Double Standards....

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DaShen
What we are discussing has nothing to do with social inequality. I know that there isn't social equality, but that doesn't give the minorities a right to bash the majority.

Where did anyone say that social inequality gives the minority a moral or other type of right to bash the majority?

Well - supposidly it was insinuated Aidan, didn't you read jbourne77's assumption? - lol

This thread has become very P&N like

Who made it that way??... I am not going to name any names







aidanjm :roll:

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Amused
Many politicians and movie stars who are gun grabbers have armed guards, or even carry a gun themselves.

Which is usually where the Hitler references come from.

My opinion: Women.
This came up recently in OT, but it seems that they stopped wanting equality since the 70's. Now they want the privledges of both genders with none of the responsibility.

It saddens me to say this, but this, to some degree, is true. The funny thing is my wife is the one who so concretely stated what you just stated before I really recognized it a few years ago. I think it ticks her off more than any man I know.

My wife and I have a friend who just like that. Aspiring attorney, gawks at the idea of stay at home moms, etc... but one time her then-boyfriend asked her why she never picked up their tab...

YIKES @ the fireworks that ensued.

On a related note...why is it when I say women are better at something, all women nod in agreement...but when I say men are better at something its "holysh|t, you're sexist! women can do everything!"

Even my wife...OMG. I said to her a few months ago that I thought women make better general practice doctors IMO, because they are more nuturing and have better attention and pickup of details on the whole. She wholeheartedly agreed, even though its a statement without any kind of real backing and it just based on my personal experiences and feelings.

Then I said I thought men were better surgeons because they're better at focusing on one thing, often have big egos (which I think it almost a required trait for a surgeon), and usually have better spacial awareness. And oh, you bet I was wrong on that one. "Women have good focus". :roll: Its not the fact that she disagreed with me, its the fact it was like impossible to fathom the idea that men might be naturally better at some things...she'll even sort of fight me on the plain undeniable stuff like that men are stronger then women. "Some women are stronger than some men." Yes...but thats not even a fair comparison. Of course a female body builder is going to be stronger than a man dying of cancer.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DaShen
What we are discussing has nothing to do with social inequality. I know that there isn't social equality, but that doesn't give the minorities a right to bash the majority.

Where did anyone say that social inequality gives the minority a moral or other type of right to bash the majority?

Well - supposidly it was insinuated Aidan, didn't you read jbourne77's assumption? - lol

This thread has become very P&N like

Who made it that way??... I am not going to name any names







aidanjm :roll:

Who has made it that way? Well, you, certainly. Also jbourne77. What's with all the nasty, personal comments and pissy emoticons? Are you not capable of discussing with someone who disagrees with you?

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: NFS4
Black folks can say the N-word to other black folks and not get in trouble (usually)
White folks say the N-word and they're as good as dead

the connotation and even denotation for that word are different when uttered by a black person compared to a white person

it's like gay people choosing to (jokingly) call themselves 'i love you' compared to heterosexuals using that word - the political implications of using that word are entirely different depending on who is using the word

But blacks can call whites 'cracker', 'whitebread', etc... without the same outrage isn't a double standard?

I don't think so. blacks as a group in usa society are not coming from a position of power relative to whites. if the power position of each group was the same, it would seem more like a double standard to me.

Give me a break. Equal is equal, not this "coming from power" BS. I don't run around calling homosexuals 'f@ggots' or blacks 'n!gger5'...I would like that same courtesy extended to me.

Yup... Anyone who thinks differently is just fooling themselves because they have issues, not the other way around.

Why don't we all ignore the realities of social inequlality and live in a nice, fallacious world.

Did you ever read this rather hilarious piece by the onion? Sure its a joke. But is it? Racism is pretty irrational, but doesn't it seem rather dangerous when you give racists some kind of tangiable reason for their hate by effectively offering a different set of rights for different groups of people? I mean...thats what affirmative action is after all. Its giving one group a few more rights than another.

