I can't seem to do it...

[DeletedUser]

I may be a dumb-ass, or semi-dumb-ass, but I know that you don't loose a war or intelligence. You may be able to lose them though. Not that I agree with David either - many of those stolen guns that criminals have were stolen from homes. In addition, most families who lived in the country in early America probably did have a rifle or shot gun for hunting and protection, but most of those who lived in cities didn't; I'd easily believe that the percentage of people with hand guns today is much higher than it was back then.

True, many guns that are stolen from homes are used in crimes, thus they are illegally obtained by the criminals, and the irony is that many people who bought those very guns for self defense would soon be facing down the muzzle of their own weapon in a robbery. There isn't much else that can be done, however, to combat the crime of theft, except maybe for the useage of proper security devices and to keep all firearms and ammunition locked away in a safe/storage room so that nobody who has no prior knowledge of the house can break in and run off with weapons that would be potentially helladangerous in the hands of criminals.

It is probably false, however, that a higher percentage of people today have more handguns than way back in the latter portion of the 1800's, just speaking in curves, however. In terms of population, sure it has risen because the population is higher, but not everyone and their grandmother would own a pistol as they did back then. Of course, I am no reverend of the West history either, so I may be pissing in the dark with my assumptions, I just hope it's not hitting the third rail, lol. Onwards, you would be right if you were talking about number of handguns per-person. People now own multiple handguns for multiple occasions, one for conceal carry, one for home defence, and multiple for target shooting. I know, I do so myself, with the exception of Conceal Carry.

guns are useless apart from wars, -Contradiction!

and testing has to be done so i prefer it to be done on animals or volunteers ready to save animals...

You contradicted yourself! Again.

Oh and you are right on animal testing. Congratulations.

Maybe I am as stupid as you keep saying I am, but I can't figure out what that has to do with what I said. :unsure:
Well, I was born in the US and lived here all my life, so saying that all Americans are dumb asses does have to do with me. :razz: I'm not offended by generalizations anyway; few people really believe their comments apply to every member of a group.

Just ignore the troll, don't feed it, let it starve, if anything kick it in the ribs and walk on by. It isn't providing anything for the debate anyways except for scats and giggles, which really aren't all that noticable because in truth it isn't a funny troll. More of one that steals your food when you are away, then hides in the wall like the coward it is. Anyways, with it out of the way, how do you feel about Seals and Whales, Artemis?

 

[DeletedUser]

Of course, I am no reverend of the West history either, so I may be pissing in the dark with my assumptions, I just hope it's not hitting the third rail, lol. Onwards, you would be right if you were talking about number of handguns per-person. People now own multiple handguns for multiple occasions, one for conceal carry, one for home defence, and multiple for target shooting. I know, I do so myself, with the exception of Conceal Carry.

Being a couple years older than you are, I have known people who lived during the late 1800s, and my opinions are based on things I was told by them. You are right though, I may be basing it on guns per person rather than homes with guns. I know a lot of people with rifles for hunting, but not a lot who have hand guns.

Anyways, with it out of the way, how do you feel about Seals and Whales, Artemis?

I have mixed thoughts on that subject. I don't like seeing any animal killed to the point of extinction, which has come close to happening at times with both. Whales are very intelligent animals, and it does bother me to see them subjected to hunting methods that can cause them to suffer for quite a while; on the other hand, they do at times torture seal pups in order to help their young learn how to hunt. I don't eat much meat (not because of animal rights, I just don't care much for the taste), but that doesn't mean I have the right to decide what other people eat.

 

[DeletedUser]

Being a couple years older than you are, I have known people who lived during the late 1800s, and my opinions are based on things I was told by them. You are right though, I may be basing it on guns per person rather than homes with guns. I know a lot of people with rifles for hunting, but not a lot who have hand guns.

The oldest person I have known lived in the 1920's That's pretty cool, Artemis But yeah, people these days chock their safes full of multiple pistols, many of which may seem a little unnecessary, but who am I to judge, I'd just be a hypocrate, lol.

