9
   

IWC, Whaling & Japan. Is whaling illegal? Is whaling wrong?

 
 
kuvasz
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 09:39 pm
@Ionus,
I cant imagine what you think you are presenting yourself as...some noble defender of whales, a true soldier in the fight for equality with animals

There you go again dwelling on the messenger instead of the message, and you have the gall to deny your posts are mostly intent on bloating your own ego?

Btw I presented nothing about myself but elucidated a jumping off point to discuss the subject of whaling and whale conservation from a human ethical and moral position, while you simply showed your disdain for other forms of living creatures.


...just how much do you care about humans ?

Considering your attitude about God’s creatures, I would bet every bit as much as you do.

Human beings are supposedly intelligent and look at the mess we have made. How many of these save the whale fools dedicate the same time, effort and money to saving people ?

That presupposes a childish and false analogy of a “them (whales) or us (people)” scenario that you conjure out of thin air, and does not consider that people who help save the whales also already have shown by their behavior towards whales possess the capacity for compassion towards living creatures.

They dont because that would help others who would be in competition with their genetics. Far easier to say, "look at me, I am a nice person..I want to save whales..." you get the points for being lovely and other humans will think lovely thoughts of you but there is no disadvantage caused by helping competitors.

Oh my god, you think that a lack of compassion towards humans is driven by genetics? That is insane.

Dogs have been bred from wolves to reflect what some twisted minds think of as either sexy or baby-ish. This control over the genetics of another species is due to disatisfaction with your own progeny and the genetics they inherited from you.

Or the ancient humans used the dog just like it used a tool, capable of being tinkered with to produce a particular feature of value? Don't you think that is more likely than breeding a dog because you think your kid is ugly, as you presume?

We now have an entire culture of people who dont want to breed, they have dogs but one day they will have children..please God, NO! These people have the sort of intelligence best left in the good ideas gone wrong pile. How many of these clowns own dogs for their working ability ? How many own some fluffy retard of an animal that they think is intelligent because it worships them, whereas if they had children those children would be independant one day ? A fluffy retarded dog is a child's replacement. A large fearsome dog is to help someone forget their inadequacies. A working dog is an asset to one's survival.

Let me stop you for a second to say that when I started to read your post I maintained at least some civil respect for you, but your recent digressive paragraph borders on dementia.

Btw again, a Kuvasz is, in fact and intent a working dog and mine are used for predator control on my property where my Kuvasok have killed several coyotes, and owning three 100 pound plus Kuvasok in a deep rural area are more likely to be used for personal protection when your nearest neighbor lives a half mile away, rather than covering up one’s inadequacies. You again, don’t know what you are talking about and are rambling on like a drunkard.



Applying this to whales, they are not superior to cockroaches.

But they are superior in intellect and self-awareness. These are the twin features humans have that define us as separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. So rather than some nebulous, inconsequential feature the fulcrum to the debate would be best served using these as as gradients for value in a discussion like this.

Both have survived, one by simplicity of design and the other (a dog like creature) by moving into the water (for reasons not fully known) and then by moving into cold water to escape predators. I do not FEEL one is superior to another, I know they have both survived to the present day and as such their strategies are equal. To say one is superior to another is to colour them with our emotions.

Like a true conservative you start with your conclusion, then attempt to adjust your premise until nothing fits other than your original conclusion.

Clearly you can not read all my posts on this thread, you have some sort of emotional blockage. I have not said hunting whales is a good thing, I have said that if we are to save whales we need a better plan then having a pack of over educated hippies ramming vessels in the Antartic and blaming the other side. A comprehensive plan to save the oceans is far more desirable, and I would happily sacrifice whales if it meant saving entire oceans.

Gee, really you said all that? Where, in your imagination? Remarks like that prove your intellectual quackery and contempt towards other posters who know what you had already written by attempting to pass on your lies as reality. I know that conservatives think that reality has a liberal bias but you can’t point to things you wished you had said and call it reality.

One can see from your simplistic view of the world that all we need to do is force people because you are right and they are wrong. Then we can all run off to the next item that makes us feel so important and alive. Humans were meant for very troubled times, and the luxury of our considerable ability to survive has left us without meaning to our lives. Save the Whales gives meaning to pathetic people who have not lived.

Don’t attempt to pass off your personal nihilism as universal human Weltshmerz . Unlike you project, I am living a quite happy, meaningful life.

Btw the meaning of life is……what you make of it.



kuvasz said earlier
Quote:
you wave off a ban on whale hunting


You wouldnt make unsupportable claims because you are a lazy arguer, would you ? Show me where I said that.

Maybe, just maybe you did simply by ignoring the fundamental distinction between whales and roaches, by insisting that
Quote:
I equate whales with cockroaches because they are both alive


So that is your best stab at evaluating the situation vis a vis whale hunting, good/or/bad.

What I have said I will repeat to cater for your inability to read and understand anything that is not your opinion. The emotional attitude of save the whales is focusing on one group when entire oceans are at risk. It is illogical and does not justify killing human beings to do it. Instead of buying expensive vessels and sinking them by running into family men trying to earn a living, perhaps they would be better off spending the money to re-eduacte the eater of whales. If force escalates, what are we prepared to do to save whales ?

You said nothing earlier akin to the previous statement, and show me if you believe you did.

kuvasz said earlier
Quote:
Typical response from an egotist when one is corrected on the facts.


An interesting choice of words. Only you know the facts and if I have a different opinion I am an egotist ? Does that make sense in your nazi circle of the like minded ? Do any of them ever suggest an alternate ?

You have presented no facts, but merely strident opinion masked as “fact,” and that defines egotism. And wow, it took you only three responses to pull a Godwin!

