The Simple Truths Silver Mine

[Oakvale]

What an utterly ridiculous post. "Animals exist for a reason" lol, and accepting that ludicrous premise, it's thus perfectly moral to murder them to eat. People exist for a reason, bring back cannibalism.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Never thought I'd put a Sanchez post in here, but this is one massive truth bomb:

Animals exist for a reason. We shouldn't beat and starve them, but I don't see anything unethical about eating meat, hunting, or wearing furs. It's part of the food chain.

"the reason animals exist is to be eaten by humans."
that's a straight rephrasing of sanchez's quote.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Never thought I'd put a Sanchez post in here, but this is one massive truth bomb:

Animals exist for a reason. We shouldn't beat and starve them, but I don't see anything unethical about eating meat, hunting, or wearing furs. It's part of the food chain.

"the reason animals exist is to be eaten by humans."
that's a straight rephrasing of sanchez's quote.

I think what he meant is that all animals survive my eating other living things (aside from decomposes, but we aren't decomposes) and so it isn't some crime against nature to eat other animals.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why should we treat animals differently than how they treat each other? Obviously, cruelty and any act that leads to pointless suffering is immoral and should be prohibited. However, I fail to see how any serious moral case could be made against killing animals in order to further our basic interests (such as alimentation or scientific research). Nonsentient beings cannot be said to have rights, and the "rights" we grant to them have less to do with animals themselves than with the standards that we as a species want to hold ourselves to.

[Sol]

Wow, the FL Democratic Party is a complete embarrassment.

[Oakvale]

Why should we treat animals differently than how they treat each other? Obviously, cruelty and any act that leads to pointless suffering is immoral and should be prohibited. However, I fail to see how any serious moral case could be made against killing animals in order to further our basic interests (such as alimentation or scientific research). Nonsentient beings cannot be said to have rights, and the "rights" we grant to them have less to do with animals themselves than with the standards that we as a species want to hold ourselves to.

Animals regularly kill each other, too, but I'd like to think that humanity's a tad more evolved than to think wanton murder and anarchy should be legal.

Are you seriously arguing that animals aren't sentient? That's not a position that's even remotely supported by the weight of scientific evidence.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Never thought I'd put a Sanchez post in here, but this is one massive truth bomb:

Animals exist for a reason. We shouldn't beat and starve them, but I don't see anything unethical about eating meat, hunting, or wearing furs. It's part of the food chain.

"the reason animals exist is to be eaten by humans."
that's a straight rephrasing of sanchez's quote.

Pretty much, yeah.

Never thought I'd put a Sanchez post in here, but this is one massive truth bomb:

Animals exist for a reason. We shouldn't beat and starve them, but I don't see anything unethical about eating meat, hunting, or wearing furs. It's part of the food chain.

"the reason animals exist is to be eaten by humans."
that's a straight rephrasing of sanchez's quote.

I think what he meant is that all animals survive my eating other living things (aside from decomposes, but we aren't decomposes) and so it isn't some crime against nature to eat other animals.

No, it is not a crime at all. I find some of our modern methods of killing animals for substance to be a bit uncouth, like factory farms of course, but at the core, animals are not on the same level as humans. That is a cruel thing to say, but at the end of the day it is a truth that has been accepted by humanity since we got here.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Animals don't have rights. But we should treat them with respect (I think so for what are ultimately religious reasons, but there are secular alternatives that are just as valid). I'm not a vegetarian - though I don't eat much meat - but there are many perfectly logical reasons to be one.

[Franzl]

lol at Americans getting upset at other people spying on them. You're just jealous that the Israelis are better at it than you are...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Animals regularly kill each other, too, but I'd like to think that humanity's a tad more evolved than to think wanton murder and anarchy should be legal.

