HOME | DD

Published: 2009-10-10 22:50:42 +0000 UTC; Views: 16099; Favourites: 287; Downloads: 61
Redirect to original
Description
They aren't.Love the comments guys, keep 'em coming.
Related content
Comments: 812
I-am-the-Onslaught In reply to ??? [2010-10-12 11:38:46 +0000 UTC]
Goddamn, fuck yeah! You go, triippy!
π: 0 β©: 0
CB-Tomboi In reply to ??? [2010-08-06 20:11:08 +0000 UTC]
This.
This this this this this this this.
I fucking love it when people say "you only hate that because you like snakes!" Fucking duh. And you, as a summarized fictional being of the general public, only go on a raging march to protect what you like.
Pardon me for giving a damn about everything. Don't pick that! That flower is endangered! So what, I want to wear it in my hair while I go yell at some whalers.
π: 0 β©: 1
triippyx In reply to CB-Tomboi [2010-08-06 21:37:09 +0000 UTC]
Oh lordy, people like that bother me so much.
Apparently only 'cute' things are worth saving, and remember snakes are evil so who cares? I adore their faces when you bring up the point that dogs bite people more than rattlesnakes do in the united states.
π: 0 β©: 1
CB-Tomboi In reply to triippyx [2010-08-06 22:04:05 +0000 UTC]
I am biased to loving reptiles more than other animals, but everyone has favorites.. just because I like something the most doesn't mean I hate everything else. The same does not seem to be true for a large chunk of furry critter fans. I have over 50 dead rats in my freezer to feed to my pets, but I talk them up as fantastic pets and I don't hate them for being prey. A lot of rat fans just can't shut up about how much they hate snakes.
I can't use that line too well. I tend to go for other animals. My "dog" isn't a dog, he's a large monitor lizard, but I introduce him as such since it seems to invite an immediate air of humor when they see him instead of shitting their pants. I've tried the dogs are more likely to attack you than a well cared for reptile, and I'd often get WELL, WHAT ABOUT YOUR DOG? Speaks volumes about the people who follow that mindset...
π: 0 β©: 1
triippyx In reply to CB-Tomboi [2010-08-06 22:30:39 +0000 UTC]
I feel the same way. I love all animals, but yeah, reptiles are defiently a passion of mine I guess I'd say. I don't advocate saving other animals who need our help any less, though I tend to speak up more about roundups. It honestly shocks me how many people do not know about those events, I can honest to god say that if they were doing that kind of crap to feral cats/dogs the media would be all over it. In most cases reptiles don't seem to have a 'voice' with the public, while other animals do.
The rodent group who would want to see reptiles not as pets just because they don't want to think about their pets becoming food are annoying. I wouldn't mind having a pet rat. (but i think I'd much rather have a ferret ;])
It really does, I've gotten people throw back that it's like 'comparing apples to oranges', when if they actually thought about it for more than two seconds, it isn't.
π: 0 β©: 1
CB-Tomboi In reply to triippyx [2010-08-07 16:37:11 +0000 UTC]
I live way far up north in Illinois. A lot of people don't even beleive me when I tell them about the round ups. If it's so cruel someone would have stopped it by now they say. While reptiles do have a voice, it's one carrying the stigma of reptiles only being kept by weird or crazy people, which is not true at all. I've met some real nut cases with herps, but most of the nut cases I meet have average animals like dogs or cats. Some animals are fighting against a bad rep.. a lot more battle invisibility. People don't even know they exist. Or like shark finning and over fishing, you get "Well the ocean is so big there's no way we can get them all" and such.. a total lack of passion. I can't hate on activists who get the public riled up by endearing an animal to them and lighting a fire in them to do something about their plight, but hell to the people who can't be assed, and hell to the people who think its a contest and THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE CONSERVATION CONCERN *sword slash* Ferrets appreciate a tasty frozen rodent from time to time too! When I worked in a pet shop I used to tell that to ferret owners, and they always looked at me like I just informed them they were keeping satan in their house.
Comparing one bite rate to another bite rate is definetly not apples to oranges.. but then, people can't stand being made a fool of. Just look at the comments here, haha!
π: 0 β©: 1
triippyx In reply to CB-Tomboi [2010-08-07 22:32:32 +0000 UTC]
I know exactly what you mean. It's a shame people can't be bothered to actually do their research and understand exactly what they are or aren't advocating before hand though. I can't help to think that there are some activist who are only out there just to get someones money and support.
