Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

simple. most people end up killing a lot of animals, for eating meat, just killing because they might bite or be a nuisance or might creep you out{bugs} or just crush under our feet vbecause we cant be bothered. alternatively, people torture things like frogs an bugs out of sadistic cruelty n stuff.

animals and bugs, unlike plants do have higher brains. they are self aware, and have emotions. why is it ok to kill or hurt them? i do not understand. as far as food goes, i myself am not a vegetarian{due to circumstances} but am trying to become one. there is also the fact that many people enjoy hunting and thing of it as SPORT, and at the same time, many meat eaters/hunters etc, will find it very disturbing if sumthing taboo like a dog or cat is killed? rent these double standards?

i do not deny that as biological organisms, we were meant to eat both meat and veggies, but as humans with the ability to think, is it really ok to kill animals just to satisfy our taste buds? or simply because we do not consider them worthy of being on the same level as us? or because we can not be bothered?

what are your views, relegious/personal etc.

I'm not exactly fond of the idea of the killing of animals but shit, I've been eating meat ever since I was a toddler and have grown up on it and there's really no stopping it now. I don't see the point in anyone being a vegan or a vegetarian anyway (sorry if that's offensive) considering there will always be meat eaters in the world and someone changing themselves for animals doesn't do any good because they will STILL continue to get slaughtered anyway.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
simple. most people end up killing a lot of animals, for eating meat, just killing because they might bite or be a nuisance or might creep you out{bugs} or just crush under our feet vbecause we cant be bothered. alternatively, people torture things like frogs an bugs out of sadistic cruelty n stuff.

animals and bugs, unlike plants do have higher brains. they are self aware, and have emotions. why is it ok to kill or hurt them? i do not understand. as far as food goes, i myself am not a vegetarian{due to circumstances} but am trying to become one. there is also the fact that many people enjoy hunting and thing of it as SPORT, and at the same time, many meat eaters/hunters etc, will find it very disturbing if sumthing taboo like a dog or cat is killed? rent these double standards?

i do not deny that as biological organisms, we were meant to eat both meat and veggies, but as humans with the ability to think, is it really ok to kill animals just to satisfy our taste buds? or simply because we do not consider them worthy of being on the same level as us? or because we can not be bothered?

what are your views, relegious/personal etc.

I don't believe in sport hunting, killing an animal just to have its head as a trophy, just sounds stupid to me.

Some hunting is needed though, in places where natural predators have been killed off, hunting is necessary as a means to insure animal populations don't over populate and then face starvation.

I don't think people (the majority) JUST eat meat to "satisfy their taste buds". Also, not everyone can be a vegetarian or has the means to eat a balanced vegetarian diet.

I think eating meat is part of a healthy and balanced diet, thats why I eat it.

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
I don't see the point in anyone being a vegan or a vegetarian anyway (sorry if that's offensive) considering there will always be meat eaters in the world and someone changing themselves for animals doesn't do any good because they will STILL continue to get slaughtered anyway.

Why bother doing anything then?

I believe if its needed for food, i dont care if they kill it

but torture, i am against

Originally posted by leonheartmm
simple. most people end up killing a lot of animals, for eating meat, just killing because they might bite or be a nuisance or might creep you out{bugs} or just crush under our feet vbecause we cant be bothered. alternatively, people torture things like frogs an bugs out of sadistic cruelty n stuff.

animals and bugs, unlike plants do have higher brains. they are self aware, and have emotions. why is it ok to kill or hurt them? i do not understand. as far as food goes, i myself am not a vegetarian{due to circumstances} but am trying to become one. there is also the fact that many people enjoy hunting and thing of it as SPORT, and at the same time, many meat eaters/hunters etc, will find it very disturbing if sumthing taboo like a dog or cat is killed? rent these double standards?

i do not deny that as biological organisms, we were meant to eat both meat and veggies, but as humans with the ability to think, is it really ok to kill animals just to satisfy our taste buds? or simply because we do not consider them worthy of being on the same level as us? or because we can not be bothered?

what are your views, relegious/personal etc.

Thats a lot of different directions for a thread to travel.

If you don't eat them...they will eat you.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
If you don't eat them...they will eat you.
I love this statement...

In the end.. wont we all end up eating eachother?

hunting is fun...

we dont only kill the animal just for a trophy, we eat the meat too, mmmmmm, bear jerky :P

Originally posted by ~Forever*Alone~
hunting is fun...

we dont only kill the animal just for a trophy, we eat the meat too, mmmmmm, bear jerky :P
As long as its for food, its ok durermm2

Don't eat the widdle animals.


On a side note, there is this yogi that believes that when you die you come back as an animal and go eat the people that did you wrong....

Originally posted by debbiejo
Don't eat the widdle animals.


On a side note, there is this yogi that believes that when you die you come back as an animal and go eat the people that did you wrong....

Something tells me the 'animal killing/eating humans' to 'humans doing wrong to other humans' is far favored to the latter, i.e. 1 to 1,000,000 ratio. So...

grain harvesters kill rodents during the harvesting of wheat

Originally posted by debbiejo
Don't eat the widdle animals.


On a side note, there is this yogi that believes that when you die you come back as an animal and go eat the people that did you wrong....

Sounds like souls-switching to me. The only question is, do you want to be a black bear or a brown bear. Talk about options.

Originally posted by Devil King
Sounds like souls-switching to me.

She's reverted to being the site's idiot now the spot has come back up for grabs.

Get her!

Originally posted by leonheartmm
simple. most people end up killing a lot of animals, for eating meat, just killing because they might bite or be a nuisance or might creep you out{bugs} or just crush under our feet vbecause we cant be bothered. alternatively, people torture things like frogs an bugs out of sadistic cruelty n stuff.

animals and bugs, unlike plants do have higher brains. they are self aware, and have emotions. why is it ok to kill or hurt them? i do not understand. as far as food goes, i myself am not a vegetarian{due to circumstances} but am trying to become one. there is also the fact that many people enjoy hunting and thing of it as SPORT, and at the same time, many meat eaters/hunters etc, will find it very disturbing if sumthing taboo like a dog or cat is killed? rent these double standards?

i do not deny that as biological organisms, we were meant to eat both meat and veggies, but as humans with the ability to think, is it really ok to kill animals just to satisfy our taste buds? or simply because we do not consider them worthy of being on the same level as us? or because we can not be bothered?

what are your views, relegious/personal etc.