Isn't that how this all got started in the first place?

 

[Chunkee]

people who eat cigars are a double standard themselves

jC

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DaShen
What we are discussing has nothing to do with social inequality. I know that there isn't social equality, but that doesn't give the minorities a right to bash the majority.

Where did anyone say that social inequality gives the minority a moral or other type of right to bash the majority?

Read through the posts again. You responded exactly on that argument there.

I said it is not a double standard. It isn't a double standard because the two situations cannot reasonably be considered equivalent. I did not say it was acceptable or OK for anyone to abuse anyone else.

Originally posted by: DaShen
That somehow it is different when a black guy say n#$%@ and a white guy says it. And then when someone posted as to ask why it is different, you begin to point out the social inequality in the situation.

Social inequality is relevant. "N*gger" carries such weight as an insult due to the history of blacks in the usa, and the continued disadvantage faced by blacks (in general) in the usa. As a term of abuse, "cracker" doesn't carry much weight at all. You can't really compare the two, in terms of the raw strength of emotional power each term of abuse carries.

Originally posted by: DaShen
It is freaking ridiculous. Your logic is confounded by your own bias.

I understand that black have made the word mean something different over the years to OWN the word instead of it owning you, but this just adds to the division and racial/social inequality you so expound on. Also, in the posts someone pointed out the flaw in yor logic that somehow it is okay for a black man to call a white man "cracker, "whitebread"... And again you post about racial inequality.

Um, where did I say it was OK for a black man to call a white man "cracker"? Please copy and paste the parts of my posts where I said that.

Originally posted by: DaShen
Take some G-d Dang responsibility for G-d's sake. Not only does treating the word n@#$@ differently divide races, but using the word "cracker" and "whitebread", and making it socially acceptable to use for blacks because of "racial inequality" is just as divisive.

Case and point: I can't type n$%@# without commenting it out, but I can write "cracker" without it. Talk about social inequality,

"N*gger" is a more offensive term than "cracker" in our society. This isn't a "double standard" - it is just reality, and it can be traced to the history of oppression of black people in the usa, and the continued disadvantaged faced by black people in general.

Originally posted by: DaShen
it is a two way street which both races, if not others as well, have added to. It isn't the white mans fault anymore, it is mostly your own. This is IMO, so I am just going by what Ryan said :roll: (both of you are being hypocrites IMHO)

It's pretty sad you can't discuss something like this without becoming abusive, or questioning my (or Ryan's) integrity.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Racism is pretty irrational, but doesn't it seem rather dangerous when you give racists some kind of tangiable reason for their hate by effectively offering a different set of rights for different groups of people? I mean...thats what affirmative action is after all. Its giving one group a few more rights than another.

Isn't that how this all got started in the first place?

One major problem with affirmative action is that it was a temporary fix that has become an institution. The point of it was to give minority groups a leg up into integrating into white society during the time when prejudice was still strong.
I believe that time is over. I am not saying that there is no more prejudice out there towards blacks (or any other minority) but I do believe that it has now hit the baseline for prejudice in our society.
As long as there are discernable differences between us, there will be prejudice. I know people that are prejudice against redheads, people with glasses, smokers, people with breast implants, whites, blacks, people with piercings or tattoos, wear a lot of makeup, who don?t wear enough makeup. Basically just about anything.
I think that you can now take just about any person and find a large group that would not hire him for a job based solely on how he looks. Let him open his mouth to speak and you will get an even larger group that will hate him instantly.

Based on this, I think that it is time to remove all incentives for minority groups. We have splintered our selves so much that we are all minoritys now.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Racism is pretty irrational, but doesn't it seem rather dangerous when you give racists some kind of tangiable reason for their hate by effectively offering a different set of rights for different groups of people? I mean...thats what affirmative action is after all. Its giving one group a few more rights than another.

Isn't that how this all got started in the first place?