I'm amazed people don't understand that ferrets are carnivores. xD Just because they aren't placing slabs of meat in front of their ferrets doesn't mean it isn't in their food, even if it's kibble.
π: 0 β©: 0
RaquiaVolTe In reply to ??? [2010-08-05 22:20:05 +0000 UTC]
I honestly don't find that right that people have the right to kills something cause it effects their livelihood. I mean they are only doing what comes natural. Kinda hard for them not to effect some human's livelihood cause they over populate the world lmao.
Same goes for the rattle snakes, or any venomous snake. It sickens me how 'Godly' human animals act. Sometimes I wish I wasn't one, but I know I can't help it :/ Oh well, just got to be different then the typical human animal!
π: 1 β©: 1
triippyx In reply to RaquiaVolTe [2010-08-05 23:14:15 +0000 UTC]
Okay so if you spent thousands of dollars (i'm not exactly sure how much it takes to own and run a ranch) and an animal was taking your animals, killing and in many cases not eating them, and you were losing more and more money from that, you wouldn't be mad? You wouldn't be bothered by the thing that you and your family would soon be facing poverty because you were losing the thing that brought you your income to wild animals? You're probably going to say no for the sake of the argument but whatever.
Kinda hard for them not to effect some human's livelihood cause they over populate the world lmao.
This. This is exactly why we need to hunt and control them.
We may think too highly of ourselves but really, do you honestly think that wolves give a damn about us? Do you think they care about the moose, rabbits, coyotes, bears ect.? Do you think they go around "Hm, well coyotes have every right to our prey as well, why don't we let them have this one?" No. Wolves only care about the survival of themselves, and if their prey begins to drop then they will go after something else or turn on each other.
If you really think about it humans are doing them a service by controlling their population. Not only are they helping wolves in a sense, they are helping their prey and competitors as well..
Also, can you find an animal other than humans who have started conservation efforts? That's pretty selfless on our part considering that we take up so much space..
As much as I like animals I enjoy the freedom of being a human. I'd say not worrying about being eaten by a predator or where I'm going to find my dinner and if I'm going to be able to catch it and trying to find shelter and survive an other day is a pretty good life.
(i didn't mean to click on the mood thing..so I'm just going to change it to a Christmas tree. c: )
π: 0 β©: 2
Llealynarisia In reply to triippyx [2010-08-27 00:36:25 +0000 UTC]
True, but I doubt that they really kill a heck of a lot of ranch animals every single night. And as much of a nuisance they might be to a few ranchers, they have a larger impact as one of the top predators of their food webs. Without them, the populations of deer, elk and the other animals they hunt would swell to unmanageable sizes (human hunters don't help-they only kill the "trophy" specimens, leaving weaker animals to spread inferior genes to the next generations). This had already been seen in Yellowstone . Personally, if I were a rancher, I would prefer having a few weaker animals culled every once in a while than my whole herd starve because their food source is being taken by wild competition or die from the diseases that competition can transmit.
(I like wolves as much as the next person, but if this seems too emotional of a response to you, let me know please. I prefer debating with logic and facts, not emotional attacks. )
π: 0 β©: 1
triippyx In reply to Llealynarisia [2010-08-27 01:21:47 +0000 UTC]
but I doubt that they really kill a heck of a lot of ranch animals every single night.
When did I ever say that it happens in one night? Loss of livestock can happen at any time, and over time this loss may grow.
Without them, the populations of deer, elk and the other animals they hunt would swell to unmanageable sizes.
Wolves are not the only predators in Yellowstone, yes they are an important predator but they are not the only ones there. And actually, wolves are doing more harm than good to elk populations in Yellowstone. [link]
(human hunters don't help-they only kill the "trophy" specimens, leaving weaker animals to spread inferior genes to the next generations)
Excuse me? I'm sorry but that is an assumption based on emotion. Human hunters do not always go for a nice trophy on the wall.
π: 0 β©: 1
Llealynarisia In reply to triippyx [2010-08-27 02:02:30 +0000 UTC]
From what I had read and interpreted, that was what you were seeming to imply (if not a single night, then pretty often). I believe I had read somewhere (can't quite remember exactly where) that wolves actually preferred to go after wildlife, not livestock. However, seeing as I can't remember the source, I could be wrong.
