- exposing more ice, and a steam, as well- then the cold air and hot air circles each other, since it cant just meld together, you see... Thats how hurricanes are formed, and global warming adds to that in a big way. We also have droughts, as well, due to overuse of fresh water (pouring it from a sink, brushing teeth in it, showering rather than bathing, then dumping the water as if it is useless... we overuse our natural rescources obviously) and with the droughts, the earth HAS to find ways to "cope", and fix the problems, so every 30 years or so, we have what I call an "anti-drought period", some people call it a "bad weather cycle".. not many are ever happy when it rains, it seems, but then when it does, people seem to be so selfsh that its just not "the right timing"...

Will we ever learn?

Talk about plates shifting, also? Do we really think this would be so drastic if we just lived in huts like we are meant to? Drilling in the plates for oil, and pipes, etc? This all has an effect on how the earth's platonic shifts occur... We take all this water from underground, and then we cant understand why volcanoes erupt so often? We cut down all these trees, and put up chemically potent factories, but we dont understand why the atmosphere is so pulluted?

We find out, when its too late, than an endangered species holds the cure to a serious illness, and build a huge research facility to try to replicate the cure? Dont we know that the more space the plants and animals have, the better off WE are???

We certainly do control the earth, and we are very much responsible to a great many problems with it. We rule the earth, we just dont do it responsibly, or ethically.

HomoUniversalis · Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:23 pm Post subject:

Sailor Moon wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: People are the rulers of the earth, really. Alot of people work hard for other humans to conserve energy, stop global warming, etc, etc.. and then, I guess I am using an example that I am unsure of, but GDawg, for example, seems to think with all this we have no control over the earth. Well, we have a great deal of control, obviously. Even environmentalists believe that humans rule the earth, it seems, or else they wouldnt push so hard to get people to rule it more responsibly, in order to achieve a healthier planet...

So, I mean, if humans dont rule the earth, then why is it we feel we can reverse all the negative damage we have done to it?

--- Did you agree with this part?
I agree that as far as someone can rule an insensate thing such as a planet, then humans rule it, there are none to contest us. Some of the effects we see on the weather we 'probably' caused. The jury is still out on how much of it is us.

As far as controlling the earth I don't think there is any doubt that she can still show us what an unruly girl she can be, eg Tsunami..etc. We can control some gross affects, but we don't have any fine control, look at weather forecasts. Most of them drop to 50% (or only as good as guessing) more than a week ahead. So no we don't control the earth.

We can help the planet repair itself, if such a thig is possible, we can't 'fix it' at our current level of technology.

Actually tsunamis ARE caused by us. Global warming adds to the effects on waves. We are warming the planet, bu releasing more Carbon Dioxide into the air, and obviously desalinizing the oceans through our freshwater waste- that this also melts the glaciers, and when that cold water meets with hot water, it doesnt just suddenly get warm, it has to do other things first.

Other things first? Oh, right, like kill people. The mixture of sea water and human blood is required. Please. The increase of Carbon Dioxide FOLLOWS an ice age. They got the correlation all wrong.

Quote: Hurricanes are caused by humans, also.

No they aren't. Hurricanes existed prior to humans. Does anyone here actually take you seriously after spewing out all this nonsense?

Quote: These shouldnt be anything worse than tropical storms, but with global warming, we create hotter temperatures in African deserts, which then meets with the dropping cool air, from the melting ice up north- exposing more ice, and a steam, as well- then the cold air and hot air circles each other, since it cant just meld together, you see...

Right.

Quote: Thats how hurricanes are formed, and global warming adds to that in a big way.

No, that is not how hurricanes are formed. In a big way? Can you show a correlation? Of course you can't. Weather and seasons are way too difficult to calculate to make proper predictions, let alone prove a hypothesis.

Quote: We also have droughts, as well, due to overuse of fresh water (pouring it from a sink, brushing teeth in it, showering rather than bathing, then dumping the water as if it is useless... we overuse our natural rescources obviously) and with the droughts, the earth HAS to find ways to "cope", and fix the problems, so every 30 years or so, we have what I call an "anti-drought period", some people call it a "bad weather cycle".. not many are ever happy when it rains, it seems, but then when it does, people seem to be so selfsh that its just not "the right timing"...

