Political Crossfire Forums

[Warmonger]

No response for me, forthegreatergood? Heh... not surprised. :lol:

[forthegreatergood]

Warmonger wrote: Quote: Inferior?
Hawks have better vision than you...
Dogs have better scent detection than you...
Gorillas are much stronger than you...
Cheetahs are much faster than you...
Giraffes are much taller than you...
Crocodiles jaw strengh is much stronger than yours...
Birds can use their bodies to fly, you cannot...
Bats have infrared senses...
Dolphins have sonar abilities
Fish can live underwater, you cannot...
Cats have better night vision...
etc, etc,......

Idiocy.

***Idiocy? That may be your human skill, but I wouldn't claim it.

For each of these individual animals that trump humanity in one or two traits, I can list a single human that trumps them in a dozen or more. Reasoning skills, mathematics, analytical thinking... the list goes on... and on... and on.

***Animals can reason.

source:http://www.sciencefriday.com/kids/sfkc20040116-2.html

"Can chimps chat? Will monkeys make conversation? Do gorillas gossip? There’s no doubt about it, animals do communicate—with each other and with humans. If you have pets, you know. Your own dog makes it abundantly clear to you when it’s mealtime or time to go outside for a walk. And your cat is probably pretty unmistakable about wanting to be fed or cuddled. If you’ve ever been to the zoo and watched the monkeys interact, you’ve probably seen them communicate with gestures, facial expressions, and even sounds. And then there’s Koko, the gorilla who communicates with humans using American Sign Language."


Quote: If they are so inferior, then why do you rely on them for your body to exist?

Could my body flourish without animal meat? I don't know. I've not looked at the studies on what you can suplement animal nutrients with.
I'll say, for your sake, that my body could be completely healthy without animal meat. I would STILL eat them, even if I did not depend on them for sustenance. Why? Because they taste good.

***Carl Lewis, 9 time olympic athlete is a vegan. He was a world record holder. Ricky Williams, running back for UT, New Orleans Saints, Miami Dolphins, is vegetarian. These are considered tremendous athletes.

Quote: Who says we run the show? Didn't humans also think they ran the show show years ago when we thought the world was flat and earth was the center of the universe? Or was it when Europe and Asia didn't know about the Americas? I could go on with examples...


Do you see gorillas putting out fires in our cities?

***I have never seen a gorilla start a fire. You know why? They are generally vegetarian. They do not need fire to cook creature flesh.

Do you see giraffes finding cures for disease?

***Maybe that is because giraffes are generally vegetarian, so they don't get diseases as much so they do not need to find cures for diseases.

Do you see fish developing the longer-lasting lightbulb?

***Ha! Fish can have their own lightbulbs, as this generally deep sea fish does.



Humanity is the highest form of life on this planet. This is a completely uncontested fact.

***Is that true for the whole humanity, or specific individuals? Would you consider a human who slaughtered billions of creatures a higher form of life than a specific animal who could produce some sort of enzyme to cure AIDS for billions?

I don't know what you are babbling about. When we were still discovering that the world was not flat, and learning more about astronomy, we were still the top dogs, so I fail to see your point there, either. Now, if a kangaroo came back to Europe and proclaimed that HE discovered the world was not flat first, then you might have a leg to stand on.....


***When was the specific moment or moments when humans became "superior"? Or have we always been superior? Or do we sometimes lose this superiority and sometimes regain it as time occurs? Is every human being that has ever been a human being superior? What about shapeshifters? What is the definition of human actually? Do you have to have all your limbs, do you have to be a specific height, does your brain have to weigh a specific amount, do you have to have two eyes or one?, what senses do you require to be considered human?

[Warmonger]

Quote: Idiocy.

***Idiocy? That may be your human skill, but I wouldn't claim it.

We all possess the ability to say and do stupid things, as your posts give us a prime example.

Quote: ***Animals can reason.


I don't see them doing advanced mathematics, or going to space, or creating a plastic that is as strong as steel. I don't see them ever being anything more than what they are right now.

Quote: Could my body flourish without animal meat? I don't know. I've not looked at the studies on what you can suplement animal nutrients with.
I'll say, for your sake, that my body could be completely healthy without animal meat. I would STILL eat them, even if I did not depend on them for sustenance. Why? Because they taste good.

***Carl Lewis, 9 time olympic athlete is a vegan. He was a world record holder. Ricky Williams, running back for UT, New Orleans Saints, Miami Dolphins, is vegetarian. These are considered tremendous athletes.

I conceeded this point, since I do not have the knowledge to debate it. The human body may very well be capable of living entirely without animal products.... I don't know for sure. Be that as it may, I told you earlier that I would still eat meat, and why.

Quote: Do you see gorillas putting out fires in our cities?

***I have never seen a gorilla start a fire.
You know why? They are generally vegetarian. They do not need fire to cook creature flesh.

Oh yes, picking s**t and insects off of their friends' hides is far more preferable. I also seriously doubt that a gorilla has the knowledge to start a fire.

Quote: Do you see giraffes finding cures for disease?

***Maybe that is because giraffes are generally vegetarian, so they don't get diseases as much so they do not need to find cures for diseases.


I expected a better retort from you than this. Can you show me proof that a vegetarian gets sick less than a meat eater?
Also, your logic is flawed. A giraffe doesnt need to find a cure for disease, since they don't get them as much? :roll:

Quote: Do you see fish developing the longer-lasting lightbulb?

***Ha! Fish can have their own lightbulbs, as this generally deep sea fish does.


That's one fish out of how many types that exist? Also, how does that light aid the species as a whole? Oh, wait... it doesn't. It helps the fish kill other fish. Hey, that fish is a meat eater! You must not like him, eh, forthegreatergood?

Quote: Humanity is the highest form of life on this planet. This is a completely uncontested fact.

***Is that true for the whole humanity, or specific individuals? Would you consider a human who slaughtered billions of creatures a higher form of life than a specific animal who could produce some sort of enzyme to cure AIDS for billions?

I speak of humanity as a whole when I say that humanity is the highest form of life on the planet. To answer your other question, yes. A human who "slaughters billions of creatures" is still a higher form of life than an animal who's body has the key to a cure for AIDS locked within it. This is not to say that the human is a model citizen, but they are a higher form of life.

Quote: ***When was the specific moment or moments when humans became "superior"? Or have we always been superior? Or do we sometimes lose this superiority and sometimes regain it as time occurs? Is every human being that has ever been a human being superior? What about shapeshifters? What is the definition of human actually? Do you have to have all your limbs, do you have to be a specific height, does your brain have to weigh a specific amount, do you have to have two eyes or one?, what senses do you require to be considered human?