That was actually a pretty interesting article you found (I should probably do a bit more research on the other side of the issue from now on). I can't help but feel, however, that something is missing. What were the population numbers and birth rates before the wolves were killed off?
Ok, yeah, I didn't think that one completely through. Honestly I had forgotten about the humans that hunted for meat. My bad.
π: 0 β©: 1
triippyx In reply to Llealynarisia [2010-08-27 03:20:56 +0000 UTC]
No I was never implying that a wolf could wipe out livestock completely or in an entire night.
I seem to remember reading that in a defenders of wildlife article, or something along the lines of that, but really a wolf will go after a easy meal... And in some cases livestock do seem to be seen as easy meals.
Where the birth rates and numbers (i'm assuming you mean of the elk)isn't really needed because yes elk were overpopulated beforehand. However that does not make it alright for the wolves to go in and have such a negative impact on the elk herds or that the wolves should go unmanaged.
I think I'm giving the impression that I hate wolves or want to see them wiped out. I like wolves, I like all animals, but that does not stop me from supporting proper wildlife management. I want to see our wildlife at healthy levels, both for predator and prey. And if you ask me wolves turning to livestock or domesticated animals is not healthy, it isn't healthy for any predator.
π: 0 β©: 2
Tassos13 In reply to triippyx [2010-10-11 15:20:15 +0000 UTC]
Where the birth rates and numbers (i'm assuming you mean of the elk)isn't really needed because yes elk were overpopulated beforehand. However that does not make it alright for the wolves to go in and have such a negative impact on the elk herds or that the wolves should go unmanaged
Yeah because who would want to see a giant shit box on stilts disappear? e.e Honestly, I find your logic a little flawed here. Why isn't it alright for Elk to start feeling the effects of a restored wolf population? Herbivores do more damage to forests than predators and culling wolves isn't a solution. (Especially when the only -real- reason for doing so is to preserve Canada's Quarter mascot... at least that's the Canadian excuse.) It's better just to breed these crap-factories in captivity, keeping human contact to a bare minimum, then releasing them in to the wild.
π: 0 β©: 1
triippyx In reply to Tassos13 [2010-10-11 15:36:40 +0000 UTC]
These comments are months old, really. Let them die, I'm sick of people trying to beat a dead horse.
I think you need to go take some ecology classes or somethin' though, I mean really. Come on now, I'm not even going to address that.
π: 0 β©: 0
Llealynarisia In reply to triippyx [2010-08-27 03:44:55 +0000 UTC]
I can understand the position you're coming from. I don't really believe the decline is going to last for long, though. Eventually, the numbers would get to the point where the wolf population will start declining as well, giving the elk a breather and a chance to rebound. Eventually it should fall back to looking like a normal predator-prey time graph with the usual hills and valleys. I also think that most animals can do well without us meddling in their business further. Aside from rescuing endangered animals from extinction, working harder to root out invasive species, and fixing other problems that are directly our fault, if we can just get everyone to step back, at least some of the problems will eventually right themselves. After all, that's what life's been doing for the past 3.5 billion years before us humans came along.
I hope you weren't bothered or angered by my intrusive comment, and if you are, I'm sorry. I guess I might have gotten the impulse to play Devil's Advocate, I'm not really sure.
By the way, who/what species is the creature in your avatar? It's gotten me quite curious (would I be incorrect to assume some kind of hyena?).
π: 0 β©: 1
triippyx In reply to Llealynarisia [2010-08-27 04:09:37 +0000 UTC]
The 'boom and bust' cycle you are referring to is pretty idealistic. As it has been said wolves are turning to 'unnatural' sources of prey, even if their populations were to fall I don't think it would be enough to give the elk any significant slack, as wolves are not their only predators..And if they are having less calves to begin with because of the wolves, the elks 'boom' would be rather hard on them..
I also think that most animals can do well without us meddling in their business further.
This is also very idealistic, we as a species are everywhere. Our roads cut through their territory, our homes take the land where they once lived. Humans as a whole are so overpopulated there is no way that we can just let animals overrun as they once did. They are both a danger to us at times, and we are a threat to them. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to have wolves in my back yard, especially if they were unchecked, I would not only worry about my own safety but my pets and family. Again you have a very idealistic take on this situation, which isn't necessarily bad, but in this kind of debate it isn't good either.