You don't have a clue. Most of the fresh water on the planet is in the amazon. There is a yearly cycle there where fresh water is recycled. What you call an "anti-drought period"? Well, you are correct in that you are the one to call it. Can you please supply your thesis where you present this revolutionary new occurence?

Quote: Will we ever learn?

We are. Slowly, people are buying less and less into fear.

Quote: Talk about plates shifting, also? Do we really think this would be so drastic if we just lived in huts like we are meant to? Drilling in the plates for oil, and pipes, etc? This all has an effect on how the earth's platonic shifts occur... We take all this water from underground, and then we cant understand why volcanoes erupt so often? We cut down all these trees, and put up chemically potent factories, but we dont understand why the atmosphere is so pulluted?

Plate shifting and atmospheric pollution? First of all, our atmosphere is not polluted. We are incapable of producing enough stuff to pollute our atmosphere. There are areas with smog, yes, but that has zero to do with atmosphere, and a lot to do with valleys, and too much cars producing too much waste that nature can't wash away quickly enough.

Quote: We find out, when its too late, than an endangered species holds the cure to a serious illness, and build a huge research facility to try to replicate the cure? Dont we know that the more space the plants and animals have, the better off WE are???

No we don't. We don't know this because it's not true.

Quote: We certainly do control the earth, and we are very much responsible to a great many problems with it. We rule the earth, we just dont do it responsibly, or ethically.

A semantical problem. And please, don't place ownership on what is and what is not ethical.

Mr U

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5538 Location: Taxatraz

Quote: But you aren't, because you believe that there is something intrinsically superior about a human being, which we might as well for all intents and purposes name a 'soul'. Of course this can't be proved scientifically so the belief can be called 'faith' (or religion).
This is a stereotype created by Democratic pro-"choice"rs. Not all people who oppose abortion oppose it for religious reasons. In the case of murder, a forceable act done to someone/something which is not owned by the one forcing it, extraneous details, such as whether one has a soul or not, are irrelevant.

Quote: a. Child or mature adult of any species - implies - care and respect.
Is one owed care and respect? If so, where and when is there objective proof that one is owed such a thing in a place and time in which it is owed?

Quote: b. Killing is not inherently immoral - implies - abortion, capital punishment and eating are acceptable.
Morals are subjective, killing/murder is not. Murder/Killing is the operation of x taking from y. In what circumstance does killing = murder?

Quote: c. Care and Respect - implies - killing must be done in a way consistent with societies laws and morals.
Again, you mention care and respect, yet you fail to give a concrete definition. Societies laws and morals may change, but killing/murder does not.

Quote: If my morals dictate that it is immoral to kill, then I can't eat anything.
Morals are subjective. What you believe about killing/murder means nothing since opinions will never defeat facts.

Quote: If your morals say it is immoral to kill a fetus, you should have starved or be starving by now, because you shouldn't be able to kill anything else either.
Again, morals have nothing to do with whether one has a right to kill or murder something.

Quote: So your stance on abortion has nothing to do with science or law. This is about you foisting your religious views upon people.
JFC, here we go again. :x

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

HomoUniversalis wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: People are the rulers of the earth, really. Alot of people work hard for other humans to conserve energy, stop global warming, etc, etc.. and then, I guess I am using an example that I am unsure of, but GDawg, for example, seems to think with all this we have no control over the earth. Well, we have a great deal of control, obviously. Even environmentalists believe that humans rule the earth, it seems, or else they wouldnt push so hard to get people to rule it more responsibly, in order to achieve a healthier planet...

So, I mean, if humans dont rule the earth, then why is it we feel we can reverse all the negative damage we have done to it?

--- Did you agree with this part?
I agree that as far as someone can rule an insensate thing such as a planet, then humans rule it, there are none to contest us. Some of the effects we see on the weather we 'probably' caused. The jury is still out on how much of it is us.

As far as controlling the earth I don't think there is any doubt that she can still show us what an unruly girl she can be, eg Tsunami..etc. We can control some gross affects, but we don't have any fine control, look at weather forecasts. Most of them drop to 50% (or only as good as guessing) more than a week ahead. So no we don't control the earth.

We can help the planet repair itself, if such a thig is possible, we can't 'fix it' at our current level of technology.

Actually tsunamis ARE caused by us. Global warming adds to the effects on waves. We are warming the planet, bu releasing more Carbon Dioxide into the air, and obviously desalinizing the oceans through our freshwater waste- that this also melts the glaciers, and when that cold water meets with hot water, it doesnt just suddenly get warm, it has to do other things first.