I have mixed thoughts on that subject. I don't like seeing any animal killed to the point of extinction, which has come close to happening at times with both. Whales are very intelligent animals, and it does bother me to see them subjected to hunting methods that can cause them to suffer for quite a while; on the other hand, they do at times torture seal pups in order to help their young learn how to hunt. I don't eat much meat (not because of animal rights, I just don't care much for the taste), but that doesn't mean I have the right to decide what other people eat.

I don't like seeing animal species going extinct either, unless they are just a useless creature in general. I wouldn't care if those damned trombiculid mites (chiggers) went extinct, because they are essentially the most useless and annoying parasite to exist. But, whales are indeed very intellegent, and if they were only smart enough, or we were smart enough, to figure out ways to translate/communicate with them, then maybe we would finally know what really rests at the bottom of the sea, but they are animals, nevertheless, and we are a smart species. As to hearing about you not eating meat, do you eat fish? I know a lot of vegetarians who eat fish but not other meats. It's healthier or something, lol.

 

[DeletedUser]

I eat shrimp once every couple years, and have a tuna sandwich once in a while, but I don't eat any other seafood. I don't eat bread or pasta much either, but I don't believe in equal rights for wheat/grains either! :razz:

 

[DeletedUser]

I eat shrimp once every couple years, and have a tuna sandwich once in a while, but I don't eat any other seafood. I don't eat bread or pasta much either, but I don't believe in equal rights for wheat/grains either! :razz:

Right on! Shrimp is a good thing when you're not used to it, and I'd have to say a tuna sandwich is ok. I think though that the whole gulf incident will have everyone in the fishing industry in a bind for a while, they are soon going to be housing more fish in fish farms though. Of course, corprate farming of animals does raise concerns, but In my personal opinion, I don't really care much about cage sizes and stuff that has been complained about in recent years. And Animal Rights groups that bash food chains just tick me off.

 

[DeletedUser]

I believe that animals shouldn't be purposely abused. I do think that they can be used to save humans lives though. I just think its wrong to purposely hurt or kill an animal for no reason or benefiting intent. Now, I don't know the punishments fro harming animals is, but I do hear that some of them are unfair. Again, I have no evidence about this.

 

[DeletedUser]

I have mixed thoughts on that subject. I don't like seeing any animal killed to the point of extinction, which has come close to happening at times with both.

Being from a whaling nation I have to object here.
If you read up on the subject you will see that the species of whales that are hunted are not close to extinction.

Some species of whale are close to extinction, and the one most commonly hunted is htriving.

True, there has been excessive whaling going on, but this isn't the case anymore, at least not where Norway is concerned.

I could say heaps on the subject of guns and what not, but I don't have the time to do so here and now.
(currently at work, and internet at home is down)

 

[DeletedUser]

You're right; I was mainly thinking of humpback whales who are on the endangered species list but still being hunted near Antarctica (not by Norway, as far as I know). I don't know that all species of seals were ever endangered either. I just said that I don't like seeing any animal hunted to the point of becoming extinct, which has happened to many over the years.

 

[DeletedUser]

You're right; I was mainly thinking of humpback whales who are on the endangered species list but still being hunted near Antarctica (not by Norway, as far as I know). I don't know that all species of seals were ever endangered either. I just said that I don't like seeing any animal hunted to the point of becoming extinct, which has happened to many over the years.

Then we are agreed, I guess

 

[DeletedUser]

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

Happily, I'm British!

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok... So here's the deal... I just don't get it.

I need someone here who can explain why Animals should have the same rights as humans, and I need someone to explain why I shouldn't be allowed to own semi-auto rifles and pistols. These are the only two subjects in which I just don't get the other sides view point at all, ok? I mean, I can probably learn why some people want to ban semi-auto guns, but damn, Animal rights is a tough one. I've learned from my opposing sides by being told what exactly they think and the true benefits of the choices by Hellstromm, Adelei, Divest, and JR, but Guns are a tough one (simply because I have assault rifles and I am a frowney face when someone mentions my guns shouldn't be allowed) and I just hate Animal Rights activists with a great animosity because they are repetitive in their explanation and don't say enough other than three main things: We have rights so should animals, Animals have feelings and are sentient beings, and Animals should not be abused unnecessarly. Over and over and that's it.

