Typical Christian Wingnut

[Kulindahr]

Sounds like you don't like what disagrees with you.

Would you invite someone who believes the world was created early one morning in the spring of 4004 B.C. to speak at a conference about evolution?

Who is doing the looking down - Jesus' disciples?

Possibly. The whole Jewish culture did.

Come again?

When you look at the Bible you have to take the WHOLE teaching -- the entire book.
Which eliminates stonings, "abominations", temple, sacrifices, etc. for today.

To embrace any of those is to say the Bible lies.

I wasn't aware that I am not allowed to feel about something like that?

Who said anything like that?
But feelings aren't an argument, they're not even data.

We have tv ad every Christmas here saying 'puppies are for life, not just christmas', yet there are many who make it necessary for these ads to run.

That's interesting, but has nothing to do with anything I said.

I suppose you're going to call me Hilter soon with that line of reasoning of yours.

I will if it makes you feel better.

You said we have no business taking animals out of the wild, and then stated a position that we can shove them out of their way and it's just fine if we make them extinct. So you've said that we shouldn't try to save them and shouldn't bring them to where they can survive.

I suppose we wouldn't be here if the dinosaurs still lived.

And that means that wiping out an entire species is good for that species??? Or do you mean that if we weren't here, the dinosaurs would be the ones eliminating thousands upon thousands of species from the ecosphere? Not that such a claim means that it's good for a species to wipe it out.

 

[star-warrior]

You said we have no business taking animals out of the wild, and then stated a position that we can shove them out of their way and it's just fine if we make them extinct. So you've said that we shouldn't try to save them and shouldn't bring them to where they can survive.



And that means that wiping out an entire species is good for that species??? Or do you mean that if we weren't here, the dinosaurs would be the ones eliminating thousands upon thousands of species from the ecosphere? Not that such a claim means that it's good for a species to wipe it out.

Maybe I'm being naive, but poachers taking birds and animals from the wild is not my idea of saving them. There wouldn't be a need for that if there wasn't a market for it.

This whole planet has has extinctions from the time when the earliest life was around - otherwise we'd still have trilobites and so on. Extinction in the wild triggers or were triggered by changes in the food chain, which ultimately results in further diversification. Mass extinctions where fossil records show an abrupt end to forms of life like the dinosaurs as well discussed elsewhere.

I don't see how everyone wanting a pet means that animals are safe from extinction - it eats, and it will impact on the eco chain because people have to feed their pets. Whether what we do affects the eco chain or not, extinctions will occur even without our intervention. If fewer people keep pets, there will hopefully be fewer of them needing to be fed. If they're wild, natural selection would help them either survive or falter as they've done so long without our intervention.

 

[Kulindahr]

Maybe I'm being naive, but poachers taking birds and animals from the wild is not my idea of saving them. There wouldn't be a need for that if there wasn't a market for it.

This whole planet has has extinctions from the time when the earliest life was around - otherwise we'd still have trilobites and so on. Extinction in the wild triggers or were triggered by changes in the food chain, which ultimately results in further diversification. Mass extinctions where fossil records show an abrupt end to forms of life like the dinosaurs as well discussed elsewhere.

I don't see how everyone wanting a pet means that animals are safe from extinction - it eats, and it will impact on the eco chain because people have to feed their pets. Whether what we do affects the eco chain or not, extinctions will occur even without our intervention. If fewer people keep pets, there will hopefully be fewer of them needing to be fed. If they're wild, natural selection would help them either survive or falter as they've done so long without our intervention.

1. Most domesticated animals couldn't survive in the wild at all. So your position here is "kill them all".

2. I never made the argument that having pets keeps them from extinction. But if it does, your position is "make them extinct anyway".

3. Essentially you're arguing that if Nature can do it, it's okay for humans to do it. By that argument, biological and chemical warfare are justifiable. Sterilization of entire ecosystems by pollution is justifiable.

4. You don't want us to intervene on their behalf, but you have no problem with us intervening to wipe them out.


Don't you think humans have any responsibility toward the planet? or toward any of the animals we've drawn into our lives?

 

[MoltenRock III]

Federal proscutors have opened a criminal probe of allegations that public employees conspired to paralyze the city in last week's blizzard, sources said Tuesday.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...y_worker_conspiracy_during.html#ixzz1A6TT8YHE

LMAO! Nice link. Keep trying to spin this into something that it isn't. There is ZERO proof that the unions were to blame in this.

From your link:

The investigation by the Brooklyn U.S. Attorney's public integrity unit was prompted by Republican Queens Councilman Dan Halloran's revelation that guilt-wracked sanitation and transportation workers had confessed an alleged work slowdown to him.

Halloran said he would not divulge the names of the three sanitation and two Department of Transportation workers who told him a slowdown was ordered as vengeance for Sanitation Department budget cuts and demotions.

 

[JB3]

LMAO! Nice link. Keep trying to spin this into something that it isn't. There is ZERO proof that the unions were to blame in this.

From your link:
[/i]

There is plenty of proof. You just are too ignorant to acknowledge it.

 

[star-warrior]

1. Most domesticated animals couldn't survive in the wild at all. So your position here is "kill them all".

2. I never made the argument that having pets keeps them from extinction. But if it does, your position is "make them extinct anyway".

3. Essentially you're arguing that if Nature can do it, it's okay for humans to do it. By that argument, biological and chemical warfare are justifiable. Sterilization of entire ecosystems by pollution is justifiable.

4. You don't want us to intervene on their behalf, but you have no problem with us intervening to wipe them out.


Don't you think humans have any responsibility toward the planet? or toward any of the animals we've drawn into our lives?

We've gone from me stating "I'm not for people keeping pets" to you thinking of me wanting "kill them all".

Have fun with your fantasies.

 

[Kulindahr]

We've gone from me stating "I'm not for people keeping pets" to you thinking of me wanting "kill them all".

Have fun with your fantasies.

You flat-out stated that extinctions happen all the time so it doesn't matter if humans drive more extinct. You say animals should be eliminated from human space, but have no problem with human space just expanding, which means driving species instinct.

And your defense was that nature does these things.

So the plain conclusion is that you think it's okay for humans to just drive animals into extinction.



So I have to ask -- and you ignored --

Don't you think humans have any responsibility toward the planet? or toward any of the animals we've drawn into our
lives?

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=AlSmlZgZL...sn-t-actually-think-Vick-shoul?urn=nfl-303312


For what it's worth. I'm sure someone will have something wry to say about it.

Dog torturer = child molester.

Hmm....