Other things first? Oh, right, like kill people. The mixture of sea water and human blood is required. Please. The increase of Carbon Dioxide FOLLOWS an ice age. They got the correlation all wrong.

I dont believe there ever was an ice age. I believe there were ice storms, with quick freezes, but there is no evidence showing that man didnt walk with the dinausaurs, so the Ice Age is nothing more than a hypothesis. I certainly think that glaciers are an integral part of our ecosystem, as well. Certainly, though, they do contain high gaseous levels, and as they melt, the gases are released. I dont question that. And human blood? What are you talking about?

Quote: Quote: Hurricanes are caused by humans, also.

No they aren't. Hurricanes existed prior to humans. Does anyone here actually take you seriously after spewing out all this nonsense?

Humans were put on this planet the day after animals and plants were. And also, how on earth would you know if hurricanes existed before humans? Angry much, BTW?

Quote: Quote: These shouldnt be anything worse than tropical storms, but with global warming, we create hotter temperatures in African deserts, which then meets with the dropping cool air, from the melting ice up north- exposing more ice, and a steam, as well- then the cold air and hot air circles each other, since it cant just meld together, you see...

Right.

Quote: Thats how hurricanes are formed, and global warming adds to that in a big way.

No, that is not how hurricanes are formed. In a big way? Can you show a correlation? Of course you can't. Weather and seasons are way too difficult to calculate to make proper predictions, let alone prove a hypothesis.

You clearly have no idea how hurricanes are made. Tell me.. since you know so much.. how are hurricanes formed? I used to work in a museum, and I learned an extensive amount about hurricanes. Back then, we didnt think it was global warming, (the really bad ones, anyways) but now I am quite sure it is. I live in FLORIDA.. I think I know a few things about hurricanes, thank you.

Quote: Quote: We also have droughts, as well, due to overuse of fresh water (pouring it from a sink, brushing teeth in it, showering rather than bathing, then dumping the water as if it is useless... we overuse our natural rescources obviously) and with the droughts, the earth HAS to find ways to "cope", and fix the problems, so every 30 years or so, we have what I call an "anti-drought period", some people call it a "bad weather cycle".. not many are ever happy when it rains, it seems, but then when it does, people seem to be so selfsh that its just not "the right timing"...

You don't have a clue. Most of the fresh water on the planet is in the amazon. There is a yearly cycle there where fresh water is recycled. What you call an "anti-drought period"? Well, you are correct in that you are the one to call it. Can you please supply your thesis where you present this revolutionary new occurence?

Tell me what happens after a long drought.. a bunch of raining and flooding, right? Duh.... Dont be so hostile, dude... You would know this if you paid even the slightest bit of attention to ecological events.

Quote: Quote: Will we ever learn?

We are. Slowly, people are buying less and less into fear.

I dont know.. this post of yours is not showing anything but anger and hostility... and... FEAR...

Quote: Quote: Talk about plates shifting, also? Do we really think this would be so drastic if we just lived in huts like we are meant to? Drilling in the plates for oil, and pipes, etc? This all has an effect on how the earth's platonic shifts occur... We take all this water from underground, and then we cant understand why volcanoes erupt so often? We cut down all these trees, and put up chemically potent factories, but we dont understand why the atmosphere is so pulluted?

Plate shifting and atmospheric pollution? First of all, our atmosphere is not polluted. We are incapable of producing enough stuff to pollute our atmosphere. There are areas with smog, yes, but that has zero to do with atmosphere, and a lot to do with valleys, and too much cars producing too much waste that nature can't wash away quickly enough.

The atmosphere I was referring to, was the portion that we breathe, and of course, where the storms take place. Besides, you just admitted that these are caused by man. Shoot, maybe "air" would have been a better term? Maybe not- you seem so angry, it wouldnt make a hillabeans difference, now would it..

Quote: Quote: We find out, when its too late, than an endangered species holds the cure to a serious illness, and build a huge research facility to try to replicate the cure? Dont we know that the more space the plants and animals have, the better off WE are???

No we don't. We don't know this because it's not true.

Yeah... suuuuure....

Quote: Quote: We certainly do control the earth, and we are very much responsible to a great many problems with it. We rule the earth, we just dont do it responsibly, or ethically.

