Enviromentalists

[Sardauker-Kirov]

I hate them with my guts, they whine about animals getting killed for their meat.

They wine about the increase of the 'Greenhouse' effect which Goverments ignore.

1. Animals in nature 'kill' eachother to survive. HUMANS kill animals for their meat so WE will survive. They probably want us to eat bread each day, while the animals are killing eachother. Maybe they should go to nature and ask kindly to the animals to stop killing eachother and wear a old Vietnam Anti-War shirt. "Make love, not war"

2. Greenhouse effect, I really doubt the world nor the people will do something about it. Industry and humanity produces the Green house effect, so what are they gonna do about it? Walk to the industry and ask kindly to reduce the 'smoke' output? ::)

3.(If they're actually protecting them) They protect rare species, but I've heard rumours that Greenpeace and some other organizations are corrupted and are not even using the money to protect animals.

If they want to protect the animals, they should buy rifles and shoot the hunters. Simple.....

You're welcome to share your views.

[Caid Ivik]

Today's world is weird. There are plenty of organisations trying to save every egg of an endangered kinds of animals, but on the other hand there are plenty bands trying to legalize abortions, what is demographical suicide for mankind.

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." - Gn 1,28

It seems like these guys want earth, fish and fowl to subdue us...

[Scrinlord]

Exactly. I have no problem with limited environmentalism, as in wanting to preserve wetlands and forests, or opposing snowmobiles in Yellowstone park and stuff like that. I want to preserve endangered spieces, but I dont want to protect animals at the exclusion of humans. That is just crazy!

And many of these "environmentalists" can be considered terrorists, bombing food processing factories, and destroying lumber equipment. I dont see how they are allowed to continue as they do...

Ya, and I disagree with people legalizing abortions too, but thats a different matter.

[Acriku]

You seem to be ignoring the effects environmentalists have had on America, such as regulating how much businesses can polluting the air, sea, and land. Some others, but they escape me.

[Scrinlord]

They have not regulated it enough to matter, and most of the environmentalists nowadays are not more than terrorists.

[Acriku]

Well, there are extremists of every ideology.

[ordos45]

Well, there are extremists of every ideology.

Greenpeace for example, some of its more extreme members drive spikes into trees. A guy with a chainsaw hits the spike, it flies back into him, killing him.

[Anathema]

1. The point is not that we eat animals, the point is that we treat cattle in sick ways (putting them in cages with no moving space, etc). You are also wrong in saying that we need to eat meat to survive, otherwise the prospects for vegetarians would be rather bad.

2. Never heard of the Kyoto protocol? The industry would of course not limit their CO2 output voluntarily, that's why we have laws...

3. Yes they are protecting rare species, and corruption occurs within every organisation.

[Dante]

1) Meat eating is good. It's natural. But animals don't make their prey go through needless suffering, they just eat it.

2) If I had my way I'd bann all cars. Think how much pollution would go down! And with the collapse of the automobile industry would come billions of [insert currency] that could be used for renewable energy research, upgrading trains and public transport, and repairing the damage already done. That's a good idea!

3) Yup. Make cruelty to animals, hunting animals, etc to be a legal crime punishable by extremely painful death. Like bleeding to death or breaking bones one by one. Even the three really tiny ones in the inner ears. I truly loathe people who are nasty to animals.

Being nasty to humans is different. They deserve it.

[Scrinlord]

1. I agree, I dont think that we should be mean and treat animals with cruelty just to make them taste slightly different after we slaughter them, but we should still be able to eat them.

2. Banning all cars is a little extreme, I would just require that the auto industry change increase their MPG ratio.

3. I understand being plain out cruel to animals should be punishable, but just for hunting them? I think that is a little extreme. Most hunters are law abiding citizens, that do more for the environment than greenpeace or any of those organizations ever will.

[Egeides]

In every debate, there are some people who are a bit emotional:

"Save the dolphin, they're so cuuuuute! They eat 2 kilo of fish per day? Well... they're so cuuute!"