After all, that's what life's been doing for the past 3.5 billion years before us humans came along.
This, this is where I have to make my point. 3.5 billion years ago we weren't so over populated, we weren't so 'advanced' we weren't 'everywhere'. We could compete with animals. But again, we're so overpopulated that sadly this cannot be.
I'm not angry, I don't mind a good debate and I'm glad that you aren't one of those "O U H8 WUFES U R EVIL" people, because those are the ones who have me at wits-end.
And my icon was my old wolf character (who actually is a hyena now lol i just haven't changed the icon)
π: 0 β©: 0
RaquiaVolTe In reply to triippyx [2010-08-06 01:55:08 +0000 UTC]
Yes, honestly, I would be mad if I was in that situation. However, I am a human.
That still does not justify the action. You can try to throw in that, "Oh, we are
just trying to control their population!" But really it's just cause they are stepping
over into our 'Godly' territory, which going out to find new territory is only natural
to them. Why you think they are leaving that territory in the first place? Crossing
into our own territory? Cause they know somewhere in their minds that they need to
find new territory cause it's to over populated in their area. Nature always knows how
to strive, even without us. The problem is, we keep trying to control nature, and
we get pissed when we can't.
If there wasn't so much humans in the world, there would be no need for ranches with
animals. Hunting and killing your own food wouldn't be hard to do at all,considering some
human animals actually do it for sport quiet easily, and finding shelter.. no one said you
still couldn't have houses. Oh and bright stuff.. I was saying HUMAN animals over populate
the world, not wolves. Cause there is so many of US, it's hard for them not to interfier
with our livelihoods.
As for them not caring about us, of course not! They are only doing what comes natural to
them. Survival of the fittest. There is no right or wrong, in their world, and they are
true to themselves, no matter what. This goes along with all animals. And you really think
us human animals care about anything but ourselves? Hell no! However, if I had to really tell
you what animal is the most dangerous, it would have to be the human animal. Why do I say that?
Only human animals will actually kill something just for the pure enjoyment of it. Just to spite
someone else. To feel the power of playing, "God"! It kills me when someone actually calls these
humans, "animals" when no 'animal' will actually kill without a reason for it. Even if you don't
see the reason for it. Mainly out of protection, cause they have rabies, or to eat.
Tell me something, how come if an animal kills an animal, it's natural, but if an animal kills a human,
it's murder? To me, that's just a simple reminder that we are still apart of the natural animal world.
Oh and quiet a long arguing statement when all I was trying to do was agree with you xD How sad. Sorry you didn't enjoy my support.
π: 0 β©: 1
triippyx In reply to RaquiaVolTe [2010-08-06 03:06:46 +0000 UTC]
No, we control populations not just because animals are getting too close to people, but because we are trying to keep the wildlife balanced. I donβt think you understand that without some kind of culling, humans and animals could not control each other very well. And we are not going to start hunting each other any time soon.
Do you think a wolf going into a neighborhood in search of new territory is fine when they can attack peoples pets or children?
You think it's okay
βIf there wasn't so much humans in the world, there would be no need for ranches with
animals.β
Okay here is where you begin to think unrealistically. Even if there were less people we would still need to eat. We would still need to have shelter and an a way of life. We would still be on 'animals territory.' Even with less people our technology would have advanced anyway, yes we would still need ranches, we would still have cars, we would still have businesses. Just less people.
(You don't have to say human animals, by the way. You can just say humans)
Yes, humans are over populated, however you can't legally go around shooting people for the hell of it. I'm not religious but I do believe that animals are here for us to an extent.As far as your survival of the fittest go, WE are the fittest. WE have developed our technology.
And you really think
us human animals care about anything but ourselves? Hell no!
So you just ignored my point about animal conservation? And if we didn't care about anything else why would we have animal welfare or animal cruelty laws? Why would we be trying to fix the damage we have done to the earth? We DO care about other animals.
Only human animals will actually kill something just for the pure enjoyment of it. Just to spite
someone else. To feel the power of playing, "God"! It kills me when someone actually calls these
humans, "animals" when no 'animal' will actually kill without a reason for it.
Uh? Okay so I guess you've never seen orca whales kill a seal? They toss the poor thing around before they kill it.