But precisely, we devised the principles of civilization to suit the specific nature of humanity. It is pointless to apply the same logic to creatures which aren't in any way concerned by civilization.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, they certainly aren't sentient in the same way humans are.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm pretty sure that no one here ever clicks through to read the actual story.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The idea that there's one single "White culture" is one of the most absurd ideas I've seen advanced on this board.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

The idea that there's one single "White culture" is one of the most absurd ideas I've seen advanced on this board.

not really any more absurd than the idea of a single "black culture", tbf.

[Хahar 🤔]

The idea that there's one single "White culture" is one of the most absurd ideas I've seen advanced on this board.

not really any more absurd than the idea of a single "black culture", tbf.

Yes, it is. Those are not remotely the same thing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm finding the forum very hard to read these days.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Most poor people do vote for Democrats.

Anyway, all this talk of "voting against one's interests" is just another sad reflection of the elitism which has increasingly grown in the Democratic Party. Do poor people not have the right to vote how they please?

Anyway, that way of thinking is yucky.

It also implies that it would be in the best interests of poor people to vote Democratic.

Well, at least it would be better for their "economic self-interest" than voting pubbie.

First off, most people are not the selfish "rational actors" the social sciences have reduced us to. There is more to decision making than "will this get me more money?" (the answer to which is usually "no," no matter who you vote for).

[Lief 🗽]

I will never understand the rights hostility towards Michelle Obama. Most of the issues she pioneers as First Lady is fairly non-partisan. Hell, I don't think the most rabid Bush haters on the left gave Laura Bush as much crap as the right gives Michelle.

What's there not to understand? She's a black woman of highly visible status.

[Lief 🗽]

Kids, you may not remember what politics was like before 2011.  But, once upon a time, Congress would vote on legislation.  People considered that to be their job. 

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

lmao

You #ReadyforHillary guys are not so much jumping the shark as hurtling miles overhead at supersonic speeds.

[Sol]

Provisional results map. Sorry about the lack of party keys: I'll sort that out properly again at some point... honest. Some results will still change and flip about, no doubt. But anyway.

That's one of the most depressing things I've seen in a long time.

[Zanas]

There's no real reason for Luxembourg to be a country anyway.

[MATTROSE94]

Not every elected official in American history is a potential 2016 candidate

[politicus]

There's no real reason for Luxembourg to be a country anyway.

I considered that one for the deluge. They got their own langugage and a distinct history. They are hardly Germans. Snowstalkers comment is as absurd as saying: "There is no reason for Austria to be a country, since they speak German".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourgish_language

[Zanas]

There's no real reason for Luxembourg to be a country anyway.

I considered that one for the deluge. They got their own langugage and a distinct history. They are hardly Germans. Snowstalkers comment is as absurd as saying: "There is no reason for Austria to be a country, since they speak German".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourgish_language

The luxembourgish language is Francique mosellan, and it's (or at least was until very recently) also spoken all around in parts of Belgium, Lorraine and Germany. I am fully aware of Luxembourg's history, as I lived near their border for a time. But there really is no real reason for them to be a country. I mean they are in a union of customs and currency with Belgium for a long time, and the only reason why they still exist is as a tax haven and a means for poor workers of the neighbouring countries to work and get paid a little more, albeit with a very scarce social security coverage.

[politicus]

There's no real reason for Luxembourg to be a country anyway.

I considered that one for the deluge. They got their own langugage and a distinct history. They are hardly Germans. Snowstalkers comment is as absurd as saying: "There is no reason for Austria to be a country, since they speak German".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourgish_language

The luxembourgish language is Francique mosellan, and it's (or at least was until very recently) also spoken all around in parts of Belgium, Lorraine and Germany. I am fully aware of Luxembourg's history, as I lived near their border for a time. But there really is no real reason for them to be a country. I mean they are in a union of customs and currency with Belgium for a long time, and the only reason why they still exist is as a tax haven and a means for poor workers of the neighbouring countries to work and get paid a little more, albeit with a very scarce social security coverage.

Well, the alternative would be to be German and they certainly have an identity that is separate from the German, so I see them as a nation in their own right fully deserving a nation state of their own.
Adding more German speakers to Belgium would be pointless.