Whether you believe in creation... evolution... or whatever, the moment humanity set foot on this world, the animal kingdom has been doomed to serve as a supporting roleplayer, not the main theme.

[social]

forthegreatergood wrote: social wrote: A.D wrote: http://www.themainmeal.com.au/evolution.mpg

This ad is being played on Australian T.V. Given this, do you think it would be okay for animal rights organisations to put across their moral view-point in a similar vain? (For example, they might point out the capacity of many higher animals to fell pain as showed through scientific studies, or perhaps they might show images from a modern factory farm.)

Why/Why not?

As always I find your posts interesting A.D, though this time I'm inclined to lower the standard of discourse by branding this advert a load of horsesh*t! It implies that red meat is the only way to acquire certain natural proteins, when in actual fact white meat - chicken, but more importantly, fish - provides far more protein than red meat, gives omega 3s (essential for the brain), and is lower in fat than red meat (unless you eat the skin). Also, I recently read of a study that suggested excessive consumption of red meat actually increases the liklihood of bowel/intestinal cancer. White meats are better.

Right, onto the real issue at hand here. I think animal rights groups should be able to put thier message across just as, for example, health organisations put thier message across. There've been some really succesful, if a little graphic adverts here in the UK that warn of the dangers of drink-driving and smoking and over-drinking. It made me think: should the medium of advertising be used to promote things that benefit society, and not just to promote consumerism and the mindless pursuits it creates?

Of course it should, though I'm a little sceptical of this ever taking effect because these organisations haven't the money to advertise day in, day out. Perhaps a certain amount of time each day should be reserved for these orgnisations and advertisers forced to accept reduced (or no) fees for more ethically grounded 'products'. Whaddya think?

Sources say that other sources of proteins are casein, whey, soy, etc...

Indeed, er...what's you point?

[forthegreatergood]

[quote="Warmonger"] Quote: Idiocy.

Quote: *forthegreatergood*:Animals can reason.


I don't see them doing advanced mathematics, or going to space, or creating a plastic that is as strong as steel. I don't see them ever being anything more than what they are right now.

*forthegreatergood*:But think about how our common knowledge has been obtained. Where was the source of this knowledge? It has not been one person who has come up with this common knowledge alltogether in one body or was it? There have been contributions from individuals, and these have been passed down in generations. Perhaps other creatures could have done so if we had not slaughtered them. Discovering things sometimes takes time and experience, yet other creatures could have difficulty doing that if we do not let them live and progress. Don't you think it is like keeping them down? Instead of fostering their growth? Is that GOOD or evil?

Quote: Could my body flourish without animal meat? I don't know. I've not looked at the studies on what you can suplement animal nutrients with.
I'll say, for your sake, that my body could be completely healthy without animal meat. I would STILL eat them, even if I did not depend on them for sustenance. Why? Because they taste good.

*[u]forthegreatergood[/u]*:Carl Lewis, 9 time olympic athlete is a vegan. He was a world record holder. Ricky Williams, running back for UT, New Orleans Saints, Miami Dolphins, is vegetarian. These are considered tremendous athletes.

I conceeded this point, since I do not have the knowledge to debate it. The human body may very well be capable of living entirely without animal products.... I don't know for sure. Be that as it may, I told you earlier that I would still eat meat, and why.

Quote: Do you see gorillas putting out fires in our cities?

*forthegreatergood*:I have never seen a gorilla start a fire.
You know why? They are generally vegetarian. They do not need fire to cook creature flesh.

Oh yes, picking s**t and insects off of their friends' hides is far more preferable.
*forthegreatergood*:Humans have done that too.

I also seriously doubt that a gorilla has the knowledge to start a fire.
*forthegreatergood*:Maybe gorillas do not need to.What does it need fire for?

*forthegreatergood*:

Quote: Do you see giraffes finding cures for disease?
*forthegreatergood*:Yes, I believe that a giraffe can find a way to be more at ease. Giraffes know how to relax.
*forthegreatergood*:Do you see humans causing types of disease?

*forthegreatergood*:Maybe that is because giraffes are generally vegetarian, so they don't get diseases as much so they do not need to find cures for diseases.


I expected a better retort from you than this. Can you show me proof that a vegetarian gets sick less than a meat eater?

*forthegreatergood*:There are variables, so maybe we can start another thread on this; This picture is an example:
Here is a 50 year old vegetarian bodybuilder
source:http://ksteveh.tripod.com/vegetarianbodybuilder_home.html





Also, your logic is flawed. A giraffe doesnt need to find a cure for disease, since they don't get them as much? :roll:

*forthegreatergood*:Prove to me giraffes get disease more than humans and then we can debate more.

Quote: Do you see fish developing the longer-lasting lightbulb?

*forthegreatergood*:Ha! Fish can have their own lightbulbs, as this generally deep sea fish does.


That's one fish out of how many types that exist? Also, how does that light aid the species as a whole? Oh, wait... it doesn't. It helps the fish kill other fish. Hey, that fish is a meat eater! You must not like him, eh, forthegreatergood?

*forthegreatergood*:Here is another example:
source:http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050117_fish_eyes.html


"Although most fish are cold-blooded, swordfish, tuna, and some species of sharks are able to elevate the temperature in parts of their bodies. Swordfish in particular have been found to keep their eyes 18-27 degrees Fahrenheit (10-15 Celsius) above the surrounding water temperature.

Recent research suggests that depending on how deep swordfish and other predatory fish are, and how much light is available, their eyes operate at different temperatures and different shutter speeds, allowing them to better track agile prey.

"One of their eye muscles is modified to act like a furnace," said Richard Brill of the National Marine Fisheries Service. "It is chock-a-block full of mitochondria."

Mitochondria are the energy powerhouses in cells. This special eye muscle in the swordfish converts its energy directly into heat instead of motion.

"At the biochemical level, it is similar to what goes on in mammals," Brill told LiveScience in a telephone interview."

Quote: Humanity is the highest form of life on this planet. This is a completely uncontested fact.

*forthegreatergood*:Is that true for the whole humanity, or specific individuals? Would you consider a human who slaughtered billions of creatures a higher form of life than a specific animal who could produce some sort of enzyme to cure AIDS for billions?

I speak of humanity as a whole when I say that humanity is the highest form of life on the planet.