One major problem with affirmative action is that it was a temporary fix that has become an institution. The point of it was to give minority groups a leg up into integrating into white society during the time when prejudice was still strong.
I believe that time is over. I am not saying that there is no more prejudice out there towards blacks (or any other minority) but I do believe that it has now hit the baseline for prejudice in our society.
As long as there are discernable differences between us, there will be prejudice. I know people that are prejudice against redheads, people with glasses, smokers, people with breast implants, whites, blacks, people with piercings or tattoos, wear a lot of makeup, who don?t wear enough makeup. Basically just about anything.
I think that you can now take just about any person and find a large group that would not hire him for a job based solely on how he looks. Let him open his mouth to speak and you will get an even larger group that will hate him instantly.

Based on this, I think that it is time to remove all incentives for minority groups. We have splintered our selves so much that we are all minoritys now.

:thumbsup:

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: jbourne77
You're gay, and ironcally, you seem to use that as some sort of shield, as if nothing you say could possibly be construed as prejudiced or biased.

I wondered how long it would take you to play the gay card.

Please. As if the "gay card" somehow negates the facts.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Amused
Many politicians and movie stars who are gun grabbers have armed guards, or even carry a gun themselves.

Which is usually where the Hitler references come from.

My opinion: Women.
This came up recently in OT, but it seems that they stopped wanting equality since the 70's. Now they want the privledges of both genders with none of the responsibility.

It saddens me to say this, but this, to some degree, is true. The funny thing is my wife is the one who so concretely stated what you just stated before I really recognized it a few years ago. I think it ticks her off more than any man I know.

My wife and I have a friend who just like that. Aspiring attorney, gawks at the idea of stay at home moms, etc... but one time her then-boyfriend asked her why she never picked up their tab...

YIKES @ the fireworks that ensued.

On a related note...why is it when I say women are better at something, all women nod in agreement...but when I say men are better at something its "holysh|t, you're sexist! women can do everything!"

Even my wife...OMG. I said to her a few months ago that I thought women make better general practice doctors IMO, because they are more nuturing and have better attention and pickup of details on the whole. She wholeheartedly agreed, even though its a statement without any kind of real backing and it just based on my personal experiences and feelings.

Then I said I thought men were better surgeons because they're better at focusing on one thing, often have big egos (which I think it almost a required trait for a surgeon), and usually have better spacial awareness. And oh, you bet I was wrong on that one. "Women have good focus". :roll: Its not the fact that she disagreed with me, its the fact it was like impossible to fathom the idea that men might be naturally better at some things...she'll even sort of fight me on the plain undeniable stuff like that men are stronger then women. "Some women are stronger than some men." Yes...but thats not even a fair comparison. Of course a female body builder is going to be stronger than a man dying of cancer.

LOL I *JUST* read a study somewhere that basically concluded, word for word, what you said above!

I have to go find that link...

 

[DaShen]

Linkify that stuff!!! :thumbsup:

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: jbourne77
You're gay, and ironcally, you seem to use that as some sort of shield, as if nothing you say could possibly be construed as prejudiced or biased.

I wondered how long it would take you to play the gay card.

Please. As if the "gay card" somehow negates the facts.

Ah, but you're not sticking to the topic of discussion, rather you're attacking the poster's personality, behaviour or integrity. This is a distraction tactic of the most pathetic kind. Shame on you.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: HumblePie
Why can soldiers die for our country and not drink beer?

Would you rather have a beer or have a say in whether you are sent to die?
Drinking is not a fundamental right of a citizen, voting is

 

[Cooler]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: HumblePie
Why can soldiers die for our country and not drink beer?

Would you rather have a beer or have a say in whether you are sent to die?
Drinking is not a fundamental right of a citizen, voting is

There should be one AGE not 21 and 18 .

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: jbourne77
You're gay, and ironcally, you seem to use that as some sort of shield, as if nothing you say could possibly be construed as prejudiced or biased.

I wondered how long it would take you to play the gay card.

