Posted by jiml60 on 12/1/2012 11:25:00 PM (view original):
"Animals protect their young because of instinct and dont grieve."

Is this factual based or just another of your ill informed opinions?

If you google it you will find some Animal lovers bending voer backwards to prove that animals grieve. 

In reality there is no evidence to suggest that they do. 

You may read about some kind of primate keeping its dead newborn for a period of time after it died, and people wanted to attach human emotions to this. 

In reality, as explained by a sicentist, the animal was just confused over its newborn and was waiting for it to reccover. 

We are the only animal that understands. 

If evidence suggests that some other animal can understand we can make a law to prevent me from riding, eating and wearing them.

Posted by greeny9 on 12/2/2012 5:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/2/2012 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jiml60 on 12/1/2012 11:25:00 PM (view original):
"Animals protect their young because of instinct and dont grieve."

Is this factual based or just another of your ill informed opinions?

If you google it you will find some Animal lovers bending voer backwards to prove that animals grieve.

In reality there is no evidence to suggest that they do.

You may read about some kind of primate keeping its dead newborn for a period of time after it died, and people wanted to attach human emotions to this.

In reality, as explained by a sicentist, the animal was just confused over its newborn and was waiting for it to reccover.

We are the only animal that understands.

If evidence suggests that some other animal can understand we can make a law to prevent me from riding, eating and wearing them.

Me powerful brainy human, you defenseless doe eyed bambi, me ride you till you die, then me eat you 'cause me hungy. That is way of world.

(all in the voice of tarzan/swampy)

So what are you trying to say?

That because we are more advanced we shouldnt eat and wear animals?

I have no idea what your point is?

My point is Swamp that we cant continue the way that we have.  As Disco has pointed out there is a balance to life, and we are continually unbalancing it through our actions.  Without some serious changes we will unbalance it too far and we are going to get shafted.  This is something that I believe, you obviously dont, same with the majority of westerners.  Too bad for us...

So lets divide up some issues.

How can using fur cause the world to end? How can raising chickens in the most efficent way end the world?

I can admit that in the past we have used our waterways as corporate toilets. We need to fix that.

I can look at the way we hunt whales and see a wasteful and illogical system that will drive itself out of business. On the flip side what does it matter? Will that impact humans negativley?

So what is the issue? And is there a logical and fair way to fix it?

Wasnt Kyoto just a bash the west plan? Wouldnt India and China still cause harm, if there is any truth to global climate change?

I admit that if there is a problem I might not be the one you want looking for a solution...Are you willing to admit some of the people on your side are also not the best people to find a workable solution?

Fur is unsustainable. There is only so many foxes out there. Now if people are willing to start wearing deer, cow, horse, all those tons of animals that there is no shortage of then we can talk

The way that Tyson and other factory farms raise chickens and other livestock for our consumption use very very very dirty and unsustainable practises. They pump these animals so full of anti-biotics too, its just not good for our health. Let alone their lives. The effluent (run off) from farms is absolutely disgusting, you said we used to use waterways as toilets? please, its as bad now as it ever was. Do you realise that there is a MASSIVE dead zone in the gulf of mexico at the delta of the Mississippi? And every day its getting worse. Its all thanks to factory farm run off.

any major species dieing off will affect the entire eco-system, and guess what, we are part of it, you dont seem to get that fact.

Kyoto was half arsed, it wasnt nearly good enough to do what was needed to be done.

I fully admit there are wack jobs on both sides of this table. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

So if we both think Kyoto was bad and the enviromental community supports it how can I trust anything that comes from them?

I admit the problems with the way we have treated water in the past and we need to preserve water. You have my permission to go nuts on water dumpers.

Tyson is sustainable forever. You may not like the process but they can do it forever.

I hear people I consider wack jobs on cable all the time. Where can we get real information. You say some scientists are just doing what they do for corporate money, and I say some scientists are doing it for grant money.

Is fur actually unsustainable? We used fur since the dawn of recorded man!

I didnt say Kyoto was bad, but that it didnt go far enough.  It was a compromise in order to get passed.  I hope that the original plans for Kyoto was to make it meaty enough that it would have made a real difference.  Unfortunately in the end it did next to nothing, in fact it might have done much worse then nothing because it got a lot of people like you saying that they we as a whole have done enough for the environment because Kyoto was passed.  Am I happy in the end that it passed?  Yah, but very reservedly, I would have been much more happy if us enviros could have done a much better job in convincing the majority that more was and most definitely still is needed to be done.

I am of the opinion (through research by reading many books) that we can in fact have our cake and eat it too.  The environment can be fixed and people can still have their flat screen TVs, their jobs, and their meals in restaurants.  We can still have cars, we can still have vacations in sunny spots.  The way we go about making all these things would change, the corporations that make these things would drastically change, they would all be not for profit worker owned co-ops.  Money wouldnt be the driving factor and force when it comes to deciding how to make things, their enviro impact would be the major factor.  Not everything would be made in China anymore, it would be manufactured all over the world equally, and in such a way that we dont have to have thousands and thousands of container ships crossing the oceans every day.  Trust me, solutions are there, but, no doubt it would take a major revolution, one the likes of we have never seen before.  Or possibly armageddon.  One way or the other it will happen, but if we can do it without armageddon I think Id prefer that.

fur is not unsustainable

fur is a renewable resource

kinda like paper, what we call trees, it grows



all you gotta do is give it a garden

Thanks BC

Tell that to the Caspian Tiger

To bad we can't make republican species disappear. 

That's the kind of dumbass comment that makes anyone remotely discerning want to stop reading anything you post.

I give a **** what you think. I could give two ***** if you read my posts. 

So you're just pandering to the morons who agree with you?

I think ocsid's comment was somewhat in jest..then again, I may be wrong.