Btw you are a supreme egotist not only because you cannot tell your opinion from fact but because you care more about you and how people perceive you than the truth of a situation, which is why after I kicked you in the verbal teeth you got off of your ass and began to elucidate. You just could not stand the public comeuppance. Your entire set of posts on this thread show how your ego drives you.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 01:18 am
@kuvasz,
Allow me to use your words :

Quote:
There you go again dwelling on the messenger instead of the message
I cant imagine what point you are making, given you said the following :
Quote:
bone-headed stupidity
poorly composed contrarian bullshit
A twelve year old could have posted a more intelligent remark.
you ******* moron.
Poor little Ionus, you are just skittish and overly sensitive when having truths pointed out to you
Sometimes a tactic used by someone who's just been corrected and shown they're wrong is to lash out and personally attack the bearer of informed tidings
This in some way helps diminish the embarrassment of their comeuppance. By verbally assualting the 'other' with childish emotions and petty accusations, they hope to deflect the truth of what just happened.
the unctious prattle of a smartassed dipsomaniac
your unsustainable position
you simply are too lazy and set in your ways to learn
you posted silly bullshit
just another weary post of yours
If you want to post childish things
a not-remotely-smart person whose mental processes most closely resemble that of a meth-addled billie goat whose brain has rotted away from the effects of acute untreated tertiary syphilis caused by promiscuous chimp-*******.
Typical response from an egotist
just your idiot wind flapping
your posts are mostly intent on bloating your own ego
That is insane.
your recent digressive paragraph borders on dementia.
your intellectual quackery and contempt towards other posters
You again, don’t know what you are talking about and are rambling on like a drunkard.
you are a supreme egotist
you care more about you and how people perceive you
your ego drives you

Clearly you would never attack the messenger without acknowledging the rights of others. Obviously you are one more fuckwit who thinks he is clever because of a limited reading in some areas.

Quote:
Btw again, a Kuvasz is, in fact and intent a working dog and mine are used for predator control on my property where my Kuvasok have killed several coyotes, and owning three 100 pound plus Kuvasok in a deep rural area are more likely to be used for personal protection when your nearest neighbor lives a half mile away, rather than covering up one’s inadequacies
This shows a blindness that is more than stupidity. I talk about dogs in general and you feel threatened. How about Chihuahuas ? Do they kill coyotes ? Never heard of a lap dog ? Quite an education you are recieving here today, isnt it ? Dont thank me. You cant help being stupid, but you can help thinking you know everything.

Quote:
These are the twin features humans have that define us as separate from the rest of the animal kingdom.
News flash dickhead ! We ARE an animal. Well, not you of course...you are more like a rotten vegetable...no-one can remember its purpose and are waiting to throw it out.

Quote:
but you can’t point to things you wished you had said and call it reality.
Nice attempt to twist, but you have to quote from me to prove I said that. Are you hoping people will forget what you have stated I have said "I approve of whale hunting" ? Show me where oh mighty humble one ? Stop twisting out of the bizarre bullshit you come up with.

Quote:
Or the ancient humans used the dog just like it used a tool, capable of being tinkered with to produce a particular feature of value?
Just when I thought I had met every dumb dipshit out there along comes another one. If you had an average intelligence, you might be able to see I was adressing the reasons why people tinkered with dogs. Your defence is to say "yes, they tinkered with dogs". What feature do you see on a british bulldog as being desirable ? Inability to breathe ? Perhaps you are so far out in coyote country you havent heard many breeds are in genetic stress. Why do you think that is ? Human emotions, dickhead, not a "feature of value".

Quote:
Don’t attempt to pass off your personal nihilism as universal human Weltshmerz
You would make a case study in someone educated beyond their intelligence trying to pass aggression off as knowledge.
Leaving the health of the oceans in the hands of a comatose cretan like you frightens me. The crap you think is applicable to whales buggers the imagination. Save whales because they are people in wet suits, who are too fat to walk. If sentience is your whole argument then dont be surprised if you are hunted to extinction because you have demonstrated nothing so far.

By the way, I see you have declared yourself the winner already. Did puppy bark twice to agree with you ? Perhaps a whale song gave you an advantage on what to say ?
kuvasz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 03:45 pm
@Ionus,
Poor guy, you are sputtering and spinning your wheels and typing furiously to obfuscate your inadequacies on this topic and the paucity of intellect you project. I would give you a bronze medal in hand-waving and bullshittery if I could, but my only concern is for the wild life in your neighborhood considering the amount of time you dwell on talking about beastiality in public.

inous said
Quote:
I talk about dogs in general and you feel threatened. How about Chihuahuas ? Do they kill coyotes ? Never heard of a lap dog ? Quite an education you are recieving here today, isnt it?


Nope, not really. Because I also own a Chihuahua. She doesn't kill coyotes but she does kill mice and rats.

THE ESTIMABLE LITTLE BIT! (pound-for-pound, the toughest dog in the Pack)

http://aja.freehosting.net/little%20bit%20in%20the%20chair%20101702ABC600W.jpg

If possible, would you care to elucidate us further on your pet theory of dog breeding, you know,
Quote:

"Dogs have been bred from wolves to reflect what some twisted minds think of as either sexy or baby-ish. This control over the genetics of another species is due to disatisfaction with your own progeny and the genetics they inherited from you.


That remark alone places you in a dark corner, baying at the moon with its sheer stupidity and display of personal opinion masked as fact; which is where I came in.

Regardless, on the topic at hand, other than being alive, to you there is no difference between whales and roaches. Yet there is, fundamentally to this topic and your constant denial of such facts that do not support your opinion show you to be an intellectual dilletante. For the health of your own apparently fragile ego, please be more prepared to discuss a topic you post to, so you don't have to be embarrassed if you get corrected, because a guy like you considers himself infallable and once you're shown to be fallible you get all upset and confused and start swinging wildly to cover up your inadequacies. It is not that you are a stupid little fellow, but that you are unable to accept criticism or correction when you are patently wrong. And all one can say to that is " what a typical, arrogant conservative."