Please. As if the "gay card" somehow negates the facts.

Ah, but you're not sticking to the topic of discussion, rather you're attacking the poster's personality, behaviour or integrity. This is a distraction tactic of the most pathetic kind. Shame on you.

Yeah, shame on me for using a poster's previous track record and posts on a public forum for discrediting his "arguments", if you can call them that.

*GAG*

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Cooler

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: HumblePie
Why can soldiers die for our country and not drink beer?

Would you rather have a beer or have a say in whether you are sent to die?
Drinking is not a fundamental right of a citizen, voting is

There should be one AGE not 21 and 18 .

states can choose what their drinking age is. In doing so, however, they don't receive money from the federal government for road projects and the like (dept. of highway safety/transportation admin i think) if the drinking age is under 21.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DaShen
What we are discussing has nothing to do with social inequality. I know that there isn't social equality, but that doesn't give the minorities a right to bash the majority.

Where did anyone say that social inequality gives the minority a moral or other type of right to bash the majority?

Read through the posts again. You responded exactly on that argument there.

I said it is not a double standard. It isn't a double standard because the two situations cannot reasonably be considered equivalent. I did not say it was acceptable or OK for anyone to abuse anyone else.

Originally posted by: DaShen
That somehow it is different when a black guy say n#$%@ and a white guy says it. And then when someone posted as to ask why it is different, you begin to point out the social inequality in the situation.

Social inequality is relevant. "N*gger" carries such weight as an insult due to the history of blacks in the usa, and the continued disadvantage faced by blacks (in general) in the usa. As a term of abuse, "cracker" doesn't carry much weight at all. You can't really compare the two, in terms of the raw strength of emotional power each term of abuse carries.

Originally posted by: DaShen
It is freaking ridiculous. Your logic is confounded by your own bias.

I understand that black have made the word mean something different over the years to OWN the word instead of it owning you, but this just adds to the division and racial/social inequality you so expound on. Also, in the posts someone pointed out the flaw in yor logic that somehow it is okay for a black man to call a white man "cracker, "whitebread"... And again you post about racial inequality.

Um, where did I say it was OK for a black man to call a white man "cracker"? Please copy and paste the parts of my posts where I said that.

Originally posted by: DaShen
Take some G-d Dang responsibility for G-d's sake. Not only does treating the word n@#$@ differently divide races, but using the word "cracker" and "whitebread", and making it socially acceptable to use for blacks because of "racial inequality" is just as divisive.

Case and point: I can't type n$%@# without commenting it out, but I can write "cracker" without it. Talk about social inequality,

"N*gger" is a more offensive term than "cracker" in our society. This isn't a "double standard" - it is just reality, and it can be traced to the history of oppression of black people in the usa, and the continued disadvantaged faced by black people in general.

Originally posted by: DaShen
it is a two way street which both races, if not others as well, have added to. It isn't the white mans fault anymore, it is mostly your own. This is IMO, so I am just going by what Ryan said :roll: (both of you are being hypocrites IMHO)

It's pretty sad you can't discuss something like this without becoming abusive, or questioning my (or Ryan's) integrity.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Social inequality is relevant. "N*gger" carries such weight as an insult due to the history of blacks in the usa, and the continued disadvantage faced by blacks (in general) in the usa. As a term of abuse, "cracker" doesn't carry much weight at all. You can't really compare the two, in terms of the raw strength of emotional power each term of abuse carries.

It's pretty sad you can't discuss something like this without becoming abusive, or questioning my (or Ryan's) integrity.

You just posted it in the same post hypocrite. You rationalized the use of "cracker" over the use of n&*(#$^ in the same post. You p0wned yourself. You also answered any questions from before about this issue by stating that there is racial inequality, like it justifies the use of the word.

And your posts have all been degrading themselves.