There are also some who tend to take only the worst studies or believe that a study is necessarily true because it is a study, without waiting other studies. Some others are taking the complete opposite, showing only the studies going on the same side (cigrette companies, W.Bush, etc., but also the other side).

Then comes some people who are covering the whole spectrum of studies, but then everyone says "another one who's exagerating"... This is what I think happens to environmentalism.

[Caid Ivik]

1.Well, bad treating damages quality of meat...

2.Banning all cars isn't way, maybe better should be strengthening of support for less emitive engines, i.e.gas powered.

3. As well as cultural legacy, we have natural legacy, worth of protection. But as I can't see a reason to put someone to death for damaging a castle wall, I can't see it as well if someone shots a rare bird. It's a sign of primitivity, barbarism, not evil.

[nampigai]

1. The point is not that we eat animals, the point is that we treat cattle in sick ways (putting them in cages with no moving space, etc). You are also wrong in saying that we need to eat meat to survive, otherwise the prospects for vegetarians would be rather bad.

2. Never heard of the Kyoto protocol? The industry would of course not limit their CO2 output voluntarily, that's why we have laws...

3. Yes they are protecting rare species, and corruption occurs within every organisation.

couldn't have said it better myself, so I'll just let it be by Earthnukers post.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

1. The point is not that we eat animals, the point is that we treat cattle in sick ways (putting them in cages with no moving space, etc). You are also wrong in saying that we need to eat meat to survive, otherwise the prospects for vegetarians would be rather bad.

2. Never heard of the Kyoto protocol? The industry would of course not limit their CO2 output voluntarily, that's why we have laws...

3. Yes they are protecting rare species, and corruption occurs within every organisation.

1. So you're saying that meat is not important? Now imagine if humanity only ate plants and no meat, the need of vegetation and grain would increase. Either there will be starvation or corruption in the market. Since Capitalists has the extreme urge to exploit every opportunity it can get, they'll put ridiculous price tags for vegetation and other products.

2. Duh

3. No comment, corruption is brought up into every line if it mentions 'organization' ;D

I know it's cruel to let the animals suffer in cramped cages. They should put a law for that someday, which I doubt somehow.

But alot of treehuggers are extremists and barely cares about what they're dealing with.

They think that humans don't exist and are just living sinners, while animals are doing sins of their own.

Pim fortuin was killed by a enviromentalist. I'm not sure why, if anyone has a link of the reason I would appreciate it. ???

[Dante]

1.Well, bad treating damages quality of meat...

2.Banning all cars isn't way, maybe better should be strengthening of support for less emitive engines, i.e.gas powered.

3. As well as cultural legacy, we have natural legacy, worth of protection. But as I can't see a reason to put someone to death for damaging a castle wall, I can't see it as well if someone shots a rare bird. It's a sign of primitivity, barbarism, not evil.

Who said they were evil? I just think that harming an animal intentionally (or even castle walls I suppose) should be earning an extremely painful deterent.

And banning cars is a great idea! Think how much money would be saved! And that could go into research in solar or geothermal power, or restoring monuments, helping third world countries (low priority)! And pollution would drop, people would have more money without insurance, petrol, paying for the car in the first place... It's a wonderful concept!

[Acriku]

A wonderfully flawed concept, that is. First off, there's no reason to ban cars. Pollution? Regulate the m/g. Or form another energy source that doesn't produce as much pollution. With the extra money, the stockmarket will plummet, and the economy will be affected negatively without the automotive industry, which also deals with other industries as well. So, it will seem like a domino effect on our economy. Banning cars is very irrational, and currently only what can be done, if anything, is to regulate carpools and incorporate multi-member car systems.

[Scrinlord]

Exactly what I was thinking.

Like I said before, being unneccesarily cruel to animals should be punishable, but just normal huning should not be. I see no reason to ban hunting.