The ball is in your court. The issue of whale conservation is based upon the intelligence (or sentience) of the animal, regardless of your disagreement with the theses and conclusions of the cetacean experts. No opinion-masked-as-fact you stated moves the discussion towards resolution; it produces a dead end. So, unless you have something of value to contribute on this topic, which you have yet to do, you might as well spend your time reading up on the intelligence of cetaceans.

http://mindprod.com/animalrights/intel.html

http://www.scienceandsociety.emory.edu/scienceinyourlife/cetaceanlinks.htm

The issue is to remain open to the infinite possibilities of our universe. I recognize the fear of the unknown that drives conservatives, but innate human curiousity would compel even a dullard to find out about potential for sentience in another type of life form. I would suggest you at least make that attempt, afterwhich you will have gotten up to speed on the topic and hopefully will no longer post frass.... which btw, is cockroach ****.
Always Eleven to him
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 05:24 pm
Okay, so Kuvasz hasn't exactly artfully debated the topic. Just for the sake of argument, then, let's say he doesn't suffer those who write without first thinking the rhetoric through.

And Ionus hasn't exactly done any better. I must agree with Kuvasz that I haven't seen many answers to the questions that Kuvasz has posed; nor have I seen any reasoned, supported debate coming from Ionus.

We should all remember that persuasion begins with logos (logic, that wonderful enthymeme major premise, minor premise, conclusion), ethos (the writer's credibility, statements supported by citation to the sources from which they come), and pathos (the warm fuzzy feelings the writer is able to evoke in the reader for the writer's position). So far, neither one of you have come close.

I'm climbing off my soap box now.

As I see it, Kuvasz's point, boiled down to its essence, is this:

Quote:
The ball is in your court. The issue of whale conservation is based upon the intelligence (or sentience) of the animal, regardless of your disagreement with the theses and conclusions of the cetacean experts. No opinion . . . you stated moves the discussion towards resolution; it produces a dead end. So . . . you might as well spend your time reading up on the intelligence of cetaceans. (Miscellaneous [what can be interpreted as] insults deleted.)


I, like Kuvasz, believe that the whale is at least as intelligent as humankind. We just haven't gotten smart enough yet to figure out its language. Factor in sentience, and you have what Kuvasz said earlier

Quote:
These are the twin features humans have that define us as separate from the rest of the animal kingdom.


I note that he said the rest of the animal kingdom. As I read it, he included we humans as part of that animal kingdom.

So let the debate begin again -- this time without the hyperbole and ad hominem attacks, please. Ionus: I'm really interested in reading your answers to the questions Kuvasz posed instead of a litany of his insults. And Kuvasz: I'll be interested in reading your reactions to Ionus's answers, likewise without the snark.

Thank you.

Neutral
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 05:35 pm
@kuvasz,
You think you own dogs for their work value ? They are a replacement child. This kennel you live in, exactly how many dogs live there with you ? You like dogs because they worship you, but dont expect whales to do that. If it is your expectation that people will worship you because like any good dog you run with the pack then I think you are on a fool's errand there too.

You obviously dont care what happens to creatures in general, you think whales are worth saving because they are pretty...as someone who has no desire to mate with them, I can tell you they are ugly. You dont care about ocean life, you just want people to nod in approval when you say save the whale. Problem is, with a dipshit personality like yours, you will be always looking for something to take the edge off of being disliked. If we save the whales you will move on to something else... or have to face the harsh reality of living with only a pack of dogs to worship you. The world for wildlife is falling apart and you with your piecemeal approach are the problem.

Quote:
I recognize the fear of the unknown that drives conservatives
I recognise the delusions of grandeur that drives liberals. To hell with thousands of years of collective wisdom, you are here now and we should worship you. You do realise your attitude is to promote your genetics ?

Only some sort of liberal clown attacks someone personally and when there is retaliation then cries it is infair to attack the messenger. Do you think that slipped by everyone ?

I said :
Quote:
This control over the genetics of another species is due to disatisfaction with your own progeny and the genetics they inherited from you.
Your method of being clever is to have in text referencing that is nothing more than name dropping to appear important. Well, dipshit, of course you dont understand my statement. It was aimed at someone higher up in the food chain than krill.

Quote:
unless you have something of value to contribute on this topic
Your stupidity is near limitless. I am talking about saving all life in the oceans. I am talking about saving life not because it looks good to a twisted mental patient like you, but because we have an obligation not to damage unecessarily. And your response is to say "but whales are pretty...I really like them". Perhaps one of your many dogs understands that.

Quote:
The issue of whale conservation is based upon the intelligence (or sentience) of the animal
The issue of whale conservation is based upon the stupidity (or lack of sentience)of people. If it was truly conservation based it wouldnt be so piecemeal. It is based on people wanting to feel powerful and important. Lets spend tons of money to go to the southern oceans and play cowboys in wetsuits !! We could spend the money on re-educating people, but then we dont get to be drama queens and improve our ability to get laid. What you, clown, have in common with these fuckwits, apart from sheer arrogance, is nazi-style stupidity that is so grating as to be beyond expletives.

Quote:
the amount of time you dwell on talking about beastiality in public.
Quite right ! Bestiality is a private matter best left in the home. Or is it ? How much of your grooming and caring for these worshippers, these yes men, would be better spent on a partner ? Or real offspring, not the fantasy kind ?

How much of your attraction to dogs and whales is due to misplaced sexuality, child replacement and an attempt to gain power amongst people ?
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 06:05 pm
@Always Eleven to him,
I appreciate a clam logical attitude to a problem and you have some respect from me for wading into this bun fight to restore order. Finn and roger also earned some respect from me for succinctly stating their opinion.

You are obviously a save the whale supporter despite an attempt at neutrality. You summed up polish dogs position but not mine.

I choose not to recognise the sentience of creatures because it is a dead end. All creatures have a right to exist. If polish dog thinks we should only save the sentient ones, then he is the fool I have accused him of being. Whales will not survive in a dead ocean. They are at the top of the food chain as roger has pointed out and are not a true reflection of the health of an eco-system. If we were to worry more about microscopic life, we would have a far better indicator.