*forthegreatergood*:What about instances such as when millions experienced what they called the bubonic plague that was transferred from rat creatures? What about the H5N1 bird flu? Maybe these are defense mechanisms by nature trying to tell humans not to eat other creatures. Or could nature be telling humans not to eat animals by the porcupine's quills? Or


To answer your other question, yes. A human who "slaughters billions of creatures" is still a higher form of life than an animal who's body has the key to a cure for AIDS locked within it. This is not to say that the human is a model citizen, but they are a higher form of life.

***Can you explain this further, please?

Quote: *forthegreatergood*:When was the specific moment or moments when humans became "superior"? Or have we always been superior? Or do we sometimes lose this superiority and sometimes regain it as time occurs? Is every human being that has ever been a human being superior? What about shapeshifters? What is the definition of human actually? Do you have to have all your limbs, do you have to be a specific height, does your brain have to weigh a specific amount, do you have to have two eyes or one?, what senses do you require to be considered human?

Whether you believe in creation... evolution... or whatever, the moment humanity set foot on this world, the animal kingdom has been doomed to serve as a supporting roleplayer, not the main theme.

*forthegreatergood*:So it is when they set foot on the world that the animal beingdom are considered "slaves" according to you? Why exactly is that? Is it because humans said, "we are the dominant species"? What about peaceful co-existence for the greater good? Hmmm...Domination..haven't humans tried to dominate each other? Humans. Didn't they also enslave each other?Delusionary thinking can cause problems;then those problems need to be problem solved correctly.

[forthegreatergood]

Warmonger wrote: Quote: Idiocy.

***Idiocy? That may be your human skill, but I wouldn't claim it.

We all possess the ability to say and do stupid things, as your posts give us a prime example.

Quote: ***Animals can reason.


I don't see them doing advanced mathematics, or going to space, or creating a plastic that is as strong as steel. I don't see them ever being anything more than what they are right now.

Quote: Could my body flourish without animal meat? I don't know. I've not looked at the studies on what you can suplement animal nutrients with.
I'll say, for your sake, that my body could be completely healthy without animal meat. I would STILL eat them, even if I did not depend on them for sustenance. Why? Because they taste good.

***Carl Lewis, 9 time olympic athlete is a vegan. He was a world record holder. Ricky Williams, running back for UT, New Orleans Saints, Miami Dolphins, is vegetarian. These are considered tremendous athletes.

I conceeded this point, since I do not have the knowledge to debate it. The human body may very well be capable of living entirely without animal products.... I don't know for sure. Be that as it may, I told you earlier that I would still eat meat, and why.

Quote: Do you see gorillas putting out fires in our cities?

***I have never seen a gorilla start a fire.
You know why? They are generally vegetarian. They do not need fire to cook creature flesh.

Oh yes, picking s**t and insects off of their friends' hides is far more preferable. I also seriously doubt that a gorilla has the knowledge to start a fire.

Quote: Do you see giraffes finding cures for disease?

***Maybe that is because giraffes are generally vegetarian, so they don't get diseases as much so they do not need to find cures for diseases.


I expected a better retort from you than this. Can you show me proof that a vegetarian gets sick less than a meat eater?
Also, your logic is flawed. A giraffe doesnt need to find a cure for disease, since they don't get them as much? :roll:

Quote: Do you see fish developing the longer-lasting lightbulb?

***Ha! Fish can have their own lightbulbs, as this generally deep sea fish does.


That's one fish out of how many types that exist? Also, how does that light aid the species as a whole? Oh, wait... it doesn't. It helps the fish
*forthegreatergood*:Hmm...this reminds me of how humans were inspired to fly by watching birds. Responding to the fish, aren't fish eyes "optics", a source that responds to light?

kill other fish. Hey, that fish is a meat eater! You must not like him, eh, forthegreatergood?

Quote: Humanity is the highest form of life on this planet. This is a completely uncontested fact.

***It has been contested before:Have you ever watched the "Planet of the Apes" shows?

***Is that true for the whole humanity, or specific individuals? Would you consider a human who slaughtered billions of creatures a higher form of life than a specific animal who could produce some sort of enzyme to cure AIDS for billions?

I speak of humanity as a whole when I say that humanity is the highest form of life on the planet. To answer your other question, yes. A human who "slaughters billions of creatures" is still a higher form of life than an animal who's body has the key to a cure for AIDS locked within it. This is not to say that the human is a model citizen, but they are a higher form of life.

Quote: ***When was the specific moment or moments when humans became "superior"? Or have we always been superior? Or do we sometimes lose this superiority and sometimes regain it as time occurs? Is every human being that has ever been a human being superior? What about shapeshifters? What is the definition of human actually? Do you have to have all your limbs, do you have to be a specific height, does your brain have to weigh a specific amount, do you have to have two eyes or one?, what senses do you require to be considered human?

Whether you believe in creation... evolution... or whatever, the moment humanity set foot on this world, the animal kingdom has been doomed to serve as a supporting roleplayer, not the main theme.

[forthegreatergood]

social wrote: forthegreatergood wrote: social wrote: A.D wrote: http://www.themainmeal.com.au/evolution.mpg

This ad is being played on Australian T.V. Given this, do you think it would be okay for animal rights organisations to put across their moral view-point in a similar vain? (For example, they might point out the capacity of many higher animals to fell pain as showed through scientific studies, or perhaps they might show images from a modern factory farm.)

Why/Why not?

As always I find your posts interesting A.D, though this time I'm inclined to lower the standard of discourse by branding this advert a load of horsesh*t! It implies that red meat is the only way to acquire certain natural proteins, when in actual fact white meat - chicken, but more importantly, fish - provides far more protein than red meat, gives omega 3s (essential for the brain), and is lower in fat than red meat (unless you eat the skin). Also, I recently read of a study that suggested excessive consumption of red meat actually increases the liklihood of bowel/intestinal cancer. White meats are better.

Right, onto the real issue at hand here. I think animal rights groups should be able to put thier message across just as, for example, health organisations put thier message across. There've been some really succesful, if a little graphic adverts here in the UK that warn of the dangers of drink-driving and smoking and over-drinking. It made me think: should the medium of advertising be used to promote things that benefit society, and not just to promote consumerism and the mindless pursuits it creates?

Of course it should, though I'm a little sceptical of this ever taking effect because these organisations haven't the money to advertise day in, day out. Perhaps a certain amount of time each day should be reserved for these orgnisations and advertisers forced to accept reduced (or no) fees for more ethically grounded 'products'. Whaddya think?