A semantical problem. And please, don't place ownership on what is and what is not ethical.

Hey you dont have to take responsibility for it, Im not forcing you to... but youve already admitted that its our fault, anyways..so what does it matter how you feel, personally? We'll probably end up all dying from the bird flu, anyways...

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9530

Sailor Moon wrote: You clearly have no idea how hurricanes are made. Tell me.. since you know so much.. how are hurricanes formed? I used to work in a museum, and I learned an extensive amount about hurricanes. Back then, we didnt think it was global warming, (the really bad ones, anyways) but now I am quite sure it is. I live in FLORIDA.. I think I know a few things about hurricanes, thank you.

I used to live in Florida as well, and have lived through a hurricane....though, to be honest I was too young to remember.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Liberty4All- Actually, opinions change too, while killing does not.

And morals are not opinions, theyre laws. Both change according to ethics, because ethics = reason.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Liberty4All wrote: Quote: But you aren't, because you believe that there is something intrinsically superior about a human being, which we might as well for all intents and purposes name a 'soul'. Of course this can't be proved scientifically so the belief can be called 'faith' (or religion).
This is a stereotype created by Democratic pro-"choice"rs. Not all people who oppose abortion oppose it for religious reasons. In the case of murder, a forceable act done to someone/something which is not owned by the one forcing it, extraneous details, such as whether one has a soul or not, are irrelevant.

Quote: a. Child or mature adult of any species - implies - care and respect.
Is one owed care and respect? If so, where and when is there objective proof that one is owed such a thing in a place and time in which it is owed?

Quote: b. Killing is not inherently immoral - implies - abortion, capital punishment and eating are acceptable.
Morals are subjective, killing/murder is not. Murder/Killing is the operation of x taking from y. In what circumstance does killing = murder?

Quote: c. Care and Respect - implies - killing must be done in a way consistent with societies laws and morals.
Again, you mention care and respect, yet you fail to give a concrete definition. Societies laws and morals may change, but killing/murder does not.

Quote: If my morals dictate that it is immoral to kill, then I can't eat anything.
Morals are subjective. What you believe about killing/murder means nothing since opinions will never defeat facts.

Quote: If your morals say it is immoral to kill a fetus, you should have starved or be starving by now, because you shouldn't be able to kill anything else either.
Again, morals have nothing to do with whether one has a right to kill or murder something.

Quote: So your stance on abortion has nothing to do with science or law. This is about you foisting your religious views upon people.
JFC, here we go again. :x[/quote]
Did you have a point? All you have done is take issue with individual statements, without looking at the context and produced basically nothingof any worth.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Liberty4All wrote: Quote: But you aren't, because you believe that there is something intrinsically superior about a human being, which we might as well for all intents and purposes name a 'soul'. Of course this can't be proved scientifically so the belief can be called 'faith' (or religion).
This is a stereotype created by Democratic pro-"choice"rs. Not all people who oppose abortion oppose it for religious reasons. In the case of murder, a forceable act done to someone/something which is not owned by the one forcing it, extraneous details, such as whether one has a soul or not, are irrelevant.

Quote: a. Child or mature adult of any species - implies - care and respect.
Is one owed care and respect? If so, where and when is there objective proof that one is owed such a thing in a place and time in which it is owed?

Quote: b. Killing is not inherently immoral - implies - abortion, capital punishment and eating are acceptable.
Morals are subjective, killing/murder is not. Murder/Killing is the operation of x taking from y. In what circumstance does killing = murder?

Quote: c. Care and Respect - implies - killing must be done in a way consistent with societies laws and morals.
Again, you mention care and respect, yet you fail to give a concrete definition. Societies laws and morals may change, but killing/murder does not.

Quote: If my morals dictate that it is immoral to kill, then I can't eat anything.
Morals are subjective. What you believe about killing/murder means nothing since opinions will never defeat facts.

Quote: If your morals say it is immoral to kill a fetus, you should have starved or be starving by now, because you shouldn't be able to kill anything else either.
Again, morals have nothing to do with whether one has a right to kill or murder something.

Quote: So your stance on abortion has nothing to do with science or law. This is about you foisting your religious views upon people.
JFC, here we go again. :x[/quote]
Did you have a point? All you have done is take issue with individual statements, without looking at the context within the whole and just wasted a lot of space..

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

As have you.. that wasnt even a double post... wow.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

My bad, the double post, had an issue with connectivity.