Case & Point: Look at my history of posting to people. I don't talk down to people unless they have acted like complete asshats. I can easily find thread locked and you banned because you acted like an asshat. Your posts tend to lean toward race for some reason when it never has to. Look at yourself man. Again, as I said, take some personal responsibility for social inequality instead of blaming it on whites, and people will take you more seriously.

You point out that this thread is becoming like P&N, you are the only one who brought it up to that level hypocrite. You are also the one who keeps bringing it up. STFU. This is my last post on this subject, so if you keep posting on it, that is your perogative, but no one will be listening.

hypocrite - someone who says one thing and does another thing.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: DaShenThis is my last post on this subject

I gave up on him when I realized he didn't understand the difference between denotation and connotation.

Oh well!

 

[BriGy86]

marked for later, i have to go to work

 

[TStep]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: TStep

Originally posted by: Reck
PETA. claim they are against euthanizing animals while doing it themselves.

Over 10,000 last time I read. If PETA were successful in their campaign, what would become of all the domesticated animals? Would PETA then turn their efforts to reeducating all of the worlds carnivorous animals to make nice-nice to each other?

um, where does PETA claim they are "against euthanasia", in general? I'm interested to see a link. PETAis broadly interested in animal welfare and moreso animal rights. specifically they are against animal cruelty. in some situations euthanasia is the kindest option. certainly it is more kind than allowing animals to starve to death, or die a lingering death from disease.

I checked the PETA website and you are correct, they are not against euthenasia at all. As a matter of fact it seems like they are strongly in favor of it to the tune of 80%. So at $25-$30 mil per year budget they effectively transplant 300-400 animals and euthanize 1900-2200. Average operating cost per animal about $10,000. Would the cost to liberate, then euthanize, the 95mil head of cattle be feasible or even reasonable? About a trillion +/- a few hundred billion $$ depending on their efficiency?

We all have our own definition of cruelty, and getting back on topic, PETA fall in what I consider an extremist group as originally stated. Calling for the just treatment of animals, animal rights, or whatever the campaign doctrine is, then euthanizing 80%, is a double standard in my book. I'm going to unilaterally agree to disagree with you on this one..../rant.

 

[PHiuR]

atot?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DaShen
What we are discussing has nothing to do with social inequality. I know that there isn't social equality, but that doesn't give the minorities a right to bash the majority.

Where did anyone say that social inequality gives the minority a moral or other type of right to bash the majority?

Read through the posts again. You responded exactly on that argument there.

I said it is not a double standard. It isn't a double standard because the two situations cannot reasonably be considered equivalent. I did not say it was acceptable or OK for anyone to abuse anyone else.

Originally posted by: DaShen
That somehow it is different when a black guy say n#$%@ and a white guy says it. And then when someone posted as to ask why it is different, you begin to point out the social inequality in the situation.

Social inequality is relevant. "N*gger" carries such weight as an insult due to the history of blacks in the usa, and the continued disadvantage faced by blacks (in general) in the usa. As a term of abuse, "cracker" doesn't carry much weight at all. You can't really compare the two, in terms of the raw strength of emotional power each term of abuse carries.

Originally posted by: DaShen
It is freaking ridiculous. Your logic is confounded by your own bias.

I understand that black have made the word mean something different over the years to OWN the word instead of it owning you, but this just adds to the division and racial/social inequality you so expound on. Also, in the posts someone pointed out the flaw in yor logic that somehow it is okay for a black man to call a white man "cracker, "whitebread"... And again you post about racial inequality.

Um, where did I say it was OK for a black man to call a white man "cracker"? Please copy and paste the parts of my posts where I said that.

Originally posted by: DaShen
Take some G-d Dang responsibility for G-d's sake. Not only does treating the word n@#$@ differently divide races, but using the word "cracker" and "whitebread", and making it socially acceptable to use for blacks because of "racial inequality" is just as divisive.

Case and point: I can't type n$%@# without commenting it out, but I can write "cracker" without it. Talk about social inequality,

"N*gger" is a more offensive term than "cracker" in our society. This isn't a "double standard" - it is just reality, and it can be traced to the history of oppression of black people in the usa, and the continued disadvantaged faced by black people in general.