Resources spent on saving the whale are mis-spent. Even if we were to only save the whale, we could better spend the money with a different approach than buying expensive boats.

Saving the whale, the tiger, the useless Panda that refuses to breed, and many others are counterproductive to what really needs to be done. We should start at the bottom and work our way up. I equate it to a building where people are fixing the weather vane on top of the roof whilst the foundations are collapsing. The planets life is in serious trouble and the solution is being engineered by mental midgets who not only have no understanding of the problem, they are too thick to learn.

When was the last time you responded positively to being bullied ? If puppy poker wants to trade insults, fine! I have never shied away from a fight (well, once..but that is a long story). I have in the past offered to restore relations with these liberals providing they apologise for first introducing insults into what should be a debate based on meritorious ideas. They of course, refuse because it makes them look less important and they cant have that..for my part I have apologised when I was in error and I have never thrown the first insult.
0 Replies
 
Always Eleven to him
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 09:53 pm
@Ionus,
and @ Kuvasz

Quote:
You dont care about ocean life, you just want people to nod in approval when you say save the whale. Problem is, with a dipshit personality like yours, you will be always looking for something to take the edge off of being disliked.


Somehow, I don't see Kuvasz looking for approval when he says anything, much less save the whale. And based on other posts of his that I've seen, I can't imagine that he's looking for anything "to take the edge off of being disliked." Kuvasz is, well, Kuvasz. He may be a jerk sometimes, but he has strong beliefs, and he backs them up with reasons. Name calling (creative as it has gotten from both sides in this thread) aside, I must say that when he says something is fact, he's researched it, digested it, and determined its credibility.

I see Kuvasz here as trying to make a reasoned argument pro-whale-saving. And, until your response to my post, I was having trouble articulating your position. You've spent more time accusing Kuvasz of egocentrism, beastiality, and stupidity than you did articulating your position.

I offer an example:

Quote:
Your method of being clever is to have in text referencing that is nothing more than name dropping to appear important. Well, dipshit, of course you dont understand my statement. It was aimed at someone higher up in the food chain than krill.


Your response has made your position clear: As I understand it you believe that by saving the plankton and other, smaller organisms, we will ultimately save all of the ocean-going creatures. My problem with that is, what if we don't have enough time to start at the bottom and work our way up? And why can't we do both at once?

Unlike Kuvasz (which is a Hungarian working dog not a Polish dog), you haven't provided any in-text referencing. Anyone who ever had to write a term paper understands that it is only by providing those references in the text that the writer gains credibility and thus increases his or her persuasive force.

I must also take issue with the following:

Quote:
The issue of whale conservation is based upon the stupidity (or lack of sentience)of people. If it was truly conservation based it wouldnt be so piecemeal. It is based on people wanting to feel powerful and important. Lets spend tons of money to go to the southern oceans and play cowboys in wetsuits !! We could spend the money on re-educating people, but then we dont get to be drama queens and improve our ability to get laid. What you, clown, have in common with these fuckwits, apart from sheer arrogance, is nazi-style stupidity that is so grating as to be beyond expletives.


Not to nit pick, but stupidity isn't a synonym for lack of sentience. It is because humans are sentient creatures that some react so viscerally to hunting whales (or any creature for that matter) into extinction. As Kuvasz said earlier:

Quote:
But it is a corollary of what Christians recognize as seeing the "Christ" in every human being. Cetaceans appear to human beings as sharing above other animals a sense of self and sentient conscienceness, the well-spring that poets refer to as the "human" soul. So it is unremarkable that once cetacean sentience is presumed to be present then connection with human sentience follows and so does a humane ethical code that is derived from recognition of sentience, albeit human or not.


Sentient humans, those who wish to preserve life, then, are those who do so based on their own "humane ethical code." They don't do it to "get laid," to "feel powerful," or to act the "drama queen." I wish that all sentient humans would react this way, but then, not all sentient humans act from a "humane ethical code." Remember, there is a difference between animal (non-human) sentience -- the ability to feel pleasure and pain -- and human sentience -- acting from that "humane ethical code." Once we recognize that some animals, humans included, are able to feel pleasure and pain, shouldn't we decrease the pain and increase the pleasure?

As for re-education, you said earlier:

Quote:
If we anger them, we have no ability to influence them.


If we can't influence them (the Japanese), how can we hope to re-educate them?

Thank you for responding to my post. I would be interested to see the research on working from the bottom up.

Yes. I am a save the whale supporter, but more than that, I am a don't-harm-creatures-that-can-feel-pleasure-and-pain supporter. I have live traps to catch the mice in my pantry. I bought them after a particularly gruesome incident with a glue trap. If my spouse were posting he'd tell you how I tossed the glue trap with mouse still attached into the bushes hoping that the mouse would be able to free itself. I then felt so guilty that I put on winter coat, boots, and gloves, and, armed with scissors and tongs, went to cut the glue trap away from the still-struggling mouse. When the scissors and the tongs stuck to the glue, I had no other choice but to put a quick end to the mouse's struggles. That wasn't easy to do while sobbing. I have since learned that vegetable oil will free mice from glue traps. And I have learned that even mice, as creatures that can feel pain and pleasure, have a right to less pain and more pleasure.





kuvasz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 10:30 pm
@Ionus,
You think you own dogs for their work value ? They are a replacement child. This kennel you live in, exactly how many dogs live there with you ? You like dogs because they worship you, but dont expect whales to do that. If it is your expectation that people will worship you because like any good dog you run with the pack then I think you are on a fool's errand there too.

Well, no I have a son, every bit as good looking as I am. I have six dogs I rescued, down from twelve. My old residence was in the country where there was no county animal shelter. The dogs were dumped off and abandoned and they either wandered onto my property or were captured by neighbors who gave them to me, and I still rescue abandoned Kuvasz. I take them in, bring them back to health, and find them new owners. But I don’t expect them to thank me, or worship me. So, you are a little confused there. Or you are just picking up anything you can just to attack me, well because you think I made you look stupid, again. But your remarks don’t conform to objective reality, nor do you write well.