Unfortunately can't delete one now.

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2356 Location: Edinburgh

[OT]
Sailor Moon wrote:
Actually tsunamis ARE caused by us. Global warming adds to the effects on waves.
Tsunamis are caused by plate techtonics, not climate. Global warming (whatever the causes) does have a lot of adverse effects, but tsunamis are definitely not one of them.
[/OT]

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5538 Location: Taxatraz

Quote: Did you have a point? All you have done is take issue with individual statements, without looking at the context and produced basically nothingof any worth.
Perhaps you did not read my post properly. I already explained to you that the context in a wrongful act is irrelevant. A wrongful act is a wrongful act, not an <insert adjective> wrongful act.

Quote: x takes from y
That statement describes everything that needs to be known about the occurrence in question without resorting to value judgements and emotional rhetoric.

The point of this discussion is to determine the difference between killing and murder, the former being a possibly justifiable act. You have not answered the question of when killing = murder.

jlrobe · Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 118

Sailor Moon wrote: I sometimes hear generalizations on here saying that pro lifers are hypocritical. I just want to ask those of you who are pro animal rights, and pro choice, why it is you stand for animal rights and not human rights?

ah, it seems you have a misconception or perception which is to be expected.

People who are pro-choice do fight for human rights, they just choose to give the mother full rights over her body irregardless of the fetus in it. For pro-choice people they feel not letting a woman choose is a violation of her human rights, which they feel is for a human to control their own bodies.

You will argue, and that is fine, but that is what many pro-choicers believe.

jlrobe · Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 118

Sailor Moon wrote: Dezz wrote: The issue of animal rights is an emotional debate concerning the savage treatment of animals in America. The abortion issue is really more about the question of when life begins. They may seem related but I don't think they really are.

What about the savage treatment of humans? Humans being torn limb from limb means nothing in relation to animal rights?

not if life hasnt begun. :)

But seriously, how many abortions in how many states are legal where the fetus is that developed. Usually the fetus is the size of a bottle cap when aborted. If anything, the government should put a strict 15 week cap on abortion where almost no features are formed.

jlrobe · Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 118

I will ask again:

Why, then, do many animal rights activists push for criminalization of killing a bald eagle's egg, but push for partial birth abortion?

PS pro lifers arent (usually) looking to give fetuses rights, either, but like animal rights advocates, we want better, more humane treatment to our little human friends, and at least a fighting chance at life.

(edited for word choice)[/quote]

Probably because the bald eagle is endangered. We do all sorts of strange things for a protected species. Killing an egg is forcing the bald eagle into extinction, while killing a fetus (although not cool), will not wipe out the human race.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Dude we cause a heck of alot more problems than youd like to believe:

http://ipcc-ddc.cru.uea.ac.uk/ddc_envdata.html

http://gpn.unl.edu/guides/688.017.pdf#search='tectonic%20movements%20human%20affect'

http://www.crystalinks.com/tsunami.html

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5538 Location: Taxatraz

Quote: jlrobe wrote: I will ask again:

Why, then, do many animal rights activists push for criminalization of killing a bald eagle's egg, but push for partial birth abortion?

PS pro lifers arent (usually) looking to give fetuses rights, either, but like animal rights advocates, we want better, more humane treatment to our little human friends, and at least a fighting chance at life.

(edited for word choice)

Probably because the bald eagle is endangered. We do all sorts of strange things for a protected species. Killing an egg is forcing the bald eagle into extinction, while killing a fetus (although not cool), will not wipe out the human race.
Democrats like to "protect" things. They like mommy to make things safe and fair. Maybe mom is more forgiving of sexual indiscretions than dad? :lol:

jlrobe · Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 118

Liberty4All wrote: Quote: jlrobe wrote:

Democrats like to "protect" things. They like mommy to make things safe and fair. Maybe mom is more forgiving of sexual indiscretions? :lol:

It is what it is. If we keep our eye on the ball, everything makes. Although it seems contadictory to not want dogs slaughtered, or species exterminated, but at the same time condone abortion, it isnt. Paradoxical, maybe, but not a contradiction.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

When you consider that humans are mammals, the same way Dogs are, and find zero historical accounts of dogs sharing their homes with humans, while humans gladly cohabitate with dogs- it is very much contradictive to fight for dogs lives, but not humans.