Suffering is the problem. Death is natural, and the need to eat is also natural.

I personally try not to kill anything, but I am not a vegetarian. However, causing suffering is even worse then killing. So, if I do step on something, I hope that it does not suffer.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Why bother doing anything then?
Doing what? I'm not doing anything.

Why is it usually girls who fail to understand points so spectacularly?

Could be a thread in that.


What is the point of avoiding anything that will still happen regardless of whether you do it?

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
Doing what? I'm not doing anything.

Brilliant.

It's not my fault he's Alpha Centauri's second account and the moderators still continue to let him roam the forums..

It's your fault that you make idiotic statements though.

Also, what the hell are you going about?

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
It's not my fault he's Alpha Centauri's second account and the moderators still continue to let him roam the forums..

They know I use my Alpha Centauri account for mildly idiotic comments and posts laced with trouble homosexual yearnings.

This is my intelligent account.

Got a problem with that?

Originally posted by Devil King
Sounds like souls-switching to me. The only question is, do you want to be a black bear or a brown bear. Talk about options.

Polar Bears are white (not really).

LOL, the animal rights stuff is always a good hoot for me. The idea that there is some moral perogative for how animals are to be treated is some backward human aesthetic principle. The whole idea of "animal welfare" is a human construction... imho it is borderline ironic.

Well, human welfare is a human construction.

Originally posted by Robtard
Polar Bears are white (not really).

What about Pandas? How do we feel about Pandas?

Okay, I'll be one of those..

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Well, human welfare is a human construction.

I'd probably call that a backward aesthetic principle as well then

Originally posted by Devil King
What about Pandas? How do we feel about Pandas?

Like mulattoes I'd guess... "Whites" categorize them as "Blacks", "Blacks" categorize them as "Half-White Niggas". Poor Pandas, they just want to fit in.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd probably call that a backward aesthetic principle as well then

At least you're consistent.

Zombies are, by their very nature, inconsistent.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
It's your fault that you make idiotic statements though.

Also, what the hell are you going about?

She harbours some personal vendetta toward me so therefore me and VVD are the same person.

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
It's not my fault he's Alpha Centauri's second account and the moderators still continue to let him roam the forums..

Report me, then. See how far you get. You keep saying you will, to me, but you haven't, and I wonder why.

If anything, it's more likely that you are WTM. In fact, you are.

-AC

Originally posted by Robtard
Like mulattoes I'd guess... "Whites" categorize them as "Blacks", "Blacks" categorize them as "Half-White Niggas". Poor Pandas, they just want to fit in.

Are there any Hispanic bears? (not counting Lord Urizen, of course)

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
She harbours some personal vendetta toward me so therefore me and VVD are the same person.

Report me, then. See how far you get. You keep saying you will, to me, but you haven't, and I wonder why.

If anything, it's more likely that you are WTM. In fact, you are.

-AC

STFU VVD, we're all on to you now!

Robtard, is also me.

I'm very self-loathing.

-AC

Originally posted by Devil King
Are there any Hispanic bears? (not counting Lord Urizen, of course)

I get that, it means something to do with gays. I'm not gay though, I read it somewhere. The Playboy Mansion, actually.

Originally posted by Devil King
Are there any Hispanic bears? (not counting Lord Urizen, of course)

Originally posted by Devil King
Are there any Hispanic bears? (not counting Lord Urizen, of course)

Spectactled Bears are from S. America... as far as bears go, they do look a bit gay.

Edit: Would LZ be a "bear" in the gay community though? Don't they have to be overtly hairy and manly?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
She harbours some personal vendetta toward me so therefore me and VVD are the same person.



Report me, then. See how far you get. You keep saying you will, to me, but you haven't, and I wonder why.

If anything, it's more likely that you are WTM. In fact, you are.

-AC

If it makes you feel better, I think your homosexual yearnings are kinda sweet. (no pun intended)

Originally posted by Robtard
Spectactled Bears are from S. America... as far as bears go, they do look a bit gay.

Bears wear glasses?

Oh stop, you.

*Limp-handed acknowledgement of flattery*

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Robtard, is also me.

I'm very self-loathing.

-AC

It's true and I (we) am (are)... when I'm in my AC persona, I often cover myself in a thick layer of Vaseline and wear my mother's panties, to help me stay in character.

So, your AC persona is the bottom of the group?

Originally posted by Devil King
Bears wear glasses?

For fashion purposes, not for corrective reasons... told you they were a bit "gay" as far as bears go.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, your AC persona is the bottom of the group?

100% bottom; 'he' demands it to be so.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, your AC persona is the bottom of the group?

Yes.

*edit, said it above*

I dunno Vic, you seem to be the one that's up on all the ghey lingo.

Originally posted by Devil King
I dunno Vic, you seem to be the one that's up on all the ghey lingo.

He's a bisexual switch, with a penchant for nipple-play, that persona.

Originally posted by Devil King
I dunno Vic, you seem to be the one that's up on all the ghey lingo.

It's research for these two.

Originally posted by Robtard
He's a bisexual switch, with a penchant for nipple-play, that persona.

Ignore me.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom


Ignore me.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri?
I'm very self-loathing.

-AC

Yeah.

Animals and plants are both eukaryotes, and I eat both of thems.

Yes, the nucleus membranes add to the taste somehow.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't believe in sport hunting, killing an animal just to have its head as a trophy, just sounds stupid to me.


You haven't lived, my friend. Try it some day.

Is killing plants alright?

Damn vegetarians.

Originally posted by Robtard
Spectactled Bears are from S. America

And Lord Urizen is Colombian, so there you go.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You haven't lived, my friend. Try it some day.