Neither do I expect any worship or return from people, or dogs, or whales for acts of kindness. Jews would refer to such things as mitzvahs. I know it is hard for conservatives to understand but life is more than commerce where you believe in the constant drive towards a world of quid pro quo. It saddens me that you view life as such because it stunts the spirit to constantly do things and expect a return on your time invested.


You obviously dont care what happens to creatures in general, you think whales are worth saving because they are pretty...as someone who has no desire to mate with them, I can tell you they are ugly. You dont care about ocean life, you just want people to nod in approval when you say save the whale. Problem is, with a dipshit personality like yours, you will be always looking for something to take the edge off of being disliked. If we save the whales you will move on to something else... or have to face the harsh reality of living with only a pack of dogs to worship you. The world for wildlife is falling apart and you with your piecemeal approach are the problem.

Well, since your remark is untrue, either you are truly an idiot, or a liar. Really, do you think that lying about me causes pain to me? I simply am saddened that you think that lying about my concern for animals is the best way to try and attack me. Surely, you can do better.

Tell you what, go here and read the thread and repeat again that I don’t care about animals. Seriously, if the only bow in your quiver is to attack me for being uncaring to animals you will leave me unscathed. So let me teach you something your mother should have done, viz., that when you make things up and say them so others can hear or read, you are lying.

http://able2know.org/topic/60139-1



kuvasz said
Quote:
I recognize the fear of the unknown that drives conservatives.


I recognise the delusions of grandeur that drives liberals.

Well, there you have it, another unsubstantiated attack. And by the way, let me substantiate mine, from F.A. Heyak’s “Why I not a Conservative”

"As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such," …… Cf. Lord Hugh Cecil, Conservatism ("Home University Library" [London, 1912], p. 9: "Natural Conservatism . . . is a disposition averse from change; and it springs partly from a distrust of the unknown.

http://fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46


To hell with thousands of years of collective wisdom, you are here now and we should worship you. You do realise your attitude is to promote your genetics ?

I see you are going off on a tangent again and are swapping your unsubstantiated personal opinion with verifiable fact. Frankly, you ought to re-read your posts for internal consistency before you post; otherwise, you look foolish and digressive.

but if you want we can discuss whale conservation through the lense of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, but likely that would find you right back where I started by defining value in sentience and intelligence. So, to tell you the truth, while you were attacking my ownship of dogs, I was getting down to the lick log.


Only some sort of liberal clown attacks someone personally and when there is retaliation then cries it is infair to attack the messenger. Do you think that slipped by everyone ?

Oh, good grief, you think that I consider you unfair? I consider you to be a person who has only sketchy ideas about life and the world and yet rarely has been forced to articulate them concisely. You are unable to articulate anything but boilerplate talking points about political opponents and have been shown to be wrong consistently went you state them. I have been attacked by much smarter fellows than you as a child. But its funny, my remarks were both directed towards the words as well as the wordsmith. Yet, all you did was reply to the remarks towards the wordsmith and ignored responding to the subject topic. I assume it is because that all you had to say was that "whales are like roaches" somehow believing such a simile was the last word on the topic.

I said :
Quote:
"This control over the genetics of another species is due to disatisfaction with your own progeny and the genetics they inherited from you."

Yes, which logically would be meant to be understood that those who breed dogs are dissatisfied parents, Which makes you barking crazy.

Your method of being clever is to have in text referencing that is nothing more than name dropping to appear important. Well, dipshit, of course you dont understand my statement. It was aimed at someone higher up in the food chain than krill.

Gee, referencing sources one draws from for data is not simply “clever” but the standard method used to substantiate one’s claims. I don’t quite know whether you are unfamiliar with standard research methods or are simply pissed off that I don’t consider, as you do, that your opinions are facts. Regardless, your contrarian attitude and inability to document your remarks just illustrates the weakness of your position.

kuvasz said
Quote:
unless you have something of value to contribute on this topic.


Your stupidity is near limitless. I am talking about saving all life in the oceans. I am talking about saving life not because it looks good to a twisted mental patient like you, but because we have an obligation not to damage unecessarily. And your response is to say "but whales are pretty...I really like them". Perhaps one of your many dogs understands that.

As is your penchant of pointing to things you wished you had said earlier and calling it reality, because you said nothing towards saving the ocean, except save the ocean. No details, no plan, not even a single remark on how bad it is or what to do or even a idea as a basis for negotiation, nada.

Actually my response is, “How do you save the oceans?” You have not presented a single item or idea to do so. Any fool can say “Head West,” but history only records those who find the paths to get there. All you have done is spray around bullshit and negativity about the motivation of people who are doing cetacean conservation.

And please, note that you are lying again about what I wrote when you said that I said "but whales are pretty...I really like them.”

I did not. The value that whales hold is their immediacy to the things I as well as always 11 to him quoted,

[quote]These are the twin features humans have that define us as separate from the rest of the animal kingdom.[/quote]

And as always 11 to him pointed out, regardless of you missing it, I did say the rest of the animal kingdom, where even a high school graduate would have the verbal sophistication to understand that humans were a subset of the animal kingdom.


kuvasz said
Quote:
The issue of whale conservation is based upon the intelligence (or sentience) of the animal


The issue of whale conservation is based upon the stupidity (or lack of sentience)of people. If it was truly conservation based it wouldnt be so piecemeal. It is based on people wanting to feel powerful and important. Lets spend tons of money to go to the southern oceans and play cowboys in wetsuits !! We could spend the money on re-educating people, but then we dont get to be drama queens and improve our ability to get laid. What you, clown, have in common with these fuckwits, apart from sheer arrogance, is nazi-style stupidity that is so grating as to be beyond expletives.

