What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Powerful, sad picture

Friday said:
I am not religious left, dammit. Say it with me. I know you can do it....

Moderate. Mod...er...ate. Moderate.

Now, doesn't that feel better?
Click to expand...

You're a knee-jerk leftist.
 
Big Dick McGee said:
They're just animals. Stop being a pussy.
Click to expand...

You're just a person. One of around 6 billion. Who cares? With your attitude if you were to die, why should anyone really care? There are around 6 billion of the rest of us. I think there are only a few thousand Cheetas left. That makes one of them worth more than you. Since after all, there are so many of us still around if you were to leave.

They have lives and are God's creatures as we are. You don't see them polluting their environment, over hunting, killing each other senselessly.
 
I could as easily have said psychopath, and it would be accurate. Check the DSM IV if you don't believe that. Radical animal rights activists are displaying a psychological disorder. I was being charitable. Maybe I shouldn't be.
 
Actually, on further research, the DSM IV doesn't define psychopathy, but it does come close by defining Antisocial Personality Disorder, and the IDC-10 comes closer still with the term "Dissocial Personality Disorder", both of which involve:

- Need for stimulation, with a proneness to boredom -- certainly a compelling motive for committing trespass, vandalism, property destruction and theft.
- No sense of remorse or guilt -- which would be circumvented, handily, by relabeling their offenses in order to fit them into their "cause".
- A lack of empathy for others -- this is particularly where valuing animals over their fellow human beings comes in.
- They are impulsive, and show poor control over their behaviors -- certainly, this would explain several reports that animals have died as a result of animal rights activists' "intervention". The people in such cases were obviously too impulsive to observe the Rule Of The 7 Ps.
- They cannot form long-term plans that are realistic -- ending human use of animals through acts of financial and psychological warfare is hardly a realistic goal.
- They do not accept responsibility for their actions - another caused it -- in all cases I've heard of, they refuse to acknowledge that any criminal act they commit is, in fact, a criminal act, typically equating vandalism, theft and occasional violence with "self-defense".

There ya go.
 
Fuck, I hate having the same arguement in two different threads, but call me what you want Question, it doesn't mean anything to me.

If everyone treated everyone else and everything else with the same respect this would be a much better place. But then you throw in a hierarchy of who means more than what, after all, many people think they are better than other people without even getting into animals. White vs Black for instance. Whether or not humans are better/more important/or dance better than animals is irrelavant. We should be treating them all with respect, not doing as we see fit.

So if I am a psychopath because I am pissed about someone abusing animals then fuck it, put it under my avatar I don't care. Just don't let me see you actually abusing them.
 
Also, your logic is wrong:

- A lack of empathy for others -- this is particularly where valuing animals over their fellow human beings comes in.
Click to expand...

I dont see anywhere in you definition where lack of empathy FOR HUMANS is what is required. Just lack of it. You are just twisting words and interpreting them to use it as you see fit. Why don't you just make up your own term since that is what you are doing anyway. I'll accept whatever you come up with.
 
See, you try to distance yourself from generalizing the right as religious, and then immediately slip up and reflexively engage in that self-same generalization at the end of the attempt.
Click to expand...

I never said that conservatives were generally religious.
 
Name Pending said:
Also, your logic is wrong:



I dont see anywhere in you definition where lack of empathy FOR HUMANS is what is required. Just lack of it. You are just twisting words and interpreting them to use it as you see fit. Why don't you just make up your own term since that is what you are doing anyway. I'll accept whatever you come up with.
Click to expand...

Okay, how about this one:

em·pa·thy Audio pronunciation of "empathy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mp-th)
n.

1. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See Synonyms at pity.
Click to expand...

Okay, Dr. Doolittle, riddle me this -- when was the last time an animal spoke up and told you how it feels? Oh, right -- they don't have to, because they're telepathic. Or you're telepathic. Or telepathetic. There ya go. Your simpering drivel is turning my stomach from hundreds, possibly thousands of miles away. Telepathetic.

Wait, here's another one, maybe this one fits:

2. The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.
Click to expand...

I think that one fits perfectly.

Oh, and to clarify? I wasn't talking about people who view their fellow human beings -- their family, for instance, or their significant other -- as being no more worthy of respect, love or understanding than a pig rutting in its own shit, or the family dog. I was speaking specifically of people who are extremists when it comes to animal "rights", people who actively engage in activities designed and carried out for the purpose of harming human beings -- words < actions, and their actions make it clear that they place less value on human life than on animal "rights." Those people are psychopaths, plain and simple. If you're not one of them, you have no reason to get your panties all in a bunch. If you are, then you deserve to get your panties all in a bunch.
 
Name Pending, have you ever seen a pack of wild dogs? Or a pack of Wolves, Coyotes, etc.?

They'll just as soon rip your fucking face off as come over for "belly rubs". You and your ilk want to anthropomorphize animals in a near-fetishistic way. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if you were a "furry". "Respect" is a human concept. Animals don't understand the concept of "respect". When people say, "I respect a lion" or a cobra, or a shark, they don't actually hold the animal in high regard; no, they merely are cognizant of the fact that a lion, cobra or shark will kill a human being if given the opportunity.

Humans are the only species that don't adapt to our surroundings. Rather, we adapt our surroundings to us.

I am by no means advocating cruelty to animals, I find that abhorrent. However, comparing cruelty to animals with cruelty to humans is completely ridiculous. I can buy another dog that looks and acts just like my Chewie. I can't produce another human being who looks and acts just like my son.

Animals aren't unique, humans are.
 
I'm not posting on the .com version. I'd save the criminal over the dog. Fugitive will get a higher price than a mutt will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top