I like shooting guns at targets and whatnot... but killing a defenseless animal just because I can, doesn't sound like fun.

Where's the sport; the thrill, in killing a deer from 150 yards away with a high powered rifle? You want sport; you want to feel alive? Go kill a Grizzly with nothing more than a bowie knife.

Or just play basketball and that.

Or, shoot shit into a school.

Originally posted by Robtard
I like shooting guns at targets and whatnot... but killing a defenseless animal just because I can, doesn't sound like fun.

Where's the sport; the thrill, in killing a deer from 150 yards away with a high powered rifle? You want sport; you want to feel alive? Go kill a Grizzly with nothing more than a bowie knife.

"defenseless" Claws, teeth, horns and antlers....those are all for defense.

If you have to ask "Where's the thrill" then hunting obviously isn't for you, I guess you don't like roughing it. It's actually not that easy; they can hear you before you hear them, and they can smell you long before you even catch a whiff. It's not like you can get 20 kills on every outing, quite the opposite.

Speaking of bears, I actually prefer predators, because they're smarter and more elusive than grazing animals. Idaho has some of the best bear hunting in the nation. Just a bowie knife? Hmm.....

Originally posted by leonheartmm
simple. most people end up killing a lot of animals, for eating meat, just killing because they might bite or be a nuisance or might creep you out{bugs} or just crush under our feet vbecause we cant be bothered. alternatively, people torture things like frogs an bugs out of sadistic cruelty n stuff.

animals and bugs, unlike plants do have higher brains. they are self aware, and have emotions. why is it ok to kill or hurt them? i do not understand. as far as food goes, i myself am not a vegetarian{due to circumstances} but am trying to become one. there is also the fact that many people enjoy hunting and thing of it as SPORT, and at the same time, many meat eaters/hunters etc, will find it very disturbing if sumthing taboo like a dog or cat is killed? rent these double standards?

i do not deny that as biological organisms, we were meant to eat both meat and veggies, but as humans with the ability to think, is it really ok to kill animals just to satisfy our taste buds? or simply because we do not consider them worthy of being on the same level as us? or because we can not be bothered?

what are your views, relegious/personal etc. We didn't eat animals until the ark. Yes, God flooded out all the evil, then made us evil at the worst possible time. Luckily we didn't eat those animals and they evolved from two dogs, to a million ****ing dogs, all different.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
"defenseless" Claws, teeth, horns and antlers....those are all for defense.

If you have to ask "Where's the thrill" then hunting obviously isn't for you, I guess you don't like roughing it. It's actually not that easy; they can hear you before you hear them, and they can smell you long before you even catch a whiff. It's not like you can get 20 kills on every outing, quite the opposite.

Speaking of bears, I actually prefer predators, because they're smarter and more elusive than grazing animals. Idaho has some of the best bear hunting in the nation. Just a bowie knife? Hmm.....

Like a deer, duck or other game animal has much of a chance against a well armed hunter... Sure there are cases where the animal wins, but that isn't the norm.

No, I stated that hunting isn't for me. Camping is fine/fun, if that's what you mean by "roughing it". I'm sure it takes skill to hunt; I have no doubt of that, I just don't see the fun in killing an animal, just because I can.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Suffering is the problem. Death is natural, and the need to eat is also natural.

I personally try not to kill anything, but I am not a vegetarian. However, causing suffering is even worse then killing. So, if I do step on something, I hope that it does not suffer.


I agree.



Death is natural, you can't create a vaccine for it, and it will happen to every living thing regardless of what they do. All one can do is posepone it.


Animals eat eachother. There's nothing in nature that suggests we "shouldn't" eat another animal, unless they are poisonous.


However, suffering is the problem. You don't need to make an animal suffer to kill it, and you don't need to make it suffer to feed on it.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I agree.



Death is natural, you can't create a vaccine for it, and it will happen to every living thing regardless of what they do. All one can do is posepone it.


Animals eat eachother. There's nothing in nature that suggests we "shouldn't" eat another animal, unless they are poisonous.


However, suffering is the problem. You don't need to make an animal suffer to kill it, and you don't need to make it suffer to feed on it. I disagree


Suffering is natural, you can't create a vaccine for it, and it will happen to every living thing regardless of what they do. All one can do is decrease it.

Animals hurt eachother. There's nothing in nature that suggests we "shouldn't" hurt another animal, unless they can beat the shit out of us afterwards.

However, death is the problem. You don't need to kill an animal to make it suffer and you don't need to kill it to enjoy its suffering.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
"defenseless" Claws, teeth, horns and antlers....those are all for defense.

They're also natural.

Hunt a bear with nothing but your hands and then you can talk about fairness. If a bear could handle a rifle as well as a human could, there'd be less bear hunting wouldn't there?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They're also natural.

Hunt a bear with nothing but your hands and then you can talk about fairness. If a bear could handle a rifle as well as a human could, there'd be less bear hunting wouldn't there?

-AC Fecking eh. and they call is a sport. sure, lets bait the animal into an open area, all the while we are hidden away 300 yards out with a high powered rifle.

Teach the animal in question how to handle an assault rifle, THEN it'd be a sport.

Maybe for food if all body parts are used.I would hate to think it is being wasted now that would be wrong.I am against hunting so I think no.Not a vegetarian just don't like shooting anything alive.
When I go target shooting it is not shooting at anything alive but just a thing instead.jm

Let me tell you something.. if a deer COULD use a high powered assualt rifle.. it would be human season year round.

my dad used to hunt deer and elk, and he said it had to be done to "regulate the population."

Is it me, or have two of you just pretty much copied exactly what AC said?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Is it me, or have two of you just pretty much copied exactly what AC said? in a sense. more like agreed with it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
is killing animals alright?

Killing is necessary.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They're also natural.

Hunt a bear with nothing but your hands and then you can talk about fairness. If a bear could handle a rifle as well as a human could, there'd be less bear hunting wouldn't there?

-AC

??