First, you question whether any true conservation can be done by NGOs. However, that would lead to the conclusion that only governments can do things less “piecemeal.” So, would you like the US government to get involved? Would that satisfy your complaint about doing things piecemeal as it is done today by NGOs? Since I don’t actually know members of the Rainbow Alliance, I cannot say as you do that their members are acting so they can become powerful and important. If you do, you ought to stand and deliver the evidence, unless you are just being egotistical and are demanding that others take as fact your unsubstantiated personal opinion.

btw: those Nazis were pretty ******* smart, aside from Hitler's commands to the Army Group B in the Battle of Stalingrad, they almost took over the world.


kuvasz said
Quote:
the amount of time you dwell on talking about beastiality in public.


Quite right ! Bestiality is a private matter best left in the home. Or is it ? How much of your grooming and caring for these worshippers, these yes men, would be better spent on a partner ? Or real offspring, not the fantasy kind ?

Btw my avatar is a pix of my 11 year old male kuvasz named Abba, so while I don’t have much of opinion on beastiality, however, homosexual beastility is just plain sick.

How much of your attraction to dogs and whales is due to misplaced sexuality, child replacement and an attempt to gain power amongst people ?

Well, my mother was goosed by a dolphin while carrying me, so you might be on to something.

But as to dogs, you might understand how difficult it was to be around them, let alone own them, since as a six year old I was mauled by three German shepherds requiring three weeks in a hospital, plastic surgery, and 15 days of rabies shots right into the inner linings of my stomach.

btw if you wish to help animals try BEST FRIENDS SANTUARY
http://www.bestfriends.org/
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 10:49 pm
@Always Eleven to him,
I have picked out of my previous posts the following, it was posted before your first post when you stated my position was not clear :
Quote:
There are no "magnificent creatures". If Japan has no right to kill non-endangered whales, then America has no right to kill non-endangered cockroaches. It is the same thing, it is just a question of what is "sexy".

Perhaps you think intelligence is a stand alone quality, that it has nothing to do with the survivablility of a species ? Intelligence is the only criteria ?
...of what use is intelligence if you do not plan on using that intelligence for your own survival ?

Those who are green to the core argue man is some kind of unnatural influence on the planet whilst using their natural reactions to choose what should be saved. I object to emotional selection in any area of science, whether it is the Japanese arguing they are killing whales for science or the greenies getting run over and saying they werent at fault.

Icelanders, Japanese, Eskimos and others have eaten whales for centuries, but the numbers of people were a lot less and they couldnt kill as many whales. Industrialisation is damaging many species of the sea, and save the fat ugly whale is counterproductive to an overall policy agreement. Tuna are in dwindling numbers, poisons such as heavy metals are increasing, the lungs of the world is plant life in the oceans (not rain forests), and every country wants to claim more of the oceans as resources decrease.

The intelligence of whales is well advertised by whale groupies but it is not clearly demonstrable. The variety of sounds means nothing. You should hear me sing if you like sheer quantity of sounds, and several on this forum have argued I am unintelligent. Caring for the young is a feature of being a mammal. Where is the intelligence ?

As an example of emotions having a runaway, the Panda is not endangered because of man. It is so fat, dumb and happy it does not care much for sex. Yet everyone thinks man is the problem and it must be saved. This is interfering with nature. Whales, on the other hand, were hunted without regard for the future.

Moby Dick is based on a true story and in the historical original, the whale shows signs of sympathy for other whales and the ability to recognise a threat. None of this is intelligence. If we want to continue to eat whales, they should be hunted sparingly. If we want to save them because they are intelligent, I would rather save a black child than a white whale. If Japan were to retaliate with trade stoppages, what would be the point of diminishing return ? If we anger them, we have no ability to influence them.

Elephants were hunted to near extinction in some places, and there are other places where they outgrew their wildlife preserve. Many people wanted to see far less elephants because of the damage they do to the environment which is amplified by being a reserve. The end result was a debate on how many elephants and where, and if selling ivory under control conditions would help end poaching.

Applying the elephant story to whales, should there be a legitimate trade in whale products ? Some people really dont want to give up eating them. Where should they be hunted ? What types should be hunted ?

Applying the whale story to the rest of the sea creatures, whales are not alone. Most commonly eaten fish are diminishing rapidly. The problem is one of human population, not what they eat. Elephants are pressured by farmers, whales are pressured by islanders, and some twits want to save the shark which can be quite safely extincted and not much else will be affected.

Division everywhere and still we get closer to running out of food. Whatever you may want to save, it will count for nothing if there are people starving and we have run out of resources. People will eat bark off a tree, so the big animals will certainly go.

The problem is not pollution, water resources, global warming, save the whale, save the shark....it is too many people. I equate whales with cockroaches because they are both alive and as such they have survived equally since the first life. To say you like one therefore it is superior is no more than misplaced emotions.

...whales, they are not superior to cockroaches. Both have survived, one by simplicity of design and the other (a dog like creature) by moving into the water (for reasons not fully known) and then by moving into cold water to escape predators. I do not FEEL one is superior to another, I know they have both survived to the present day and as such their strategies are equal. To say one is superior to another is to colour them with our emotions.

The emotional attitude of save the whales is focusing on one group when entire oceans are at risk. It is illogical and does not justify killing human beings to do it. Instead of buying expensive vessels and sinking them by running into family men trying to earn a living, perhaps they would be better off spending the money to re-eduacte the eater of whales. If force escalates, what are we prepared to do to save whales ?

Proofs of their intelligence is provided by hippies with water wings and people who want more money for research. Even if there is conclusive proof of their intelligence, and there isnt, I prefer to save many species rather than one, to save humans rather than animals, and to carry out the previous by the use of science rather than feelings.
It seems to me I spent plenty of effort articulating my position.

Quote:
You've spent more time accusing Kuvasz of egocentrism, beastiality, and stupidity than you did articulating your position.

According to experts, you can be a homosexual without committing homosexual acts. This means you can also have a beastial sexuality without committing the act. People also use pets as a child replacement. My calling him names was based on his lack of knowledge and his calling me names.