I am trying to be the most open minded person, but those two subjects strain me.

Oh, and Oisinallen was one of the first men to set me on the path to openmindedness. I appreciate him in all his glory and would be really glad if he came in and stopped by for us

Oh boy David, I so understand where you're coming from. I own a substantial amount of military hardware and would just love for the hunting of human beings to be made legal and I just can't understand those who disagree with me.

I just hate Human Rights activists with a great animosity because they are repetitive in their explanation and don't say enough other than three main things: Humans have rights that animals don't have, Humans have feelings and are sentient beings, and Humans should not be abused unnecessarly. Over and over and that's it.

OMG - I just realised that's almost word for word what you said. Man, you are like a brother soul to me!

 

[DeletedUser]

I own a substantial amount of military hardware and would just love for the hunting of human beings to be made legal and I just can't understand those who disagree with me.

I can't answer for everyone who disagrees with you about it, but the only reason I've lived as many years as I have is that murder is illegal! I feel obligated to keep those laws in place.

 

[DeletedUser]

While Eli is being facetious, he is making a valid point, which is that we take human rights for granted, yet we are quick to dismiss all rights of other creatures on this world.

The right to life, the right to humane treatment, these aren't actually rights, but if we are to claim to be a civilized world, we should endeavor to make them rights. And while it may be convenient to dismiss the means and manner in which we treat creatures on this Earth, be they domesticated or wild, it is also quite evident that we dismiss, for the sake of convenience, the means and manner in which are treated human beings on this Earth. For what we do not directly confront, do not directly participate in, we can claim ignorance, yet all of us clearly do know the rampant sex trade, the gross exploitation of impoverished workers, of continued slave trading, and of the starvation and abuse of other human beings. And so, with that in mind, it is no wonder there is a similar blind eye to the brutalities imposed on animals other than humans.

For while it is convenient to dismiss how you came to own your low priced products, what workforce was enslaved to produce it, what animals were slaughtered to provide the resources, convenience is never a humanistic answer, never an excusable explanation for complicity.

 

[DeletedUser]

I just hate Human Rights activists with a great animosity because they are repetitive in their explanation and don't say enough other than three main things: Humans have rights that animals don't have, Humans have feelings and are sentient beings, and Humans should not be abused unnecessarly. Over and over and that's it.

• 1 Humans have rights that animals don't have.

Humans have rights that animals don't have, and they deserve those rights because they created them for other humans to follow. Have animals been able to comprehend these rights sucessfully? Unfortuinately, no, however, if there is an ape or rat or dog or cat, or any other animal, that is able to succeed in bringing itself with great intelligence to us and showing us that it can understand, interpret, and abide by these rights then it shall have its glory of being covered by the rights as well. Sadly, there is no such animal, therefore, Humans have rights that animals don't have because the animals can't achieve the intelligence that humans have. But why does a 1 year old infant or even a 32 year old hillbilly have rights if they can't understand or interpret them? See 2.

• 2 Humans have feelings and are sentient beings.

Humans have the ability to care for those alike them, and a bad tendancy to mistreat those whom are different. Animals being no exception. Notoriously, *caucasian* humans enslaved *african* humans, and the latter-former reverse as well... Why? Africans were different for Caucasians, and Caucasians were different for Africans. Soon, everyone made peace then they started killing off other things based on religious themes instead of visual differences, virtually digressing into a human-wide species insanity. Of course, every day we see the idiocies of love occur between humans, and the fun times of which people argue about seemingly pointless things, get mad, get sad, and eventually get high to feel happy.

• 3 Humans should not be abused unnecessarly.

They should not be, anyways, but it happens...

Shh, Julie, you will wake the neighbors! Don't make me blindfold you again...​

 

[DeletedUser]

• 1 Humans have rights that animals don't have.