I don't see why a gun is unnatural. We evolved the ability to use tools in the same way that they evolved claws. Our tools and creations are as much a part of the "nature" of humans as teeth and fangs are to tigers.

Originally posted by inimalist
??

I don't see why a gun is unnatural. We evolved the ability to use tools in the same way that they evolved claws. Our tools and creations are as much a part of the "nature" of humans as teeth and fangs are to tigers.

So would you say tools are a part of evolution?

Originally posted by chithappens
So would you say tools are a part of evolution?

with out a doubt

Wonder how that would work in a classroom - explaining tools as an evolution of sorts

Originally posted by inimalist
??

I don't see why a gun is unnatural. We evolved the ability to use tools in the same way that they evolved claws. Our tools and creations are as much a part of the "nature" of humans as teeth and fangs are to tigers. It's about "playing" the "sport" on an even field. Have the hunter arm himself with only a knife/machete,axe/whatever and wearing camo, force him to stalk the animal in question, take it on face to face instead of being hidden hundreds of yards away.

Originally posted by chithappens
Wonder how that would work in a classroom - explaining tools as an evolution of sorts

memetics, or the theory of memes actually tries to explain tools and human culture in an evolutionary system. I find it very attractive as a concept, but my tendency is to just rant about it, so if you want me to go over it, hit me with a PM, or check out Susan Blackmore's website: http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/memetics/index.htm

Blackmore herself talks extensively about "meme-gene coevolution" in her book The Meme Machine. meme-gene coevolution is exactly what you are talking about. Its really interesting to think about how tools and whatever not only evolved, but what impact they must have had on our own genetic evolution

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It's about "playing" the "sport" on an even field. Have the hunter arm himself with only a knife/machete,axe/whatever and wearing camo, force him to stalk the animal in question, take it on face to face instead of being hidden hundreds of yards away.

I misunderstood the argument then.

Originally posted by inimalist
memetics, or the theory of memes actually tries to explain tools and human culture in an evolutionary system. I find it very attractive as a concept, but my tendency is to just rant about it, so if you want me to go over it, hit me with a PM, or check out Susan Blackmore's website:

Blackmore herself talks extensively about "meme-gene coevolution" in her book The Meme Machine. meme-gene coevolution is exactly what you are talking about. Its really interesting to think about how tools and whatever not only evolved, but what impact they must have had on our own genetic evolution



I misunderstood the argument then. I dont know how familiar you guys are with deer hunting, but heres how it works most of the time.

In summertime, hunters hang a 55 gallon barrel from a tree that drops corn to the ground once a day. when winter comes along and deer season opens, the deer are used to the free food source. the hunter is in a stand some feet in the air, and when the deer come to feed, POP.

pretty chicken shit.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I dont know how familiar you guys are with deer hunting, but heres how it works most of the time.

In summertime, hunters hang a 55 gallon barrel from a tree that drops corn to the ground once a day. when winter comes along and deer season opens, the deer are used to the free food source. the hunter is in a stand some feet in the air, and when the deer come to feed, POP.

pretty chicken shit.

wow, I agree...

Up in Northern Ontario they send a bunch of guys into a bush to scare them toward a point where others are waiting to shoot them. A little more creative, though that was probably 30 years ago (my Dad grew up up there lol)

That artificial feed stuff is BS

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They're also natural.

Hunt a bear with nothing but your hands and then you can talk about fairness. If a bear could handle a rifle as well as a human could, there'd be less bear hunting wouldn't there?

-AC

Well I already know that you're gun-phobic, so I would expect something like that out of you.

Originally posted by inimalist
??

I don't see why a gun is unnatural. We evolved the ability to use tools in the same way that they evolved claws. Our tools and creations are as much a part of the "nature" of humans as teeth and fangs are to tigers.

That's what I'm saying, ey. Humans don't have fangs and talons, so ancient man needed to do something about catching game and fending off predators, so he put his mind to work. So the gun, is simply the evolutionary point we reached from hand-held sharpened flint rocks.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well I already know that you're gun-phobic, so I would expect something like that out of you.



That's what I'm saying, ey. Humans don't have fangs and talons, so ancient man needed to do something about catching game and fending off predators, so he put his mind to work. So the gun, is simply the evolutionary point we reached from hand-held sharpened flint rocks. back then man HAD to catch game in order to survive. now, just go to the rear aisle of the market and it is already wrapped in cellophane.

do you agree that hunting is a "sport?"

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
back then man HAD to catch game in order to survive. now, just go to the rear aisle of the market and it is already wrapped in cellophane.

do you agree that hunting is a "sport?"

If your definition of sport requires a ref and a ball, then no it isn't.

If you don't like, then don't do it. It's that simple.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If your definition of sport requires a ref and a ball, then no it isn't.

If you don't like, then don't do it. It's that simple. I am asking YOUR definition of it.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well I already know that you're gun-phobic, so I would expect something like that out of you.

How exactly do you see it? As completely natural and O.K?

I don't care whether you kill it with a gun, your hands, or bloody brainwaves; you're killing something for entertainment. Taking away life so you can have fun, seems pretty disgusting to me.

Perhaps if a few more people in the U.S were 'gun-phobic', there wouldn't be so much flooding the news of shootings.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
How exactly do you see it? As completely natural and O.K?

I don't care whether you kill it with a gun, your hands, or bloody brainwaves; you're killing something for entertainment. Taking away life so you can have fun, seems pretty disgusting to me.

Perhaps if a few more people in the U.S were 'gun-phobic', there wouldn't be so much flooding the news of shootings.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen

I don't care whether you kill it with a gun, your hands, or bloody brainwaves; you're killing something for entertainment. Taking away life so you can have fun, seems pretty disgusting to me.


Then don't do it.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen

Perhaps if a few more people in the U.S were 'gun-phobic', there wouldn't be so much flooding the news of shootings.

"If it bleeds, it leads." Gun crimes are over-emphasized, and over-reported in the news. That's why it seems so common.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I am asking YOUR definition of it.

Yeah, I consider it one.