Originally posted by: DaShen
it is a two way street which both races, if not others as well, have added to. It isn't the white mans fault anymore, it is mostly your own. This is IMO, so I am just going by what Ryan said :roll: (both of you are being hypocrites IMHO)

It's pretty sad you can't discuss something like this without becoming abusive, or questioning my (or Ryan's) integrity.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Social inequality is relevant. "N*gger" carries such weight as an insult due to the history of blacks in the usa, and the continued disadvantage faced by blacks (in general) in the usa. As a term of abuse, "cracker" doesn't carry much weight at all. You can't really compare the two, in terms of the raw strength of emotional power each term of abuse carries.

It's pretty sad you can't discuss something like this without becoming abusive, or questioning my (or Ryan's) integrity.

You just posted it in the same post hypocrite.

No, I didn't.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
You rationalized the use of "cracker" over the use of n&*(#$^ in the same post.

Well, no. I didn't, actually. I pointed out that "N*gger" holds more of an emotional punch than "cracker". That is hardly an endorsement or recommendation for the use of "cracker".

Originally posted by: aidanjm
You p0wned yourself. You also answered any questions from before about this issue by stating that there is racial inequality, like it justifies the use of the word.

What?

Originally posted by: aidanjm
And your posts have all been degrading themselves.

How so?

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Case & Point: Look at my history of posting to people. I don't talk down to people unless they have acted like complete asshats. I can easily find thread locked and you banned because you acted like an asshat. Your posts tend to lean toward race for some reason when it never has to. Look at yourself man.

Apparently you are unable to stay on topic. Rather, you feel the need to discuss... ME. Actually, I'm not that interested in talking about myself in this thread. I'd rather talk about the topic of this thread.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Again, as I said, take some personal responsibility for social inequality instead of blaming it on whites, and people will take you more seriously.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
You point out that this thread is becoming like P&N, you are the only one who brought it up to that level hypocrite.

Well, it is becoming like P&N because people are stooping to personal abuse. Specifically, you are stooping to personal comments, which are irrelevant to the thread topic. Apparently you are unable to discuss with someone who disagrees with you, without getting angry and calling names. So sad.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
You are also the one who keeps bringing it up.

Um, I've been calmly expressing my own viewpoint. Apparently that makes you angry, leading to some rather irrational name-calling on your part.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
STFU.

Lol. Well, no, actually, I won't be STFU-ing. I'll be continuing to express my opinions on various topics. Feel free to offer cogent objections to my POV, if you are up to that.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
This is my last post on this subject, so if you keep posting on it, that is your perogative, but no one will be listening.

That's OK.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
hypocrite - someone who says one thing and does another thing.

More personal abuse and name calling?

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Amused
Many politicians and movie stars who are gun grabbers have armed guards, or even carry a gun themselves.

Which is usually where the Hitler references come from.

My opinion: Women.
This came up recently in OT, but it seems that they stopped wanting equality since the 70's. Now they want the privledges of both genders with none of the responsibility.

It saddens me to say this, but this, to some degree, is true. The funny thing is my wife is the one who so concretely stated what you just stated before I really recognized it a few years ago. I think it ticks her off more than any man I know.

My wife and I have a friend who just like that. Aspiring attorney, gawks at the idea of stay at home moms, etc... but one time her then-boyfriend asked her why she never picked up their tab...

YIKES @ the fireworks that ensued.

On a related note...why is it when I say women are better at something, all women nod in agreement...but when I say men are better at something its "holysh|t, you're sexist! women can do everything!"

Even my wife...OMG. I said to her a few months ago that I thought women make better general practice doctors IMO, because they are more nuturing and have better attention and pickup of details on the whole. She wholeheartedly agreed, even though its a statement without any kind of real backing and it just based on my personal experiences and feelings.