My cat kills moles, snakes, lizards, birds, mice and rabbits just for being in the yard. He doesn't eat them, he just leaves them on the porch. Some predators play 'catch and release' causing their prey incredible amounts of pain before they are eaten.
I honestly don't find that right that people have the right to kills something cause it effects their livelihood. I mean they are only doing what comes natural. Kinda hard for them not to effect some human's livelihood cause they over populate the world lmao.
lolwut where were you agreeing with me in any of this?
π: 0 β©: 1
RaquiaVolTe In reply to triippyx [2010-08-06 03:56:20 +0000 UTC]
Unfortunally it is impossible to control nature. That's our problem, that we are always trying to control something, like 'Gods'.
As for a wolf going into a neighborhood and killing someones pet or children.. honestly? Yes. Cause it would be natural, and the wolf would only be doing what came natural to them. Just cause it was a human child doesn't make it any different then if it was a baby deer. However, if it was my kid I would kill it. Why? Cause it's only natural to defend ones young. Even the mother deer, or father deer, would try to kill the wolf for trying.
No, I do believe you are not thinking realistically. By less people, I mean that we only populate small portions of the earth. I believe we should interact with the wild and consider ourselves a part of the wild. Why fear nature when you can just accept that you are a part of it? I never said you'd have to do away with houses, or the essential needs of life. However you would have no need for technology, such as cars; nor would you even need businesses to make money, if you could just hunt your own food, grow your own food, and support yourself that you need money to do now-a-days, just cause there are so many humans. I say human 'animals' to state the fact that we are all animals, rather we like to believe it or not. To say humans and animals is an incorrect term.
There are some humans that don't care. They think killing an animal just because it is popular. Just for the lols to those wolf worshipers out there if they gun down a wolf. So I was wrong to say ALL humans don't care.
Alright, so some animals can do it for sport. However what makes it bad for us to do it is the fact that we know it's wrong. And they don't normally do it to that of their own spieces. They do it to other animals, likes we do so to other animals.
Not any of this, but you commented here back in June. I just now saw this. I didn't agree with a little portion of what you said, but I did agree at the same time.
π: 0 β©: 2
KearaLemon In reply to RaquiaVolTe [2010-09-05 20:56:54 +0000 UTC]
No, I do believe you are not thinking realistically. By less people, I mean that we only populate small portions of the earth. I believe we should interact with the wild and consider ourselves a part of the wild.
Sorry, but if I lived in a small area...I wouldn't consider myself "part of the wild."
π: 0 β©: 1
RaquiaVolTe In reply to KearaLemon [2010-09-05 22:17:57 +0000 UTC]
Sounds like you didn't even read the entire rant.
π: 0 β©: 1
KearaLemon In reply to RaquiaVolTe [2010-09-05 22:19:54 +0000 UTC]
Nope, I did.
I'm just saying that I don't agree with that statement.
π: 0 β©: 1
RaquiaVolTe In reply to KearaLemon [2010-09-05 22:47:57 +0000 UTC]
You didn't even get the statement correctly xD That's not even what I meant by that.
π: 0 β©: 1
KearaLemon In reply to RaquiaVolTe [2010-09-05 22:51:21 +0000 UTC]
Well, then it seems like you said a lot of things you didn't mean.
π: 0 β©: 1
RaquiaVolTe In reply to KearaLemon [2010-09-05 22:59:22 +0000 UTC]
Or it seems that you can't read and understand things correctly.
π: 0 β©: 1
KearaLemon In reply to RaquiaVolTe [2010-09-05 23:06:15 +0000 UTC]
Well, the statement seemed pretty strait forward. And you didn't seem to say anything that would make it have an alternate meaning.
π: 0 β©: 1
RaquiaVolTe In reply to KearaLemon [2010-09-05 23:10:27 +0000 UTC]
Well let me tell you what it meant then. I meant that I believe that ppl should populate small portions of the earth and interact more with the wild. With nature. Become one with it. Not that ppl who populate small potions of the earth do.
π: 0 β©: 1
KearaLemon In reply to RaquiaVolTe [2010-09-05 23:14:47 +0000 UTC]
"...interact with the wild and consider ourselves a part of the wild."
That's what I thought you meant.