I must say, you're the first Texan I've seen who doesn't like hunting.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah, I consider it one.

I must say, you're the first Texan I've seen who doesn't like hunting. OK...so do you agree that all sports should be played on an even field, or that some should be given ridiculous advantages?

any fatass redneck can hide in a stand and pop some poor innocent deer with a .30 06. does that make the fatass redneck an athlete? do you see Larry the Cable Guy in the next olympics?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
simple. most people end up killing a lot of animals, for eating meat, just killing because they might bite or be a nuisance or might creep you out{bugs} or just crush under our feet vbecause we cant be bothered. alternatively, people torture things like frogs an bugs out of sadistic cruelty n stuff.

animals and bugs, unlike plants do have higher brains. they are self aware, and have emotions. why is it ok to kill or hurt them? i do not understand. as far as food goes, i myself am not a vegetarian{due to circumstances} but am trying to become one. there is also the fact that many people enjoy hunting and thing of it as SPORT, and at the same time, many meat eaters/hunters etc, will find it very disturbing if sumthing taboo like a dog or cat is killed? rent these double standards?

i do not deny that as biological organisms, we were meant to eat both meat and veggies, but as humans with the ability to think, is it really ok to kill animals just to satisfy our taste buds? or simply because we do not consider them worthy of being on the same level as us? or because we can not be bothered?

what are your views, relegious/personal etc. Animals kill other animals to survive yes?

It's all a part of the Circle of Life ans we are apart of that circle as well. We just kill animals more efficiently.

So yes, killing animals to eat is alright.

Killing animals for their fur and sperm and the such isn't okay in my opinion though since it isn't necessary, where as eating is necessary.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
OK...so do you agree that all sports should be played on an even field, or that some should be given ridiculous advantages?

any fatass redneck can hide in a stand and pop some poor innocent deer with a .30 06. does that make the fatass redneck an athlete? do you see Larry the Cable Guy in the next olympics?

Target shooting is actually an Olympic event, so we might see him in Beijing next year...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Target shooting is actually an Olympic event, so we might see him in Beijing next year... and what about the other things?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Then don't do it.

What do you mean 'then don't do it'? That argument doesn't really work here does it? I'm taking offence to other people's actions, of course I'm not going to do it, I see no need for me, you, or anyone else to kill for entertainment, there's plenty of thing to keep everyone entertained which don't involve ending a life.
The argument of 'then don't do it' works very well with topics like abortion, because it's the right argument to take there, because there it's not talking about a living breathing animal, which up until you feel the need to shoot it has the power to actively live. So, do you feel entirely justified in shooting animals? If so, why?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
"If it bleeds, it leads." Gun crimes are over-emphasized, and over-reported in the news. That's why it seems so common.

No, they are pretty darn common, I wonder why...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
simple. most people end up killing a lot of animals, for eating meat, just killing because they might bite or be a nuisance or might creep you out{bugs} or just crush under our feet vbecause we cant be bothered. alternatively, people torture things like frogs an bugs out of sadistic cruelty n stuff.

animals and bugs, unlike plants do have higher brains. they are self aware, and have emotions. why is it ok to kill or hurt them? i do not understand. as far as food goes, i myself am not a vegetarian{due to circumstances} but am trying to become one. there is also the fact that many people enjoy hunting and thing of it as SPORT, and at the same time, many meat eaters/hunters etc, will find it very disturbing if sumthing taboo like a dog or cat is killed? rent these double standards?

i do not deny that as biological organisms, we were meant to eat both meat and veggies, but as humans with the ability to think, is it really ok to kill animals just to satisfy our taste buds? or simply because we do not consider them worthy of being on the same level as us? or because we can not be bothered?

what are your views, relegious/personal etc. Animals kill other animals to survive yes?

It's the Circle of Life and we are apart of that Circle, we just kill animals in a more efficient manner.

So yes, it's alright to kill animals as long as it's for eating. I don't however agree with the killing of animals for their sperm and fur and horns and other such materials etc...

Animals that are killed in Scientific Experimentation is a whole different topic that I really don't want to touch on.

Killing animals keeps their numbers in check and prevents the over population of species. It's a natural part of life.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by InnerRise
Animals kill other animals to survive yes?

It's the Circle of Life and we are apart of that Circle, we just kill animals in a more efficient manner.

So yes, it's alright to kill animals as long as it's for eating. I don't however agree with the killing of animals for their sperm and fur and horns and other such materials etc...

Animals that are killed in Scientific Experimentation is a whole different topic that I really don't want to touch on.

Killing animals keeps their numbers in check and prevents the over population of species. It's a natural part of life.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka..... unfair advantages.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
What do you mean 'then don't do it'? That argument doesn't really work here does it?


It's not an arguement, its a statement. Just like if someone is anti-drugs, it doesn't give them the authority to go around telling people to stop.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
So, do you feel entirely justified in shooting animals? If so, why?


Yes; it's fun and perfectly legal.

You honestly think I'm going to stop because some kid half my age (who has a soft spot for cute woodland creatures) is telling me to?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen

No, they are pretty darn common, I wonder why...

There aren't 15 school shootings a week, I guarantee you.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
simple. most people end up killing a lot of animals, for eating meat, just killing because they might bite or be a nuisance or might creep you out{bugs} or just crush under our feet vbecause we cant be bothered. alternatively, people torture things like frogs an bugs out of sadistic cruelty n stuff.

animals and bugs, unlike plants do have higher brains. they are self aware, and have emotions. why is it ok to kill or hurt them? i do not understand. as far as food goes, i myself am not a vegetarian{due to circumstances} but am trying to become one. there is also the fact that many people enjoy hunting and thing of it as SPORT, and at the same time, many meat eaters/hunters etc, will find it very disturbing if sumthing taboo like a dog or cat is killed? rent these double standards?

i do not deny that as biological organisms, we were meant to eat both meat and veggies, but as humans with the ability to think, is it really ok to kill animals just to satisfy our taste buds? or simply because we do not consider them worthy of being on the same level as us? or because we can not be bothered?

what are your views, relegious/personal etc.