Then I said I thought men were better surgeons because they're better at focusing on one thing, often have big egos (which I think it almost a required trait for a surgeon), and usually have better spacial awareness. And oh, you bet I was wrong on that one. "Women have good focus". :roll: Its not the fact that she disagreed with me, its the fact it was like impossible to fathom the idea that men might be naturally better at some things...she'll even sort of fight me on the plain undeniable stuff like that men are stronger then women. "Some women are stronger than some men." Yes...but thats not even a fair comparison. Of course a female body builder is going to be stronger than a man dying of cancer.

LOL I *JUST* read a study somewhere that basically concluded, word for word, what you said above!

I have to go find that link...

So did you find the link

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Cooler

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: HumblePie
Why can soldiers die for our country and not drink beer?

Would you rather have a beer or have a say in whether you are sent to die?
Drinking is not a fundamental right of a citizen, voting is

There should be one AGE not 21 and 18 .

states can choose what their drinking age is. In doing so, however, they don't receive money from the federal government for road projects and the like (dept. of highway safety/transportation admin i think) if the drinking age is under 21.

Which isn't really a choice at all of course.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: TStep

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: TStep

Originally posted by: Reck
PETA. claim they are against euthanizing animals while doing it themselves.

Over 10,000 last time I read. If PETA were successful in their campaign, what would become of all the domesticated animals? Would PETA then turn their efforts to reeducating all of the worlds carnivorous animals to make nice-nice to each other?

um, where does PETA claim they are "against euthanasia", in general? I'm interested to see a link. PETAis broadly interested in animal welfare and moreso animal rights. specifically they are against animal cruelty. in some situations euthanasia is the kindest option. certainly it is more kind than allowing animals to starve to death, or die a lingering death from disease.

I checked the PETA website and you are correct, they are not against euthenasia at all. As a matter of fact it seems like they are strongly in favor of it to the tune of 80%. So at $25-$30 mil per year budget they effectively transplant 300-400 animals and euthanize 1900-2200. Average operating cost per animal about $10,000.

How are you calculating that $10000 figure?

That 25-30 million would predominently be used for public education campaigns, I would guess. PETA's primary mission is certainly not caring for stray or unwanted pets.

Originally posted by: TStep
Would the cost to liberate, then euthanize, the 95mil head of cattle be feasible or even reasonable? About a trillion +/- a few hundred billion $$ depending on their efficiency?

Do you have evidence PETA advocates that the entire meat industry must be shut down over-night, with all cattle to be euthanazed? Your scenario is what is unreasonable, I'd say. PETA hopes to educate the public on the appalling conditions that livestock are subject to, thereby gradually reducing the demand for meat products. This is not an overnight project, it is a long term project. There will be no large scale culling of beef cattle.

Originally posted by: TStep
We all have our own definition of cruelty,

A quick injection, given to a homeless or stray cat, is not cruel, imo.

OTOH, keeping a hen trapped in a small cage, barely larger than the hen itself, in an environment where the hen becomes so neurotic and mentally deranged that it would actually peck other hens to death (if its beak hadn't been chopped off).. fed a diet so deficient in certain nutrients and given forced to grow so quickly that its legs become deformed and are unable to support the hen's weight... well, that is cruelty, imo.

Originally posted by: TStep
and getting back on topic, PETA fall in what I consider an extremist group as originally stated.

I don't see PETA as an extremist group. They are characterized that way, by people such as yourself, but it isn't a reasonable characterisation imo.

Originally posted by: TStep
Calling for the just treatment of animals, animal rights, or whatever the campaign doctrine is, then euthanizing 80%, is a double standard in my book. I'm going to unilaterally agree to disagree with you on this one..../rant.

Euthanasia isn't painful when done correctly. The animal doesn't suffer. PETA is not inflicting unbearable suffering on those animals. Rather, they are giving then a decent, painless death - which is more than you can say for many of the a$$holes who farm livestock such as cattle and chickens for a living.