[Acriku]

Indeed, however it becomes difficult to conclude what an unnecessary cruelty actually is, as we can find food without hunting, so it doesn't seem necessary at all to hunt them.

[Scrinlord]

well if you want to get technical, what is allowed as "killing" Is it ok to step on a bug? even cutting down trees can constitute as killing a living being. And as far as animals, hunting them is a lot more humane than herding cattle, or anything like that.

[Acriku]

Stepping on bugs I try my best to avoid, because they have a short lifespan as it is, without me ruining it. But, sometimes it is unavoidable. Ants, however, piss the hell out of me. I say screw 'em. As for chopping trees, I wouldn't say that constitutes as cruelty, as it has no nerve endings - preventing it from feeling a thing, but it is definitely killing. I would rather avoid unnecessary killing of it, and would desire more people to appreciate such things, rather than feel they are above them and can do what they want with them. Maybe I'm just tired, and rambling on and on...

Yes, hunting is more humane, as it is a shorter event for the animal, so I can agree with that.

[Scrinlord]

I was just being hypothetical with the tree issue, but still.

The thing is, when is it OK, and when is it cruel. I completely and entirely disagree with being cruel to animals, but I dont see hunting as being cruel. the only way that we can be "nice" to animals, is to stop eating them entirly, and I am not going to stop eating meat. In fact most people who are opposed to hunting dont really have any problem with the fact that the animal is dead, they just dont want to have to see it, or they dont want their friends to be the one that does it. It is just fine for them to eat a hamburger from mcdonalds, because they never had to see it alive, and they dont know who killed it, but if they know that you killed a deer to get than venison steak tonight, than you are a cruel vicious bastard.

Sorry, I am starting to rant, I guess sleep deprivation is catching up to me.

but still, you get my point.

[Acriku]

I do get your point, however I'm curious - what would you have done to the animal post-hunt?

[Scrinlord]

after you kill the animal?

I would make sure that the animal was dead, gut the animal, take it home, and have it made into meat products that I can eat.

If I knew how to do all my own food stuff, I would use some of the guts too, but I dont. Unfortuanatly, not every part of the animal gets used, like many bones are thrown away by buchers, but I would use ever part of it that I could.

[Caid Ivik]

You are weird. This rousseauistic view on animals as our "equals" is making me laugh. If there will come a chicken and say me that its sense of life is not giving eggs until I'll behead and eat it, then ok, but I wouldn't say it is more than just biomechanical thing. OK, not a playtool, but thing it is.

[Dante]

Why does nobody agree with me?!

Cars are revolting! They pollute, they cause stress, they ruin the enviroment and scenery with their foul fumes, ugly grey roads and expensive showrooms. They are expensive to buy, expensive to maintain, expensive to fuel, expensive in terms of insurance; and each of these costs leads to loans and even more financial hassle. They kill hundreds every year, they can be used to commit crimes, they kill animals, they use up billions of pounds that could go into better sources...

Bringing the world together could be accomplished with aeroplanes and ocean liners! Roads were better when they were remote dirt tracks or cobbles for horse-drawn carriages.

Do I care about the economy? If it crashes, so be it! Perhaps then we'll get some more agricultural return rather than industry. Which is ok in certain ways, but bad in many others. I have many reasons why this would be a good thing but this is not the place for them.

And as for killing;

No stepping on insects/arachnids/etc!

Hunting is a no-no. You want to eat someting, catch it and breed it and get lots more to eat. Be a farmer. We are designed to eat meat, but we need not hunt it (unless of course.... no, not the place....).

No cutting down trees! Or harming other plants! Bad for the enviroment! (And consequently bad for us)

Except for farmed trees. :)

And chickens may be biomechanical, but so are we. The human body (as I have pointed out before) is no more than a collection of units controlled by electrical signals. Just like a computer. There is nothing that makes us different from animals, or plants for that matter. Or computers.