I don't kill animals for fun or for "sport".

Though I don't "take offense" to it.

Later in life, I would like to hunt humans. I would love to have a few human "pelts" hanging up on my wall someday.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
unfair advantages. Does not the Ferocious Lion have an unfair advantage over the timid Gazelle?

If no one species had an advantage over another, there'd be no structure, no Hierarchy and it'd be one free for all and Humans definitely wouldn't be running things and would be no better than any other species.

"Unfair Advantage" is apart of the Circle of Life as well.

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by InnerRise
If no one species had an advantage over another, there'd be no structure.

Originally posted by InnerRise
Does not the Ferocious Lion have an unfair advantage over the timid Gazelle?

If no one species had an advantage over another, there'd be no structure, no Hierarchy and it'd be one free for all and Humans definitely wouldn't be running things and would be no better than any other species.

"Unfair Advantage" is apart of the Circle of Life as well.

anata wa wakarimasu ka..... now you are talking of animals killing animals. We are talking of humans killing animals.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
unfair advantages.
It's not an unfair advantage, since the animals aren't participants, they are the subjects/tools of the sport.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's not an arguement, its a statement. Just like if someone is anti-drugs, it doesn't give them the authority to go around telling people to stop.



Yes; it's fun and perfectly legal.

You honestly think I'm going to stop because some kid half my age (who has a soft spot for cute woodland creatures) is telling me to?



There aren't 15 school shootings a week, I guarantee you.

Well, you can damage your own body as much as you want, yes it's legal; I'm arguing that it's disgusting that you don't have a moral objection to it.

I don't see why age should matter. Don't really have a soft spot for them and I'm not telling you to do anything, I'm asking you questions abut it and voicing my own opinion, and you're getting upset.

I'm perfectly aware that there aren't 15 school shootings per week, there are however a number per year, far more than any other country. Why do you think there is more in the U.S?

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not an unfair advantage, since the animals aren't participants, they are the subjects/tools of the sport. well, hell, now that you explained it like that, I have to totally rethink it.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
now you are talking of animals killing animals. We are talking of humans killing animals. No I'm not. I gave you a comparison to the fact that you pointed out that HUMANS have an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE over other animals.

It's a COMPARISON. Wouldn't have made sense if I had made a comparison involving a human and another animal.

I don't think I need to explain why that would have been redundant. At least I hope not.

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by InnerRise
No I'm not. I gave you a comparison to the fact that you pointed out that HUMANS have an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE over other animals.

It's a COMPARISON. Wouldn't have made sense if I had made a comparison involving a human and another animal.

I don't think I need to explain why that would have been redundant. At least I hope not.

anata wa wakarimasu ka..... an animal going against another animal, tooth and claw, WITHOUT modern weapons is one thing.

some idiot who cant even spell his own name going after an animal with a rifle is another.

apples and oranges.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
well, hell, now that you explained it like that, I have to totally rethink it.
Cool.

Personally I don't see the appeal of hunting, but I guess I can understand why some people might.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Cool.

Personally I don't see the appeal of hunting, but I guess I can understand why some people might. I see why too, but I dont see how it can be a sport.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
an animal going against another animal, tooth and claw, WITHOUT modern weapons is one thing.

some idiot who cant even spell his own name going after an animal with a rifle is another.

apples and oranges. You just don't grasp the concept of "USING COMPARISONS TO MAKE A POINT."

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by InnerRise
You just don't grasp the concept of "USING COMPARISONS TO MAKE A POINT."

anata wa wakarimasu ka..... I get the concept, but yours has no bearing here.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I see why too, but I dont see how it can be a sport. Well, go to dictionary.com and look up sport, that kinda puts and end to this.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I get the concept, but yours has no bearing here. It indeed does.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, go to dictionary.com and look up sport, that kinda puts and end to this. If someone needs a dictionary to define what sport is, they are beyond help.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well I already know that you're gun-phobic, so I would expect something like that out of you.

Or just answer my question.

You argued that bears etc aren't helpless because they have claws and such, natural means of defending themselves. A gun is not, which is what you hunt with.

So your argument is bs and so are you for chickening out of it.

Originally posted by InnerRise
Does not the Ferocious Lion have an unfair advantage over the timid Gazelle?

No, it's not walking around with a weapon it made, just like the gazelle isn't riding around on a motorcycle, escaping lions.

Your comparison is dumb. Great White Sharks have better...everything than more or less any fish in the sea, or any mammal in the sea for that matter, naturally though. It didn't go to a Walmart and buy .45 calibre teeth to hunt a dolphin.

-AC

Originally posted by InnerRise
It indeed does.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka..... explain how it does? you are talking about one animal killing another for the sole sake of survival. what does that have to do with man hunting animals with a rifle?

This should be fun.

Rogue Jedi and InnerRise asking each other questions. By the time either of them answer animals will have evolved to actually use rifles, and both arguments will be redundant.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Or just answer my question.

You argued that bears etc aren't helpless because they have claws and such, natural means of defending themselves. A gun is not, which is what you hunt with.

So your argument is bs and so are you for chickening out of it.


It's not bull, humans lack any natural weapon (except the brain) so we need to compensate. And the gun is the result of human brainpower.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, it's not walking around with a weapon it made, just like the gazelle isn't riding around on a motorcycle, escaping lions.

Your comparison is dumb. Great White Sharks have better...everything than more or less any fish in the sea, or any mammal in the sea for that matter, naturally though. It didn't go to a Walmart and buy .45 calibre teeth to hunt a dolphin.

-AC

That wasn't my quote.

I just caught the gazelle on the motorbike thing.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's not bull, humans lack any natural weapon (except the brain) so we need to compensate. And the gun is the result of human brainpower.

It's not, is it? You said bears aren't helpless because they have NATURAL means of defending themselves, right? Against what? Other natural means, exactly.