Sources say that other sources of proteins are casein, whey, soy, etc...

Indeed, er...what's you point?

*forthegreatergood*:There are different methods of obtaining protein.

[Mr. Jaggers]

edited

[mathurin]

am i the only one who thinks forthegreatergoods replies are getting really stupid?


random example
<I speak of humanity as a whole when I say that humanity is the highest form of life on the planet.

*forthegreatergood*:What about instances such as when millions experienced what they called the bubonic plague that was transferred from rat creatures? What about the H5N1 bird flu? Maybe these are defense mechanisms by nature trying to tell humans not to eat other creatures. Or could nature be telling humans not to eat animals by the porcupine's quills? Or >

we never ate rats, and bubonic was actually from the fleas on the rats
bird flu has yet to mutate to human-human transmission, i doubt it will

rofl
and, since you are going this direction, is AIDS natures way of telling us we shouldnt be f***ing everything that moves?

[mathurin]

[quote="forthegreatergood"] Warmonger wrote: Quote: Idiocy.

Quote: *forthegreatergood*:Animals can reason.


I don't see them doing advanced mathematics, or going to space, or creating a plastic that is as strong as steel. I don't see them ever being anything more than what they are right now.

*forthegreatergood*:But think about how our common knowledge has been obtained. Where was the source of this knowledge? It has not been one person who has come up with this common knowledge alltogether in one body or was it? There have been contributions from individuals, and these have been passed down in generations. Perhaps other creatures could have done so if we had not slaughtered them. Discovering things sometimes takes time and experience, yet other creatures could have difficulty doing that if we do not let them live and progress. Don't you think it is like keeping them down? Instead of fostering their growth? Is that GOOD or evil?


are you serious?

ill tell you what, you take the lead, ill donate $50 to your organization, you can buy some books and school supplies and go out into the woods to teach the animals, i dont expect you to live long, lions and such dont find education as tasty as your flesh



forthegreatergood wrote:
Quote: Could my body flourish without animal meat? I don't know. I've not looked at the studies on what you can suplement animal nutrients with.
I'll say, for your sake, that my body could be completely healthy without animal meat. I would STILL eat them, even if I did not depend on them for sustenance. Why? Because they taste good.

*[u]forthegreatergood[/u]*:Carl Lewis, 9 time olympic athlete is a vegan. He was a world record holder. Ricky Williams, running back for UT, New Orleans Saints, Miami Dolphins, is vegetarian. These are considered tremendous athletes.

I conceeded this point, since I do not have the knowledge to debate it. The human body may very well be capable of living entirely without animal products.... I don't know for sure. Be that as it may, I told you earlier that I would still eat meat, and why.

he has already conceded he didnt know, you can shut up now



forthegreatergood wrote:
Quote: Do you see gorillas putting out fires in our cities?

*forthegreatergood*:I have never seen a gorilla start a fire.
You know why? They are generally vegetarian. They do not need fire to cook creature flesh.

Oh yes, picking s**t and insects off of their friends' hides is far more preferable.
*forthegreatergood*:Humans have done that too.

I also seriously doubt that a gorilla has the knowledge to start a fire.
*forthegreatergood*:Maybe gorillas do not need to.What does it need fire for?

*forthegreatergood*:

Quote: Do you see giraffes finding cures for disease?
*forthegreatergood*:Yes, I believe that a giraffe can find a way to be more at ease. Giraffes know how to relax.
*forthegreatergood*:Do you see humans causing types of disease?


why would gorrillas need fire?
keep warm
light
making tools
scaring away predators
cooking veggies

primitive man used fire for many things, gorillas are not smart enough to learn how to make fire

a girl getting her hair done is not someone picking the s**t and bug out of her hair and eating them, sorry



forthegreatergood wrote:
*forthegreatergood*:Maybe that is because giraffes are generally vegetarian, so they don't get diseases as much so they do not need to find cures for diseases.


I expected a better retort from you than this. Can you show me proof that a vegetarian gets sick less than a meat eater?

Also, your logic is flawed. A giraffe doesnt need to find a cure for disease, since they don't get them as much? :roll:

forthegreatergood wrote:
*forthegreatergood*:Prove to me giraffes get disease more than humans and then we can debate more.


you know its not possible, comparativly few people are studying disease in giraffes as opposed to those studying it in humans, on the other hand its not possible to prove the other way either, so you are the one who made an unprovable statement


forthegreatergood wrote:
Quote: Do you see fish developing the longer-lasting lightbulb?

*forthegreatergood*:Ha! Fish can have their own lightbulbs, as this generally deep sea fish does.


That's one fish out of how many types that exist? Also, how does that light aid the species as a whole? Oh, wait... it doesn't. It helps the fish kill other fish. Hey, that fish is a meat eater! You must not like him, eh, forthegreatergood?

*forthegreatergood*:Here is another example:
source:http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050117_fish_eyes.html


"Although most fish are cold-blooded, swordfish, tuna, and some species of sharks are able to elevate the temperature in parts of their bodies. Swordfish in particular have been found to keep their eyes 18-27 degrees Fahrenheit (10-15 Celsius) above the surrounding water temperature.

Recent research suggests that depending on how deep swordfish and other predatory fish are, and how much light is available, their eyes operate at different temperatures and different shutter speeds, allowing them to better track agile prey.

"One of their eye muscles is modified to act like a furnace," said Richard Brill of the National Marine Fisheries Service. "It is chock-a-block full of mitochondria."

Mitochondria are the energy powerhouses in cells. This special eye muscle in the swordfish converts its energy directly into heat instead of motion.

"At the biochemical level, it is similar to what goes on in mammals," Brill told LiveScience in a telephone interview."

oooooooooo, they can do what mammals can do, gee that must make them special
and it still has nothing to do with superiority or intelligence



forthegreatergood wrote:

*forthegreatergood*:So it is when they set foot on the world that the animal beingdom are considered "slaves" according to you? Why exactly is that? Is it because humans said, "we are the dominant species"? What about peaceful co-existence for the greater good? Hmmm...Domination..haven't humans tried to dominate each other? Humans. Didn't they also enslave each other?Delusionary thinking can cause problems;then those problems need to be problem solved correctly.

yeah yeah, humans are just trying to be the slave masters, blah blah

oh, and if you didnt notice with the whole environmentalist thing, if you listen to them we can destroy the earth, of course that would kill us too, but since we now know we can kill every living thing on earth is it delusionary to think we can defeat nature?
heck, if you believe global warming people then we can do it without even trying!

peaceful coexistence???
i swear, i read your posts and think to myself, he cant actually be serious can he?
are you a communist

ill tell you what, go to the zoo, jump in the lions cage and convince him to go veg so we can all live in peaceful coexistence, if your lucky the zookeepers will shoot him with a tranq dart before he take more than your leg. then be sure and tell them that they shouldnt have done that because its not our place to dominate the lion, and that even though we can put him to sleep from 50 feet away and cage him for his entire natural life, he is still a superior lifeform
for your sake i hope he doesnt take many bites out of your crotch (though it might be better if you didnt have kids, you seem kinda deluded)

lionz<you

[forthegreatergood]

[quote="mathurin"] forthegreatergood wrote: Warmonger wrote: Quote: Idiocy.