Humans have rights that animals don't have, and they deserve those rights because they created them for other humans to follow. Have animals been able to comprehend these rights sucessfully? Unfortuinately, no, however, if there is an ape or rat or dog or cat, or any other animal, that is able to succeed in bringing itself with great intelligence to us and showing us that it can understand, interpret, and abide by these rights then it shall have its glory of being covered by the rights as well. Sadly, there is no such animal, therefore, Humans have rights that animals don't have because the animals can't achieve the intelligence that humans have. But why does a 1 year old infant or even a 32 year old hillbilly have rights if they can't understand or interpret them? See 2.

• 2 Humans have feelings and are sentient beings.

Humans have the ability to care for those alike them, and a bad tendancy to mistreat those whom are different. Animals being no exception. Notoriously, *caucasian* humans enslaved *african* humans, and the latter-former reverse as well... Why? Africans were different for Caucasians, and Caucasians were different for Africans. Soon, everyone made peace then they started killing off other things based on religious themes instead of visual differences, virtually digressing into a human-wide species insanity. Of course, every day we see the idiocies of love occur between humans, and the fun times of which people argue about seemingly pointless things, get mad, get sad, and eventually get high to feel happy.

• 3 Humans should not be abused unnecessarly.

They should not be, anyways, but it happens...

Shh, Julie, you will wake the neighbors! Don't make me blindfold you again...​

Where do I begin? From your first post you seem to have turned 180 degrees in places. Your argument that humans 'deserve' rights because they create them is circular; that humans are superior because of their 'intelligence' is also circular. There is no agreed measure of intelligence so any argument based upon it is bound to be no more than opinion. To me, intelligence is measured largely by the ability to understand others, learn new information and to alter our behaviour in accordance with that.
I see no sign of intelligence here, only a few half-digested notions set in concrete. I'm afraid the standard of this debate is poor and maybe now is the time to wind it up.

 

[DeletedUser21656]

• 1 Humans have rights that animals don't have.

Humans have rights that animals don't have, and they deserve those rights because they created them for other humans to follow. Have animals been able to comprehend these rights sucessfully? Unfortuinately, no, however, if there is an ape or rat or dog or cat, or any other animal, that is able to succeed in bringing itself with great intelligence to us and showing us that it can understand, interpret, and abide by these rights then it shall have its glory of being covered by the rights as well. Sadly, there is no such animal, therefore, Humans have rights that animals don't have because the animals can't achieve the intelligence that humans have. But why does a 1 year old infant or even a 32 year old hillbilly have rights if they can't understand or interpret them? See 2.

• 2 Humans have feelings and are sentient beings.

Humans have the ability to care for those alike them, and a bad tendancy to mistreat those whom are different. Animals being no exception. Notoriously, *caucasian* humans enslaved *african* humans, and the latter-former reverse as well... Why? Africans were different for Caucasians, and Caucasians were different for Africans. Soon, everyone made peace then they started killing off other things based on religious themes instead of visual differences, virtually digressing into a human-wide species insanity. Of course, every day we see the idiocies of love occur between humans, and the fun times of which people argue about seemingly pointless things, get mad, get sad, and eventually get high to feel happy.

• 3 Humans should not be abused unnecessarly.

They should not be, anyways, but it happens...

Shh, Julie, you will wake the neighbors! Don't make me blindfold you again...​

Save your long-winded explanation. :laugh:

Didn't you get it? Some people bragging animal rights-rights-rights just to show us how "moral" they are.

Though I agree with you.

"Animal protection!!! But anti-animal rights!!"

PS: God, I'm seriously fed up with all those stupid "rights" these days.
For those animal-righters; What animal rights? Plz dun confuse yourself with Dr Dolittle.

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh stop playing a game of semantics. Animal protection IS animal rights, in that to protect animals, you install laws that provide them rights, i.e., protection. Stop dancing around and just accept the fact animals should be protected from abuse, just as humans should be protected from abuse.

 

[DeletedUser21656]

Good, next time when a puppy got nominate in the presidency, I vote it.


Animal rights = animal protection?? Nice material for my new signature.


PS: btw, your friend John Rose is promoting dog eating recently. That funny guy.

 

[DeletedUser]

53rd pres of the US Barkers!!!!