π: 0 β©: 1
RaquiaVolTe In reply to KearaLemon [2010-09-05 23:17:17 +0000 UTC]
Ya well I didn't mean that people already do consider themselves a part of the wild, who live in small portions of the world; or small towns.
π: 0 β©: 0
triippyx In reply to RaquiaVolTe [2010-08-06 04:24:16 +0000 UTC]
...You're taking 'population control' far too literal here. No man is not trying to say that we control wild animals, however we are managing their populations. Are you aware that in Yellowstone the Canadian grey wolf is having such a negative impact on Elk that they are having less calves? I suppose you would be completely fine with the Elk dying out, because hey, that would be natural wouldn't it? Are you also find with rabies and mange, they're natural too.
I suppose a psychopath walking through town picking off whoever they pleased would be fine too, because that would be natural.
Cause it's only natural to defend ones young.
It's only natural for man kind to want to live, to see our species strive. It's only natural for us to take total advantage of our resources. It's only natural for an angry man to want to kill a wolf for messing with his livelihood, or at least have the animal removed. Man is trying to raise a family, and it's only natural for him to want to do away with threats who could harm him or his families wellbeing, isn't it? We could kill all the wolves, we could have no wild animals at all, we could be the only beings on this earth aside from our livestock. We could make it so, we've virtually wiped out the wolves before, we could do it again.
Now before I move on, the Canadian grey wolf is not the same wolf we had in yellowstone before. So by your logic this beast is not natural to have in yellowstone as it is not the native wolf.
How am I not the one thinking realistically when you are the one going on this "if there were less people we might be able to survive this way"?
You can live in your little uneducated fantasy world if you wish, where people can run with packs of wolves and not be attacked. I will be in reality, waiting for you to take this conversation seriously and not just bringing forth "What if" arguments.
Lol okay you supported me but didn't at the same time?
π: 0 β©: 1
RaquiaVolTe In reply to triippyx [2010-08-06 04:31:01 +0000 UTC]
Wow, I've really struck a nerve here xD You're even not paying much attention to what you are typing. But anyways, ya. Nice chatting with you.
π: 0 β©: 1
triippyx In reply to RaquiaVolTe [2010-08-06 04:42:50 +0000 UTC]
Typical 'u mad' bs move. Nice way to prove when you've lost, dear. You haven't struck a nerve, just proven how uneducated you are on this subject.
π: 0 β©: 1
RaquiaVolTe In reply to triippyx [2010-08-06 04:48:43 +0000 UTC]
You sound just as 'uneducated' as I do. The fact that you even cared to say the whole 'nice way to prove when you've lost" means that you are just an immature idiot who can't handle a debate. Next time you can try to grow up and state your opinions without caring who 'lost' and insulting in the end. Cause honestly that wasn't even called for. I didn't insult you any. Just said, 'nice chatting with'.
π: 0 β©: 1
triippyx In reply to RaquiaVolTe [2010-08-06 05:04:07 +0000 UTC]
Oh my, you really don't have a clue do you?
I never insulted you. c: I just said you were uneducated on this subject, which you are.
I'm not going to be an ass kisser, sorry. :/
π: 0 β©: 1
RaquiaVolTe In reply to triippyx [2010-08-06 05:17:18 +0000 UTC]
Yup, cause you are just a 19yr old female who knows everything. No one asked you to be an ass kisser. I backed down, I called it quits, and what did you do? You rubbed it in my face. Now how mature does that sound to you? Cause it really don't sound mature to me in the least.
Hell, life has probably not even started for you yet.
π: 0 β©: 1
triippyx In reply to RaquiaVolTe [2010-08-06 05:20:23 +0000 UTC]
Oh goodness, you've learned my age. Amazing.
I could care less about maturity.
Now are we just gona sit here and argue about this now or what?
btw i'm not a know it all, however I have done my research.
π: 0 β©: 1
RaquiaVolTe In reply to triippyx [2010-08-06 05:24:19 +0000 UTC]
That's how it would sound. Idk, that's up to you rather you want to shut up, and stop fueling it or not xD Kissing ass and shutting up are two different things.
Ya, it really sounded like you did your research. Funny considering most of what we talked about you can't research.
π: 0 β©: 1
triippyx In reply to RaquiaVolTe [2010-08-06 05:34:03 +0000 UTC]
Same goes for you, dear.
I'm bored and you're providing me with entertainment.