Quote: *forthegreatergood*:Animals can reason.


I don't see them doing advanced mathematics, or going to space, or creating a plastic that is as strong as steel. I don't see them ever being anything more than what they are right now.

*forthegreatergood*:But think about how our common knowledge has been obtained. Where was the source of this knowledge? It has not been one person who has come up with this common knowledge alltogether in one body or was it? There have been contributions from individuals, and these have been passed down in generations. Perhaps other creatures could have done so if we had not slaughtered them. Discovering things sometimes takes time and experience, yet other creatures could have difficulty doing that if we do not let them live and progress. Don't you think it is like keeping them down? Instead of fostering their growth? Is that GOOD or evil?


ill tell you what, you take the lead, ill donate $50 to your organization, you can buy some books and school supplies and go out into the woods to teach the animals, i dont expect you to live long, lions and such dont find education as tasty as your flesh

*forthegreatergood*:Like Koko, the Gorilla, who can do American Sign Language. Do you have that skill? If you answer no, does that mean Koko the Gorilla is superior to you in that aspect? What about lions such as the one called Tyke, who was vegetarian?The lion that wouldn’t eat meat

by David Catchpoole

Earlier this century, A female African lion, born and raised in America, lived her entire lifetime of nine years without ever eating meat.1 In fact, her owners, Georges and Margaret Westbeau,2 alarmed by scientists’ reports that carnivorous animals cannot live without meat, went to great lengths to try to coax their unusual pet (‘Little Tyke’) to develop a taste for it. They even advertised a cash reward for anyone who could devise a meat-containing formula that the lioness would like. The curator of a New York zoo advised the Westbeaus that putting a few drops of blood in Little Tyke’s milk bottle would help in weaning her, but the lioness cub refused to touch it — even when only a single drop of blood had been added.

The more knowledgeable animal experts among the many visitors to the Westbeaus’ 100 acre (40 hectare) ranch also proffered advice, but nothing worked. Meanwhile, Little Tyke continued to do extremely well on a daily diet of cooked grain, raw eggs and milk. By four years of age she was fully grown and weighed 352 pounds (160 kg).

forthegreatergood wrote:
Quote: Could my body flourish without animal meat? I don't know. I've not looked at the studies on what you can suplement animal nutrients with.
I'll say, for your sake, that my body could be completely healthy without animal meat. I would STILL eat them, even if I did not depend on them for sustenance. Why? Because they taste good.

*[u]forthegreatergood[/u]*:Carl Lewis, 9 time olympic athlete is a vegan. He was a world record holder. Ricky Williams, running back for UT, New Orleans Saints, Miami Dolphins, is vegetarian. These are considered tremendous athletes.

I conceeded this point, since I do not have the knowledge to debate it. The human body may very well be capable of living entirely without animal products.... I don't know for sure. Be that as it may, I told you earlier that I would still eat meat, and why.

he has already conceded he didnt know, you can shut up now

forthegreatergood wrote:
Quote: Do you see gorillas putting out fires in our cities?

*forthegreatergood*:I have never seen a gorilla start a fire.
You know why? They are generally vegetarian. They do not need fire to cook creature flesh.

Oh yes, picking s**t and insects off of their friends' hides is far more preferable.
*forthegreatergood*:Humans have done that too.

I also seriously doubt that a gorilla has the knowledge to start a fire.
*forthegreatergood*:Maybe gorillas do not need to.What does it need fire for?

*forthegreatergood*:

Quote: Do you see giraffes finding cures for disease?
*forthegreatergood*:Yes, I believe that a giraffe can find a way to be more at ease. Giraffes know how to relax.
*forthegreatergood*:Do you see humans causing types of disease?


why would gorrillas need fire?
keep warm
light
making tools
scaring away predators
cooking veggies

*forthegreatergood*:Gorillas mainly live in the tropics, where it is
hot and humid
Gorillas have fur, have thick hide, and weigh
800 lbs., do gorillas die of hypothermia?
Gorillas have diurnal and nocturnal vision
Gorillas are strong, they are surviving fine as
they are.
800 lb.Gorillas are strong and big, they
already scare away predators
Veggies do not need to be cooked like meat
does. Meat gets e. coli,

primitive man used fire for many things, gorillas are not smart enough to learn how to make fire

*forthegreatergood*:Can you prove they cannot produce fire? Is that what was debated before homo sapiens discovered how to produce fire? Then maybe

a girl getting her hair done is not someone picking the s**t and bug out of her hair and eating them, sorry

*forthegreatergood*:Hmmm........are you not smart enough to know that people do stuff like that? Like humans do not get dirty? Maybe you don't remember the times before indoor plumbing, before they made toilet paper. You are a superior human, eh? Do you remember when you were a kid and couldn't spell and couldn't walk and wore diapers, At the same time, there were Gorillas that could walk and could use sign language and didn't wear diapers. So who was superior at that specific time?

forthegreatergood wrote:
*forthegreatergood*:Maybe that is because giraffes are generally vegetarian, so they don't get diseases as much so they do not need to find cures for diseases.


I expected a better retort from you than this. Can you show me proof that a vegetarian gets sick less than a meat eater?

Also, your logic is flawed. A giraffe doesnt need to find a cure for disease, since they don't get them as much? :roll:

forthegreatergood wrote:
*forthegreatergood*:Prove to me giraffes get disease more than humans and then we can debate more.


you know its not possible, comparativly few people are studying disease in giraffes as opposed to those studying it in humans, on the other hand its not possible to prove the other way either, so you are the one who made an unprovable statement

*forthegreatergood*:


forthegreatergood wrote:
Quote: Do you see fish developing the longer-lasting lightbulb?

*forthegreatergood*:Ha! Fish can have their own lightbulbs, as this generally deep sea fish does.


