Originally posted by Bardock42
Can and did.
So how did either of those statements negate the fact that you said:
"On the whole I think animals suck anyways, though."
Not remind me and not seem sentimentally similar to this:
"If no human gets or will get harmed in the process of destroying every animal, plant and other living thing on this earth...it is absolutely alright."
?
Hmm?
I'll help you a bit...sentimental does not equal logical.
You can have as much word play as you like and be right, but you're not arguing with anyone but yourself.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So how did either of those statements negate the fact that you said:"On the whole I think animals suck anyways, though."
Not remind me and not seem sentimentally similar to this:
"If no human gets or will get harmed in the process of destroying every animal, plant and other living thing on this earth...it is absolutely alright."
?
Hmm?
I'll help you a bit...sentimental does not equal logical.
You can have as much word play as you like and be right, but you're not arguing with anyone but yourself.
I never said that it isn't sentimentally similar to you. What I said is that it "actually [...] didn't fit in" with the other, nothing else.
Just to be anal. And I do realize that you were trying to be, but you did kinda fail at that, hun.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I never said that it isn't sentimentally similar to you. What I said is that it "actually [...] didn't fit in" with the other, nothing else.
I've got the last word. Na na!
Originally posted by Bardock42
Just to be anal. And I do realize that you were trying to be, but you did kinda fail at that, hun.
I wasn't trying to be anal. 😐
It's rather simple: your post reminded me of one of your past posts. 😐
Originally posted by dadudemon
I've got the last word. Na na!I wasn't trying to be anal. 😐
It's rather simple: your post reminded me of one of your past posts. 😐
A-and I told you the differences in the posts. God damn you, dadudemon! You ****in' *******! Everything's a ****in' travesty with you, man!
Originally posted by dadudemon
👆You want to argue about something that is not there.
Fine. 😐
I don't want to argue. I didn't really want to debate petty semantics, you just went on talking about it in an inane manner, so I had to set you straight. Wasn't the most fun I ever had, but you had no intention to debate the issue of this topic, yet kept addressing me, I suppose I should have just ignored it, though.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It shouldn't intervene in anything, cause it shouldn't exist.
Well, while that might sound like a nice idea...back in the real world the remit of a government is to govern and defend a nation. This includes stopping companies from polluting river supplies, destroying forestry and disturbing the ecology.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, while that might sound like a nice idea...back in the real world the remit of a government is to govern and defend a nation. This includes stopping companies from polluting river supplies, destroying forestry and disturbing the ecology.
That obviously depends on your view of government, which widely differ. I am, of course, arguing for what I believe should be, not what is...that would make for a very boring thread, after all.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, while that might sound like a nice idea...back in the real world the remit of a government is to govern and defend a nation. This includes stopping companies from polluting river supplies, destroying forestry and disturbing the ecology.
actually, what is being done with this law is government is giving itself the ability to assess the impact of environmental policy and supersede what professional scientists in the field have shown.
essentially, the government feels its hands are tied/authority undermined by science, and there is ample evidence that all administrations work in this way. The government wants less regulation on its ability to sell development contracts to people and doesn't want pesky environmental science getting in the way.
Originally posted by Bardock42
you had no intention to debate the issue of this topic,
With posts like
"You can spin it however you like. "
"You can justify it however you'd like. "
"...but you're not arguing with anyone but yourself."
I'm fairly sure it was clear that I wasn't debating anything with you.
It was fun while it lasted.
Originally posted by dadudemon
With posts like"You can spin it however you like. "
"You can justify it however you'd like. "
"...but you're not arguing with anyone but yourself."
I'm fairly sure it was clear that I wasn't debating anything with you.
It was fun while it lasted.
No, you weren't debating, you were addressing me though and implying things about my posts, eh? I bet you feel like quite the puppet master. Take your last word now, please, I think everything has been said on my part.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, you weren't debating, you were addressing me though and implying things about my posts, eh? I bet you feel like quite the puppet master. Take your last word now, please, I think everything has been said on my part.
I thought you were cute in the picture with the doggie in the OTF thread your lady posted.
You take great care of her.
I also noticed a littel facial hair.
Back on topic.
I don't see in the near future, little doggies becoming extinct. As long as there's a demand for cute little puppies...
I do see continued extinctions due to human expansion and development. Instead of altering or loosening the interpretation of Endangered Species Act, maybe we should look at ways for improving our expansion? Is not like we don't have the know-how. In fact, doesn't it cost less, in the long run, to build those ultra efficient buildings with the materials that are less toxic to the environment?