If they evolved with bulletproof skin, you'd have an argument. It's natural defense against unnatural means of attack, so the bear having claws and teeth doesn't remove from it being helpless when facing off against a shotgun or a rifle.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
explain how it does? you are talking about one animal killing another for the sole sake of survival. what does that have to do with man hunting animals with a rifle? Ok. So you said Humans have an unfair advantage over animals.

So in my comparison/example......the Lion represented the human, which has the unfair advantage over the animal, the Gazelle.

It showed that this "unfair advantage" that you spoke of, is apart of the much bigger picture.

I don't see you complaining about other species that have advantages over others.......b/c it's a natural part of life and this applies to humans as well so you shouldn't be complaining.

It's nothing wrong with Humans having this "unfair advantage." One species will always have an unfair advantage over another. It's the Circle of Life and it provides balance and structure.

You see it as being "unfair" and wrong when it's simply not.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
If someone needs a dictionary to define what sport is, they are beyond help. That's what dictionaries are for.

Originally posted by InnerRise
Ok. So you said Humans have an unfair advantage over animals.

So in my comparison/example......the Lion represented the human, which has the unfair advantage over the animal, the Gazelle.

It showed that this "unfair advantage" that you spoke of, is apart of the much bigger picture.

I don't see you complaining about other species that have advantages over others.......b/c it's a natural part of life and this applies to humans as well so you shouldn't be complaining.

It's nothing wrong with Humans having this "unfair advantage." One species will always have an unfair advantage over another. It's the Circle of Life and it provides balance and structure.

You see it as being "unfair" and wrong when it's simply not.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Totally flawed, as I have factually proven here:

"No, it's not walking around with a weapon it made, just like the gazelle isn't riding around on a motorcycle, escaping lions.

Your comparison is dumb. Great White Sharks have better...everything than more or less any fish in the sea, or any mammal in the sea for that matter, naturally though. It didn't go to a Walmart and buy .45 calibre teeth to hunt a dolphin.".

Humans with guns have an unfair advantage, lions hunting gazelles do not. Fact. We're talking about how Quiero said a bear isn't helpless and cited natural means of defense as a reason why...against firearms. It's a simple concept, one side has an unfair advantage.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not, is it? You said bears aren't helpless because they have NATURAL means of defending themselves, right? Against what? Other natural means, exactly.

If they evolved with bulletproof skin, you'd have an argument. It's natural defense against unnatural means of attack, so the bear having claws and teeth doesn't remove from it being helpless when facing off against a shotgun or a rifle.

-AC

I'm aware that firearms give people a tremendous advantage, and that we didn't just evolve them.

The thing is, the fact that you're anit-gun pretty much compromises your opinion of the matter. You dislike people owning guns more than you like cute little furry animals.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm aware that firearms give people a tremendous advantage, and that we didn't just evolve them.

The thing is, the fact that you're anit-gun pretty much compromises your opinion of the matter. You dislike people owning guns more than you like cute little furry animals.

Well, I think both are in a way equal reasons when discussing hunting.

Originally posted by InnerRise
Ok. So you said Humans have an unfair advantage over animals.

So in my comparison/example......the Lion represented the human, which has the unfair advantage over the animal, the Gazelle.

It showed that this "unfair advantage" that you spoke of, is apart of the much bigger picture.

I don't see you complaining about other species that have advantages over others.......b/c it's a natural part of life and this applies to humans as well so you shouldn't be complaining.

It's nothing wrong with Humans having this "unfair advantage." One species will always have an unfair advantage over another. It's the Circle of Life and it provides balance and structure.

You see it as being "unfair" and wrong when it's simply not.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka..... Lion is an animal. Gazelle is an animal. they HAVE to kill in order to eat, to survive, and they do so with what they were given, THAT is what we call the food chain. they do so with their teeth and their claws, not with a frigging rifle.

Yes, the lion is larger, faster, more powerful than a Gazelle. THIS is not an unfair advantage. having a gun IS an unfair advantage.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Totally flawed, as I have factually proven here:

"No, it's not walking around with a weapon it made, just like the gazelle isn't riding around on a motorcycle, escaping lions.

Your comparison is dumb. Great White Sharks have better...everything than more or less any fish in the sea, or any mammal in the sea for that matter, naturally though. It didn't go to a Walmart and buy .45 calibre teeth to hunt a dolphin.".

Humans with guns have an unfair advantage, lions hunting gazelles do not. Fact. We're talking about how Quiero said a bear isn't helpless and cited natural means of defense as a reason why...against firearms. It's a simple concept, one side has an unfair advantage.

-AC

The concept of "Fairness" is a human construct. The lion pretty much has every advantage over the gazelle.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The concept of "Fairness" is a human construct. The lion pretty much has every advantage over the gazelle. how does a lion kill a gazelle?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm aware that firearms give people a tremendous advantage, and that we didn't just evolve them.

The thing is, the fact that you're anit-gun pretty much compromises your opinion of the matter. You dislike people owning guns more than you like cute little furry animals.

Once more, without the chicken dance;

You said that a bear isn't helpless, when against a gun, it is isn't it? Against rifles, shotguns and other man-made, lethal weaponry, it is. So you can go ahead and retract your statement, instead of foolishly trying to use "YOU'RE ANTI-GUN!" stance.

We're not discussing who should be allowed guns and who shouldn't, we're discussing your very silly claim that bears are not helpless against hunters with MAN-MADE WEAPONRY because they have claws and teeth.

-AC

By biting it's neck.

Precisely, by biting its neck.

READ my post first. A lion kills a gazelle by natural means, what it is given by nature, just as a gazelle has the chance (and can succeed) to evade it by natural means.

So, in light of you saying THIS:

"I'm aware that firearms give people a tremendous advantage, and that we didn't just evolve them.".

Your argument is stupid.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Once more, without the chicken dance;

You said that a bear isn't helpless, when against a gun, it is isn't it? Against rifles, shotguns and other man-made, lethal weaponry, it is. So you can go ahead and retract your statement, instead of foolishly trying to use "YOU'RE ANTI-GUN!" stance.