That's one fish out of how many types that exist? Also, how does that light aid the species as a whole? Oh, wait... it doesn't. It helps the fish kill other fish. Hey, that fish is a meat eater! You must not like him, eh, forthegreatergood?

*forthegreatergood*:Here is another example:
source:http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050117_fish_eyes.html


"Although most fish are cold-blooded, swordfish, tuna, and some species of sharks are able to elevate the temperature in parts of their bodies. Swordfish in particular have been found to keep their eyes 18-27 degrees Fahrenheit (10-15 Celsius) above the surrounding water temperature.

Recent research suggests that depending on how deep swordfish and other predatory fish are, and how much light is available, their eyes operate at different temperatures and different shutter speeds, allowing them to better track agile prey.

"One of their eye muscles is modified to act like a furnace," said Richard Brill of the National Marine Fisheries Service. "It is chock-a-block full of mitochondria."

Mitochondria are the energy powerhouses in cells. This special eye muscle in the swordfish converts its energy directly into heat instead of motion.

"At the biochemical level, it is similar to what goes on in mammals," Brill told LiveScience in a telephone interview."



oooooooooo, they can do what mammals can do, gee that must make them special
and it still has nothing to do with superiority or intelligence

*forthegreatergood*:Or is it that mammals can do what they can do? Where do you think humans were inspired to fly? By watching flying creatures. Human inventions often get inspired by watching other being forms. Superiority and intelligence?

forthegreatergood wrote:

*forthegreatergood*:So it is when they set foot on the world that the animal beingdom are considered "slaves" according to you? Why exactly is that? Is it because humans said, "we are the dominant species"? What about peaceful co-existence for the greater good? Hmmm...Domination..haven't humans tried to dominate each other? Humans. Didn't they also enslave each other?Delusionary thinking can cause problems;then those problems need to be problem solved correctly.

yeah yeah, humans are just trying to be the slave masters, blah blah

*forthegreatergood*So you cannot disprove it?Your response is a typical aversion tactic.

oh, and if you didnt notice with the whole environmentalist thing, if you listen to them we can destroy the earth, of course that would kill us too, but since we now know we can kill every living thing on earth is it delusionary to think we can defeat nature?

*forthegreatergood*Define nature and define "we", and their similarities and differences, then maybe I can answer your question better.

peaceful coexistence???
i swear, i read your posts and think to myself, he cant actually be serious can he?
are you a communist

*forthegreatergood*:Yes, peaceful coexistence. How can we coexist peacefully if beings do not believe we can coexist peacefully?




ill tell you what, go to the zoo, jump in the lions cage and convince him to go veg so we can all live in peaceful coexistence, if your lucky the zookeepers will shoot him with a tranq dart before he take more than your leg. then be sure and tell them that they shouldnt have done that because its not our place to dominate the lion, and that even though we can put him to sleep from 50 feet away and cage him for his entire natural life, he is still a superior lifeform
for your sake i hope he doesnt take many bites out of your crotch (though it might be better if you didnt have kids, you seem kinda deluded)

like this?



or this?



or this?



lionz<you
*forthegreatergood*:That could be considered a generalized stereotype, Such as all humans of a certain color are greater to humans of another certain color. Also, humans put effort and make movies about lions, such as Lion King, Ghost and The Darkness, Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. We get dressed up, work to make money to pay money to see these movies about lions. We name football teams after lions(Detroit Lions). Do lions make movies about us? Do they name football teams after us? Why is that?

[forthegreatergood]

am i the only one who thinks forthegreatergoods replies are getting really stupid?

*forthegreatergood*:What would that reply be defined as?I have made valid responses, in my current opinion.


random example
<I speak of humanity as a whole when I say that humanity is the highest form of life on the planet.

*forthegreatergood*:What about instances such as when millions experienced what they called the bubonic plague that was transferred from rat creatures? What about the H5N1 bird flu? Maybe these are defense mechanisms by nature trying to tell humans not to eat other creatures. Or could nature be telling humans not to eat animals by the porcupine's quills? Or >

we never ate rats, and bubonic was actually from the fleas on the rats
bird flu has yet to mutate to human-human transmission, i doubt it will

*forthegreatergood*:Beings have eaten rat creatures. Use google images and you will see there are pictures of beings who eat rats. Which I do not approve of. So it was fleas. Do you not think if we were good to each other then non-good things would not happen? Why do you think we are debating and do not know it all? Is it because we maintained order and peace, or is it because we caused confusion, illusion and delusion by such things as eating each other?


and, since you are going this direction, is AIDS natures way of telling us we shouldnt be f***ing everything that moves?

*forthegreatergood*:Is it a deterrent or not?[/quote]

[Plodder]

what an inspiring ad, im gonna go eat a bacon.

[Kindred]

John Galt wrote: I don't see why not. Most people, if not all people aside from the very stupid, know animals feel pain, but nearly all people don't care because they are animals we are talking about, not humans. Both of the commericals would be correct: animals do indeed feel pain, but on the flip side had animals are an important part of the diet of humans and their pain is our gain. Like I said, they are animals. They feel pain, but really no one cares, aside from you and other people like the infanticide-advocate Peter Singer. But John, you also think it morally okay to commit infanticide, provided of course that one can prove the infant lacks the ability to reason and will retain this lack for the duration of its life. Am I wrong?

[Warmonger]

Am I the only one that finds it ironic that as proof of predatory animals and humans getting along, forthrgreatergood posts a pic of a guy that got mauled by a tiger during one of his vegas shows?

Nice proof there, man. :lol:

[John Galt]

A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't see why not. Most people, if not all people aside from the very stupid, know animals feel pain, but nearly all people don't care because they are animals we are talking about, not humans. Both of the commericals would be correct: animals do indeed feel pain, but on the flip side had animals are an important part of the diet of humans and their pain is our gain. Like I said, they are animals. They feel pain, but really no one cares, aside from you and other people like the infanticide-advocate Peter Singer. But John, you also think it morally okay to commit infanticide, provided of course that one can prove the infant lacks the ability to reason and will retain this lack for the duration of its life. Am I wrong?

Yes and no. No in that you are correct that amoral unreasoning creatures have no moral significance. No in that "the duration of its life" would be rather short if you commit infanticide. It would be near impossible to prove that before it would have "natually" died it would have no reasoning capacity. The benefit of the doubt then goes to the child.

[mathurin]

forthegreatergood wrote: am i the only one who thinks forthegreatergoods replies are getting really stupid?