In the world of science, there is no good and evil. Look for the selfish motive. Women are forgiving and prone to empathy for purposes of child rearing. This enables their genetics to have a better chance of survival. This is why you worry about stupid mice. Such sensitivity gives your offspring a far greater chance of survival.

The selfish motive for the Japanese is food. What is the selfish motive for liberals ? Save the whales is just one of many ways they try to dominate small group dynamics. The small group still exists in villages around the world, but the internet makes a bit of a mockery of it. Nevertheless, nature is very reluctant to abandon a perfectly good instinct. It worked once, it might be needed again. Humans help others because of generation change. In a world where most died before 40, and half died before 20, helping others would generate aid to your offspring. If you have not identified the selfish motive, you havent found anything but social masking.

Quote:
Once we recognize that some animals, humans included, are able to feel pleasure and pain, shouldn't we decrease the pain and increase the pleasure?

Pain is a learning experience and pleasure is a reward for something learned. People deprived of pain seek drugs to get a high. Physical pain never hurt anyone. There are also ways of feeling successful based on learned experiences which includes instincts. When we feel unsuccessful we are in deep trouble. Babies feeling unsuccessful, ie not touched, will die. Humans will lash out with violence to improve their situation and if there is no improvement, they will curl up and die. This is the proverbial will to live.

Quote:
If we can't influence them (the Japanese), how can we hope to re-educate them?
A good start would be to stop spending money on happy holidays to the southern oceans for young men to brag about when they come home in the hope of getting laid by some green college chick. Do you really think the Japanese are some different species ? Who believed in banning whale hunting in the 40's in the west ?

As for arguments about sentience or intelligence or whatever you want to discuss about animals, it angers me to no end that people care more about animals than other people. If they save an animal, they still might get the "nice guy" benefits without having to help competing DNA survive. Helping animals is to deny help to humans. The selfish motive.
Ionus
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 12:54 am
@kuvasz,
Quote:
Well, no I have a son, every bit as good looking as I am.
Please convey my condolences to him.

Quote:
I have six dogs I rescued, down from twelve. My old residence was in the country where there was no county animal shelter. The dogs were dumped off and abandoned and they either wandered onto my property or were captured by neighbors who gave them to me, and I still rescue abandoned Kuvasz. I take them in, bring them back to health, and find them new owners.
I would be more touched if you doing that for Haitian orphans. Put a bullet in the head's of these dogs, you will be helping supply equal demand.

Quote:
But I don’t expect them to thank me, or worship me. So, you are a little confused there.
So one of them is the alpha male ? That doesnt surprise me. You approach them wagging your tail, licking their mouth so they can vomit food for you, their puppy.

Quote:
because you think I made you look stupid
Did you ? Perhaps you should get a second opinion, even though you are a liberal and have no need for one.

Quote:
my concern for animals
And in your world of limited intelligence why do you have concern for animals ?

Quote:
It saddens me that you view life as such because it stunts the spirit
I think you are knowingly telling an inaccuracy when you say it saddens you. I think you live quite happily with human misery all around you.

Quote:
Well, since your remark is untrue, either you are truly an idiot, or a liar.
Perhaps you should first prove the remark is untrue ? Or people might think you are a liar or an idiot or a lying idiot.

A mother has to watch her baby starve and you cry for a ******* dog dying of old age that ate better than most people in the world. The money you spent on it for medical fees is probably more than most people of the world have for medicines in their lifetimes. Well that put me in my place. I dont think you know how angry it makes me to have to tolerate scumbag fuckwits like you.

Quote:
kuvasz said

Quote:
I recognize the fear of the unknown that drives conservatives.

Quote:
I said : I recognise the delusions of grandeur that drives liberals.

Well, there you have it, another unsubstantiated attack. And by the way, let me substantiate mine, from F.A. Heyak’s “Why I not a Conservative”

"As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such," …… Cf. Lord Hugh Cecil, Conservatism ("Home University Library" [London, 1912], p. 9: "Natural Conservatism . . . is a disposition averse from change; and it springs partly from a distrust of the unknown.
And that proves I am a conservative, you dull dickhead!! Defining one opinion of a conservative dooes not make me one. Pray for brain transplants soon. Or people might accuse you of :
Quote:
swapping verifiable fact with your unsubstantiated personal opinion
Note that I have to improve that quote so it is not more of your meaningless babble.

Quote:
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
Name dropping with unsubstantiated relevance. You think all you have to do is say something said by someone far more imortant than you, which includes your "meth-addled billie goat whose brain has rotted away from the effects of acute untreated tertiary syphilis caused by promiscuous chimp-*******" (who is obviously higher than you on the evolutionary ladder) and your point is proven. In your mind, did Aristotle allude to the goat or is it your own work ?

Quote:
your contrarian attitude
Gees, fuckwit, do you really think you are a primary source ? You doubt my statement about your egotistical nature ?

Quote:
First, you question whether any true conservation can be done by NGOs.
Dont make crap up. Show me where I said that...you cant can you puppy poker ?

Quote:
who are doing cetacean conservation.
Cant spell whales, huh ?

Quote:
“How do you save the oceans?” You have not presented a single item or idea to do so.
And you have presented your plan to save cetaceans (I will use it till you learn how to spell whales) .

Quote:
note that you are lying again
Prove it, or retract it .

Quote:
you said that I said "but whales are pretty...I really like them.”
Allright. You said "Whales are ugly...I really hate them". Happy now ?

All you have done is spray around bullshit and positivity about the motivation of people who are doing cetacean conservation. Unlike human beings, you and your ilk are incapable of being selfish. Pigs arse.


Quote:
btw: those Nazis were pretty ******* smart
Of course you defend nazis. ******* smart as in : declaring war on America, attacking Russia, withholding winter uniforms so the troops would fight harder to win before winter, refusing the army to withdraw to defendable positions, exterminating Jews, claiming the ancient greeks and romans were germanic, believing in racial superiority, not saving the whale..yeah, dem nazis were cleverer than you.