Oh right, because google is cluttered with DOW bull crap.
Which is why you go to other resources other than google. ;]
π: 0 β©: 1
RaquiaVolTe In reply to triippyx [2010-08-06 05:45:49 +0000 UTC]
haha on the contrary. I came to you in the form amusement xD Why you think I commented to you in the first place?
Then again I thought you'd be a little more brighter about it. Hell, you miss read a lot of the shit that I had said in my debate, and got way to into it.
You couldn't even understand the points I was trying to debate about.
The things I was trying to debate about you can't find on google. Like how life would be if there wasn't as many humans on this planet. You can't find that, your answer would have to come from your own believes. The whole debate was about believes, not facts.
So I got some 'facts' off, but I wasn't caring about the facts. Maybe you need to learn the difference between facts and believes.
π: 0 β©: 1
triippyx In reply to RaquiaVolTe [2010-08-06 16:14:59 +0000 UTC]
What happened to the "Oh I supported you?" yeah, good one.
Your points? Your points that it's okay for a wolf to kill a human child because it's natural but it's not okay for a human to kill a wolf? The points that were so unrealistic and laughable? What points came from credible sources that actually mattered?
"The whole debate was about believes, not facts."
So basically I've wasted my time talking to someone who brought up some unrealistic beliefs that did not matter in the debate at all?
Learn how to debate properly, you can bring your beliefs into a debate but you can't go out on an uneducated 'what if' rant if you're wanting to be taken seriously.
π: 0 β©: 1
RaquiaVolTe In reply to triippyx [2010-08-06 18:17:19 +0000 UTC]
Actually that wasn't my point at all. You're
the one that brought that question into the
equation. Not me. You can just blame yourself
for the answer I stated from that one. And again,
that question, or answer, couldn't have came from
facts, only believes.
There is no such thing as an un-realistic belief.
There is only believes that everyone shares, and
believes that only you have. As long as the belief
is real for you, then it doesn't matter what other
people belief. Even the belief in God can be proven
un-realistic if you brought in the facts. If that's
the case, then why do people still believe in him if
he can be so easily proven to not exist?
You can't base believes soly on facts.
I respect your believes. You have your reason for
believing things, but as long as you only believe
something based on facts, then you truely do not
know how to believe in something. You are yet to
young to realize that the world is a lot bigger then
what you can read in a book. There is still yet so
much for us people to learn about the planet we live
on. Hell there are still animals on this planet that
have still yet to be discovered. Still places yet
to be explored. Things we still do not have the facts
about, that we can only choose to believe the possibilities
or not to believe in anything we do not see.
Simply stating, we are nothing without believes. We would
be just like everything else. If it wasn't for believes, we
wouldn't have what we have today. If it wasn't for 'what if'
questions, the car wouldn't even have been invented. I'm very
sure many people laughed and ridiculed the person who said they
were going to invent a way to fly. In fact they did. So if you tell me
that 'what-if' debates wont be taken seriously, then remember this.
If someone didn't take it seriously, you wouldn't even know what the
internet was.
π: 0 β©: 1
triippyx In reply to RaquiaVolTe [2010-08-06 18:43:15 +0000 UTC]
Um, I brought that up because it went along with the debate.
Yes you can have your beliefs, you can believe all you want that it's alright for animals to kill man but it's not alright for man to kill animals. You can believe that if there were less of us things would be better.
But you have to realize that when your debating with someone who is putting facts on the table, and you go about your beliefs with no signs of research or really knowing what you're talking about, you're going to look stupid.
You have to have some kind of fact behind belief. If we did not have the materials to make cars in the first place the people who struggled to invent the first cars would have been laughed out of town.
What you're saying now is just ridiculous.
But, we are going completely off topic now. If you want to continue this feel free to note me.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ivory648 In reply to triippyx [2010-10-16 02:09:06 +0000 UTC]
i declare *triippyx the winner of this debate! congratulations
XD i know the post is old but i felt the need to say that.It always amazes me at how many people dont get what the purpose of populaton control is, anyway thumbs up to you, you've explained everything perfectly
π: 0 β©: 1
Hachi-182 In reply to ??? [2010-03-11 04:07:29 +0000 UTC]
Rattlesnake roundups disgust me to no end. Ugh...
π: 0 β©: 3
<= Prev | | Next =>