Animal cruelty.

Kazoobie64 · Oct 28, 2008 12:45 AM

To add an extra note: it doesn't matter how long it is, what it is, or if it's higher or lower than a human's. ANY sort of punishment for abusing animals is an animal right. Saying "I don't believe in animal rights" is saying you don't believe anyone should get punished at all for it.

I'm not here to judge you, A Guy, so I don't care if you think animals are meaningless and it doesn't matter what happens to them. I will find it sad, but I won't judge you. It's being a bit hypocritical since I get judged on a lot by people who think a "vegetarian" are the sorts of vegetarians South Park, Family Guy, Futurama, etc. makes fun of. I'm just saying, if you do believe there should be some sort of punishment for needlessly torturing a puppy, then that means you do believe in animal rights, so your statement is flawed.

A Guy · Oct 29, 2008 1:07 AM

What, Fletch? I'm supposed to agree with everyone else?

I know better than to get into a "real" argument with you because it will only result in flaming. You only prove my point.

Kazoobie, by "animal rights", I meant the belief that animals deserve the same rights as humans. Perhaps my usage was a little off.

Fletch_Talon · Oct 29, 2008 2:12 AM

A Guy wrote:

What, Fletch? I'm supposed to agree with everyone else?
I know better than to get into a "real" argument with you because it will only result in flaming. You only prove my point.
Kazoobie, by "animal rights", I meant the belief that animals deserve the same rights as humans. Perhaps my usage was a little off.

the problem is, a guy, that you have no point.

no you dont have to agree with everyone else, but if you disagree do people the common courtesy of explaining yourself, like i do for you, thats what people do in a "real" argument.

i dont know which is worse, my original theory that you deliberately posted that comment to incite argument, or the possibility that you really used the term "animal rights" to describe the belief that they have the same rights as humans, that seems so utterly ridiculous to me that its difficult to comprehend, but perhaps you were tired.

either way, your claims of being capable of a "real" argument, your original comment proves otherwise. a "real" argument provides reasoning, explanation elaboration. a real troll posts a statement that he may believe, but nonetheless that he knows will incited heated argument or flaming, and then doesnt back it up with any evidence or reasoning which he may or may not have.

heck i could bring up a crap load of instances in the past where you have argued in a manner which would not qualify as "real" or where you have made comments regarding me which whether you did it consciously or not, served no purpose other than to get me to respond aggressively. i could do all that, but i wont, its honestly not worth the effort

(he says after typing so much)

bmah · Oct 29, 2008 2:29 AM

i.e. know the basics of debating - don't just make a simple statement without evidence or reasoning

Wyndon_Torque · Oct 29, 2008 2:42 AM

sad I cried when I read that! I'd want to die myself before I'd do or let something like that happen to my little Lucy >.<

Fletch_Talon · Oct 29, 2008 2:46 AM

bmah wrote:

i.e. know the basics of debating - don't just make a simple statement without evidence or reasoning

exactly, one line statements are fine in some topics, if its about "who's your favourite band" and you type "hooty and the blowfish" fine, itd be nice to hearwhat you like about them, but if you dont want to then fine...

in saying that, in a thread about "who's your favourite band" saying "hooty and the blowfish suck/are bad/arent all that good" especially right after someone said they like it is starting an argument in a very trollish sort of way unless you make it clear why "you" feel that way.

basically this whole hassle never would have happened if you had said "i dont believe in animal rights because [i dont belief an animal's life is equal to a human's] not only would i have seen it as something i could actually respond to, rather than be provoked by, but people might have figured out that you didnt mean "animal rights" but rather a definition of the term which you had come up with

1337SauceDragon · Oct 30, 2008 4:46 AM

Ughhh im sorry to break all your brains again folks.. but... watch this...
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=q5lCuvqsK … re=related
Wait wait! before you click on it.
make sure you are over 15 years old!
cause it is.. very disturbing..
and yeah, i would give an arm to save all of those animals!
Its is very bloody...
but really, you dont have to watch it..

Fletch_Talon · Oct 30, 2008 4:53 AM

i think the current generation of australian teens/young adults (ie. people my age) need a kick up the *bleep*

in adelaide some losers with nothing better to do beat up a 70 (or was it 90?) yr old flamingo in a zoo, the oldest flamingo in captivity

A Guy · Oct 30, 2008 10:39 PM

Fletch_Talon wrote:

A Guy wrote:
What, Fletch? I'm supposed to agree with everyone else?
I know better than to get into a "real" argument with you because it will only result in flaming. You only prove my point.
Kazoobie, by "animal rights", I meant the belief that animals deserve the same rights as humans. Perhaps my usage was a little off.
the problem is, a guy, that you have no point.
no you dont have to agree with everyone else, but if you disagree do people the common courtesy of explaining yourself, like i do for you, thats what people do in a "real" argument.
i dont know which is worse, my original theory that you deliberately posted that comment to incite argument, or the possibility that you really used the term "animal rights" to describe the belief that they have the same rights as humans, that seems so utterly ridiculous to me that its difficult to comprehend, but perhaps you were tired.
either way, your claims of being capable of a "real" argument, your original comment proves otherwise. a "real" argument provides reasoning, explanation elaboration. a real troll posts a statement that he may believe, but nonetheless that he knows will incited heated argument or flaming, and then doesnt back it up with any evidence or reasoning which he may or may not have.
heck i could bring up a crap load of instances in the past where you have argued in a manner which would not qualify as "real" or where you have made comments regarding me which whether you did it consciously or not, served no purpose other than to get me to respond aggressively. i could do all that, but i wont, its honestly not worth the effort
(he says after typing so much)

Wow, please forgive me for not using a wall of words whenever I wanted to argue in order to make myself feel important. However, I would not consider trolling and flaming the other side (which you have also continuously done in the past) to constitute a "real" argument, either - which makes you the pot calling the kettle black./ I believe you have also misused a word before...

Spyrorocks · Oct 30, 2008 11:40 PM

Thread ruined. Locked.

#51 Oct 28, 2008 12:45 AM

Re: Animal cruelty.

#52 Oct 29, 2008 1:07 AM

Re: Animal cruelty.

#53 Oct 29, 2008 2:12 AM

Re: Animal cruelty.

#54 Oct 29, 2008 2:29 AM

Re: Animal cruelty.

#55 Oct 29, 2008 2:42 AM

Re: Animal cruelty.

#56 Oct 29, 2008 2:46 AM

Re: Animal cruelty.

#57 Oct 30, 2008 4:46 AM

Re: Animal cruelty.

#58 Oct 30, 2008 4:53 AM

Re: Animal cruelty.

#59 Oct 30, 2008 10:39 PM

Re: Animal cruelty.

#60 Oct 30, 2008 11:40 PM

Re: Animal cruelty.

Board footer