*forthegreatergood*:What would that reply be defined as?I have made valid responses, in my current opinion.


random example
<I speak of humanity as a whole when I say that humanity is the highest form of life on the planet.

*forthegreatergood*:What about instances such as when millions experienced what they called the bubonic plague that was transferred from rat creatures? What about the H5N1 bird flu? Maybe these are defense mechanisms by nature trying to tell humans not to eat other creatures. Or could nature be telling humans not to eat animals by the porcupine's quills? Or >

we never ate rats, and bubonic was actually from the fleas on the rats
bird flu has yet to mutate to human-human transmission, i doubt it will

*forthegreatergood*:Beings have eaten rat creatures. Use google images and you will see there are pictures of beings who eat rats. Which I do not approve of. So it was fleas. Do you not think if we were good to each other then non-good things would not happen? Why do you think we are debating and do not know it all? Is it because we maintained order and peace, or is it because we caused confusion, illusion and delusion by such things as eating each other?


and, since you are going this direction, is AIDS natures way of telling us we shouldnt be f***ing everything that moves?

*forthegreatergood*:Is it a deterrent or not? [/quote]
sorry, you are right, some humans have eaten rats, i was too general so i shall be more specific

at the time of the bubonic plague rateating was not common, so therefore the eating or not eating of rats had little to no effect on the spread of the bubonic plague

and the disease itself was not directly connected to rats but to fleas


so, the rat itself was just a bit player in the whole scheme



so here is my question to you, please try to answer this directly, even though parries seem to be your debating technique, so i will ask this in yes or no form, hoping for a direct comprehensible answer

is AIDS natures way of telling us we shouldnt be f***ing everything that moves?

yes........no





and do try to learn how to cut and paste the quote tags, its gets very irritating, debating in this manner
it is not very hard

[Kindred]

John Galt wrote: A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't see why not. Most people, if not all people aside from the very stupid, know animals feel pain, but nearly all people don't care because they are animals we are talking about, not humans. Both of the commericals would be correct: animals do indeed feel pain, but on the flip side had animals are an important part of the diet of humans and their pain is our gain. Like I said, they are animals. They feel pain, but really no one cares, aside from you and other people like the infanticide-advocate Peter Singer. But John, you also think it morally okay to commit infanticide, provided of course that one can prove the infant lacks the ability to reason and will retain this lack for the duration of its life. Am I wrong?

Yes and no. No in that you are correct that amoral unreasoning creatures have no moral significance. No in that "the duration of its life" would be rather short if you commit infanticide. It would be near impossible to prove that before it would have "natually" died it would have no reasoning capacity. The benefit of the doubt then goes to the child.


But in essence, philosophically, you do not have a problem with killing a new born child if it can be proven that the child possesses a disorder which will prevent it from ever achieving a level of intelligence or awareness greater than a chimp, correct?

Indeed, in essence, you have no problem with people harvesting such people on a mass scale for medical research, or as a food base, correct?

[forthegreatergood]

so here is my question to you, please try to answer this directly, even though parries seem to be your debating technique, so i will ask this in yes or no form, hoping for a direct comprehensible answer

is AIDS natures way of telling us we shouldnt be f***ing everything that moves?

yes........no







I would say yes, it is defined as a virus, and viruses are usually unwanted, and as I said it is a deterrent. If people are not deterred by it then if they receive the virus and have to deal with what that entails.

[mathurin]

Quote: Idiocy.

Quote: *forthegreatergood*:Animals can reason.

prove animals can reason anywhere near the level humans can
Quote:
I don't see them doing advanced mathematics, or going to space, or creating a plastic that is as strong as steel. I don't see them ever being anything more than what they are right now.

mathurin wrote:
forthegreatergood wrote:
*forthegreatergood*:But think about how our common knowledge has been obtained. Where was the source of this knowledge? It has not been one person who has come up with this common knowledge alltogether in one body or was it? There have been contributions from individuals, and these have been passed down in generations. Perhaps other creatures could have done so if we had not slaughtered them. Discovering things sometimes takes time and experience, yet other creatures could have difficulty doing that if we do not let them live and progress. Don't you think it is like keeping them down? Instead of fostering their growth? Is that GOOD or evil?


ill tell you what, you take the lead, ill donate $50 to your organization, you can buy some books and school supplies and go out into the woods to teach the animals, i dont expect you to live long, lions and such dont find education as tasty as your flesh


forthegreatergood wrote:
*forthegreatergood*:Like Koko, the Gorilla, who can do American Sign Language. Do you have that skill? If you answer no, does that mean Koko the Gorilla is superior to you in that aspect? What about lions such as the one called Tyke, who was vegetarian?The lion that wouldn’t eat meat

by David Catchpoole

Earlier this century, A female African lion, born and raised in America, lived her entire lifetime of nine years without ever eating meat.1 In fact, her owners, Georges and Margaret Westbeau,2 alarmed by scientists’ reports that carnivorous animals cannot live without meat, went to great lengths to try to coax their unusual pet (‘Little Tyke’) to develop a taste for it. They even advertised a cash reward for anyone who could devise a meat-containing formula that the lioness would like. The curator of a New York zoo advised the Westbeaus that putting a few drops of blood in Little Tyke’s milk bottle would help in weaning her, but the lioness cub refused to touch it — even when only a single drop of blood had been added.

The more knowledgeable animal experts among the many visitors to the Westbeaus’ 100 acre (40 hectare) ranch also proffered advice, but nothing worked. Meanwhile, Little Tyke continued to do extremely well on a daily diet of cooked grain, raw eggs and milk. By four years of age she was fully grown and weighed 352 pounds (160 kg).


yeah, somebody trained an ape, now thats news, even then, just how intelligent was the ape?

and one lion had a problem, it didnt like meat
didnt have a problem eating eats and milk, which is why it lived




Quote: Do you see gorillas putting out fires in our cities?
forthegreatergood wrote:
*forthegreatergood*:I have never seen a gorilla start a fire.
You know why? They are generally vegetarian. They do not need fire to cook creature flesh.
Quote:
Oh yes, picking s**t and insects off of their friends' hides is far more preferable.
forthegreatergood wrote:
*forthegreatergood*:Humans have done that too.