Quote:
btw if you wish to help animals try BEST FRIENDS SANTUARY
I have no intention of helping animals you fuckwit, cant you understand anything ? I object to a piecemeal approach and clowns like you only anger me when you think you are doing something worthwhile.

I am surprised you havent dragged your wife into this..that usually happens when dipshits like you get out of your depth. Need help, puppy poker ?
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 06:55 pm
@Ionus,
I see that you requested an apology from me.

I apologize for calling you a ******* moron.

You seem to have developed a rhetoric of Anecdote. However, you can't take your own personal experience as evidence that refutes all other proof. Sure, it's a classic writer's trick to use personal experience to illustrate a larger point, but your points have little conformation with objective reality.

You don't seem to care, though, since so much of what you post is anti-fact, which really raises the question of why anyone, including myself, would spend much time reading or arguing with you.

Anyway, I won’t much further, but

http://aja.freehosting.net/THANKS%20FOR%20THE%20FISH%20600.jpg
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 07:45 pm
@kuvasz,
Quote:
so much of what you post is anti-fact
From someone who says whales should be saved because they are like us, your only defence has been to say my posts are not factual. I accept you do not know enough about the facts I raised and as a natural reaction you think these facts do not exist.

However, my basic premise is correct. People want to save the whales for selfish reasons. People want to eat whales for selfish reasons. I have implied the only realistic course is to make a decision based on facts, not emotions.

People have pets for selfish reasons, all of these reasons are at the expense of humans. Some people have pets as a child replacement (which are produced through sex), others have hidden sexual desires (even though they are totally unaware of this motive and would never carry out the act). Some pet owners want to be an alpha (which in itself is a sexual expression), and this is the only way they are ever going to experience dominance. Some pet owners simply have no friends (this diminishes their chance for survival which in turn is neccessary for reproduction). A lot of relationships can be reduced to a sexual level by asking what caused the emotion that drives the relationship in the first place, what was the very basic source, because the human mind does not go against its own instincts.

Increasingly, animals have more rights than humans.

Whilst I appreciate your work with animals has saved many from a terrible fate, my thoughts are more than tempered by the extreme poverty and very sad lives lived by people. A solution you seem to have ignored is to kill the dogs and lessen supply untill it comes down to demand. Or perhaps take an active role in changing regulations on the breeding and sale of animals.

I do NOT support whale hunting, but I modify that opinion with people who are in greater need, with the concept of saving the whole ocean and not just the part that attracts money, and achieving any aim without bullying people (note that I approve of bullies being bullied).
0 Replies
 
Always Eleven to him
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 10:32 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
It seems to me I spent plenty of effort articulating my position.


Yes, you did. My point, though, was that you left it to the reader to draw the connections that you see but that aren't obvious to us (well, me anyway).

Good persuasion -- rhetoric -- includes making those connections for those whom you are trying to persuade. I couldn't make the connections myself because the posts ramble from sexuality to stereotypes about women and empathy, to looking for the selfish motive, to getting laid for a good cause, to equating instinct to learned behavior (the two seem to be mutually exclusive), to "[h]elping animals is to deny help to humans[]"(which are not mutually exclusive).

I find myself putting more effort into this than what I'm getting out of it.
Always Eleven to him
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 10:42 pm
@kuvasz,
Thanks, Kuvasz, for the Best Friends plug. I'm also a supporter. ;-) As for Ionus' opinion of saving animals -- whales, dogs, whatever -- just because you can't save all of them doesn't mean that you shouldn't even try to save one.

That's why I don't understand his comment to you about saving Haitian orphans; should we not save any because we can't save all?

There is no consistency in his "logic." You shouldn't save dogs because you can't save them all; then he tells you that you should save Haitians, maybe assuming that you can save them all?

Wow. Just saying it that way seems like I'm reciting nonsense.

P.S. Love the photo.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 11:00 pm
@Always Eleven to him,
Is that your best attempt to paraphrase me ? I hope you didnt try to hard to be sarcastic or pretend to be dumb.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 11:07 pm
@Always Eleven to him,
I assume you have unlimited funds and resources, because you dont see how saving dogs spends money that could be used to save Haitians. Obviously you have enough money to save both, so what happened ? Was the bank closed ?
Quote:
You shouldn't save dogs because you can't save them all
Why would you say such a stupid thing ? I said you shouldnt save dogs untill their numbers come down and we have adequate laws to protect animals against stupid owners.
Quote:
Wow. Just saying it that way seems like I'm reciting nonsense.
That is because you are reciting nonsense. Now if you were to recite what I said, I might feel more inclined to explain it to you. You say the fault is in the explanation ? I see it as in the reader.
Can you really not understand that saving whales is useless if the oceans are dead ? You really cant understand that or are you pleading stupid in the hope I will find explaining it to someone like you too laborious and leave ?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 04:08 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
or break any furniture ok?


Can I have those table legs over there and maybe that busted up top? They're the same style as my kitchen table; I want to rebuild it.

That sofa too, the one with the stuffing knocked out of it. I can re-stuff it.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 07:38 pm
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/australia-sets-deadline-japan-end-whaling-face-legal-action.php

To me this makes far more sense than boat collisions.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 08:42 pm
@Ionus,
This type of political posturing when there's so little to the IWC is reprehensible, to say the least.

Let's try for something that's half ways important, say a

australia-sets-deadline-howard-to-icj-for-war-crimes
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 11:35 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
australia-sets-deadline-howard-to-icj-for-war-crimes
Cant read the title ? What does a war crime have to do with it ?
 

Related Topics

Tonight's VP debate - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Debate Topic - Question by silhouette
So, what am I missing? - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
Suffering - Discussion by EmilySue77
Intellectual confidence. - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
Is euthanasia acceptable? - Discussion by Starchild
Presidential Debate: Final Round! - Discussion by Diest TKO
Rhetoric and Fallacy: A Game For Debaters - Discussion by Diest TKO
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/18/2022 at 09:53:40