We're not discussing who should be allowed guns and who shouldn't, we're discussing your very silly claim that bears are not helpless against hunters with MAN-MADE WEAPONRY because they have claws and teeth.

-AC

Yes, I acknowledged it already. The bear is basically out of it's league aganst a gun. I'm not avoiding admitting anything.

But you also can't honestly tell me that the fact that you're gun-phobic makes your opinion slanted.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Precisely, by biting its neck.

READ my post first. A lion kills a gazelle by natural means, what it is given by nature, just as a gazelle has the chance (and can succeed) to evade it by natural means.

So, in light of you saying THIS:

"I'm aware that firearms give people a tremendous advantage, and that we didn't just evolve them.".

Your argument is stupid.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Precisely, by biting its neck.

READ my post first. A lion kills a gazelle by natural means, what it is given by nature, just as a gazelle has the chance (and can succeed) to evade it by natural means.

So, in light of you saying THIS:

"I'm aware that firearms give people a tremendous advantage, and that we didn't just evolve them.".

Your argument is stupid.

-AC

I never made an argument.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yes, I acknowledged it already. The bear is basically out of it's league aganst a gun. I'm not avoiding admitting anything.

But you also can't honestly tell me that the fact that you're gun-phobic makes your opinion slanted. irrevelant. I like guns, I own one, and I share the same train of thought on this.

W-what is the argument here. I don't follow.

If it is that it is unfair to use firearms against animals......that's stupid, unfair is a totally subjective term, you could just as well claim that it is unfair for a bear to use its claws, but its teeth are alright.

If it is that guns are not natural as in they did not evolve...well...that's trivial?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Lion is an animal. Gazelle is an animal. they HAVE to kill in order to eat, to survive, and they do so with what they were given, THAT is what we call the food chain. they do so with their teeth and their claws, not with a frigging rifle.

Yes, the lion is larger, faster, more powerful than a Gazelle. THIS is not an unfair advantage. having a gun IS an unfair advantage. To be clear. I was just using your wording of "unfair", note the quotes all throughout.

And advantage is an advantage.

Having a gun is an advantage. I don't view it as unfair.

Man has gun.

Lion has claws and sharp teeth.

Simple and Clean.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yes, I acknowledged it already. The bear is basically out of it's league aganst a gun. I'm not avoiding admitting anything.

But you also can't honestly tell me that the fact that you're gun-phobic makes your opinion slanted.

We're not discussing the right to have guns, or guns' place in the world, my opinion on this matter is not about guns themselves, so you're chasing the wrong stick, Quiero.

The only thing relevant is your stance that a bear isn't helpless, you were wrong. Point made and end of argument on my end. Even if I was pro-guns, my argument would stand, a bear is still helpless.

-AC

Originally posted by InnerRise
To be clear. I was just using your wording of "unfair", note the quotes all throughout.

And advantage is an advantage.

Having a gun is an advantage. I don't view it as unfair.

Man has gun.

Lion has claws and sharp teeth.

Simple and Clean.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Lions evolved with that, nature gave it to them.

Nature did not give humans guns.

Your argument is flawed and wrong, factually.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
We're not discussing the right to have guns, or guns' place in the world, my opinion on this matter is not about guns themselves, so you're chasing the wrong stick, Quiero.

The only thing relevant is your stance that a bear isn't helpless, you were wrong. Point made and end of argument on my end. Even if I was pro-guns, my argument would stand, a bear is still helpless.

-AC

The bear isn't helpless. I think you need to hunt before you make assertions.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The bear isn't helpless. I think you need to hunt before you make assertions.

Against a shotgun or a rifle, it is.

I think you need to hunt a bear with your bare hands, Quiero.

-AC

Originally posted by InnerRise
To be clear. I was just using your wording of "unfair", note the quotes all throughout.

And advantage is an advantage.

Having a gun is an advantage. I don't view it as unfair.

Man has gun.

Lion has claws and sharp teeth.

Simple and Clean.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka..... and how did the lion obtain these claws and teeth?

He doesn't care, RJ.

That's his stance, he sees it his way, doesn't care to debate further, despite being wrong. In all honesty, just leave him to his devices, don't let him make the thread about himself.

-AC

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The bear isn't helpless. I think you need to hunt before you make assertions. against a rifle it is.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Against a shotgun or a rifle, it is.

I think you need to hunt a bear with your bare hands, Quiero.

-AC

People don't hunt trees, rocks or anything that is immobile and unresponsive. Bears can run or fight back.

I didn't know that you loved nature's creature so much.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
People don't hunt trees, rocks or anything that is immobile and unresponsive. Bears can run or fight back.

I didn't know that you loved nature's creature so much.

A) Bears cannot fight a shotgun or a rifle.

B) That's not the point, the point is that you said a bear has "enough" defense because it has claws and teeth, or at least implied this, even if a human has a gun. This turned out to be false, by your own acknowlegement.

C) It's not a matter of love for creatures, it's a matter of you making incorrect statements.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
and how did the lion obtain these claws and teeth? The point is the advantage of it all, not how these things were "obtained."

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

No, the point IS how they were obtained, and that as a result, one side has an unfair advantage.

Try to read the thread.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
W-what is the argument here. I don't follow.

If it is that it is unfair to use firearms against animals......that's stupid, unfair is a totally subjective term, you could just as well claim that it is unfair for a bear to use its claws, but its teeth are alright.

If it is that guns are not natural as in they did not evolve...well...that's trivial?

I'd add that the term "natural" is a total red herring.

Originally posted by InnerRise
The point is the advantage of it all, not how these things were "obtained."

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....



Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, the point IS how they were obtained, and that as a result, one side has an unfair advantage.

Try to read the thread.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Nothing to say? Glad we've come to an understanding then.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, the point IS how they were obtained, and that as a result, one side has an unfair advantage.

Try to read the thread.

-AC "unfair" being your definition. And solely yours, Quiero apparently don't sees it as unfair.Originally posted by inimalist
I'd add that the term "natural" is a total red herring. You may.

Hypocrite of the year goes to: InnerRise.

-AC