lately?
forthegreatergood wrote:
Quote:
I also seriously doubt that a gorilla has the knowledge to start a fire.
*forthegreatergood*:Maybe gorillas do not need to.What does it need fire for

mathurin wrote:
why would gorrillas need fire?
keep warm
light
making tools
scaring away predators
cooking veggies

forthegreatergood wrote:
*forthegreatergood*:Gorillas mainly live in the tropics, where it is
hot and humid
Gorillas have fur, have thick hide, and weigh
800 lbs., do gorillas die of hypothermia?
Gorillas have diurnal and nocturnal vision
Gorillas are strong, they are surviving fine as
they are.
800 lb.Gorillas are strong and big, they
already scare away predators
Veggies do not need to be cooked like meat
does. Meat gets e. coli,

primitive man used fire for many things, gorillas are not smart enough to learn how to make fire

the tropics are not always hot and humid, they have seasons just like everywhere, and it cools off at night

veggies do have parasites and bacteria
if not then how do cows get sick

forthegreatergood wrote:
*forthegreatergood*:Can you prove they cannot produce fire? Is that what was debated before homo sapiens discovered how to produce fire? Then maybe

i did a search, fire gorilla, got nothing, good enough proof?
the rest makes no sense

forthegreatergood wrote:
Quote: Do you see giraffes finding cures for disease?

*forthegreatergood*:Yes, I believe that a giraffe can find a way to be more at ease. Giraffes know how to relax.

:roll:
is that how you debate, making stupid jokes
fine, rephasing the question
do you see giraffes curing illnesses?
the answer is obviously no, they havent the intelligence

mathurin wrote:
a girl getting her hair done is not someone picking the s**t and bug out of her hair and eating them, sorry
forthegreatergood wrote:

*forthegreatergood*:Hmmm........are you not smart enough to know that people do stuff like that? Like humans do not get dirty? Maybe you don't remember the times before indoor plumbing, before they made toilet paper. You are a superior human, eh? Do you remember when you were a kid and couldn't spell and couldn't walk and wore diapers, At the same time, there were Gorillas that could walk and could use sign language and didn't wear diapers. So who was superior at that specific time?


people get dirty, but they wash with water and soap and only really creepy people pick through someones hair, only sickos eat the dirt and bugs they find, no sale mister

superiority is taken from the normal stage, the adult stage, of a species development, picking times and claiming superiority of species because of one persons infancy is ludicrous
debating at its worst


mathurin wrote:
forthegreatergood wrote:
Quote: Do you see fish developing the longer-lasting lightbulb?

*forthegreatergood*:Ha! Fish can have their own lightbulbs, as this generally deep sea fish does.

Quote:
That's one fish out of how many types that exist? Also, how does that light aid the species as a whole? Oh, wait... it doesn't. It helps the fish kill other fish. Hey, that fish is a meat eater! You must not like him, eh, forthegreatergood?


*forthegreatergood*:Here is another example:
source:http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050117_fish_eyes.html

.
.
.
.
.
.
"At the biochemical level, it is similar to what goes on in mammals," Brill told LiveScience in a telephone interview."



oooooooooo, they can do what mammals can do, gee that must make them special
and it still has nothing to do with superiority or intelligence

forthegreatergood wrote:
*forthegreatergood*:Or is it that mammals can do what they can do? Where do you think humans were inspired to fly? By watching flying creatures. Human inventions often get inspired by watching other being forms. Superiority and intelligence?

yes, superiority, intelligence, the ability to unaturally do what animals do naturally by virture of intelligence and tool use

birds flew before man, but man was not born with wings, he made them, and he has soared farther and faster than bird
inotherwords, we bested them at the game they were born to win


forthegreatergood wrote:

*forthegreatergood*:So it is when they set foot on the world that the animal beingdom are considered "slaves" according to you? Why exactly is that? Is it because humans said, "we are the dominant species"? What about peaceful co-existence for the greater good? Hmmm...Domination..haven't humans tried to dominate each other? Humans. Didn't they also enslave each other?Delusionary thinking can cause problems;then those problems need to be problem solved correctly.

mathurin wrote:
yeah yeah, humans are just trying to be the slave masters, blah blah

forthegreatergood wrote:
*forthegreatergood*So you cannot disprove it?Your response is a typical aversion tactic.


actually i was skipping over the boring tripe i hear all too often to get to the meat
animals are not neccesarily our slaves, they are inferior creatures, they do not deserve rights of any kind,


mathurin wrote:
oh, and if you didnt notice with the whole environmentalist thing, if you listen to them we can destroy the earth, of course that would kill us too, but since we now know we can kill every living thing on earth is it delusionary to think we can defeat nature?
forthegreatergood wrote:
*forthegreatergood*Define nature and define "we", and their similarities and differences, then maybe I can answer your question better.

nature: generally considered to be all flora and fauna
we: human beings

so, to sum up, since we know that humans can destroy every living thing on this planet, is it foolish to say we can defeat nature

mathurin wrote:
peaceful coexistence???
i swear, i read your posts and think to myself, he cant actually be serious can he?
are you a communist

forthegreatergood wrote:
*forthegreatergood*:Yes, peaceful coexistence. How can we coexist peacefully if beings do not believe we can coexist peacefully?

i think you hit the nail on the head here, how can we peacefully coexist if beings do not believe we can
we cant, because no other being thinks we can either

life is one giant fight, that everyone loses eventually


mathurin wrote:
ill tell you what, go to the zoo, jump in the lions cage and convince him to go veg so we can all live in peaceful coexistence, if your lucky the zookeepers will shoot him with a tranq dart before he take more than your leg. then be sure and tell them that they shouldnt have done that because its not our place to dominate the lion, and that even though we can put him to sleep from 50 feet away and cage him for his entire natural life, he is still a superior lifeform
for your sake i hope he doesnt take many bites out of your crotch (though it might be better if you didnt have kids, you seem kinda deluded)

forthegreatergood wrote:
like this?
(various circus pictures deleted for space)

ya ya, lots of trainers get eaten you know, and i said Zoo, not circus, not a pet
but fine, go to africa and teach lions to be vegetarian


mathurin wrote:
lionz<you
forthegreatergood wrote:
*forthegreatergood*:That could be considered a generalized stereotype, Such as all humans of a certain color are greater to humans of another certain color. Also, humans put effort and make movies about lions, such as Lion King, Ghost and The Darkness, Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. We get dressed up, work to make money to pay money to see these movies about lions. We name football teams after lions(Detroit Lions). Do lions make movies about us? Do they name football teams after us? Why is that?


actually i was meaning that in a fight a lion would eat you
lions do not name movies or sports teams after anything, because they have not yet discovered film or organized sports
because they are not smart enough to


tell me, is it crowded in your head, you seem rather schizo