You couldn't hold on to a gas pumping ban, and you think you're going to manage a meat ban.
You can barely argue against grumpycatface but you think you're going to beat me on my own turf?
You lost your ban on pumping gas on your own turf, with all of whacked out Oregon backing you up, and you think you're ready to go on the offensive with a meat ban? In Texas?
Okay, little fella.
You guys can't post anything related to beef tomorrow or on any Fridays for the next two months. You fucking protestant heretics.
JohnDonne wrote:
I am not suggesting giving legislative power to chickens, but to give human society the power to regulate the behavior of humans, as we have always done.
But you just legislated the roles out of what our animals that we care for out of existence. You are advocating anarchy.
I don't understand. How is it anarchy to make a law against breeding animals for consumption, or any other purpose? Other posters call it communism, I find both characterizations inaccurate.
Let me ask you something. The horse carries us. The chicken feeds us. The pig polices. The crow kaws.what law do you propose to change the nature of the paradigm?
Okeefenokee wrote:
He is as afraid of pumping gas as he is of eating a burger. I don't know what you expected.
This is a debate forum. Address the argument, bitch.
Except you lost the argument. The vast majority of Americans are not going to abandon the normal omnivore diet for homo sapiens. I have to believe you understand this. At this point, the only way you can accomplish your goals is through coercion, and brother, we will not surrender freedoms like the choice of what we eat.
Vegans haven't lost the argument lol, the game just started, we grow more powerful each day, and food technology will only make our points even more irrefutable. This is a darwinian ideology, we are highly infectious and adaptable.
Nukedog wrote:
But you just legislated the roles out of what our animals that we care for out of existence. You are advocating anarchy.
I don't understand. How is it anarchy to make a law against breeding animals for consumption, or any other purpose? Other posters call it communism, I find both characterizations inaccurate.
Let me ask you something. The horse carries us. The chicken feeds us. The pig polices. The crow kaws.what law do you propose to change the nature of the paradigm?
The monkeys stand for honesty. Giraffes are insincere. And the elephants are kindly, but they're dumb. Orangutans are skeptical of changes in their cages. And the zookeeper is very fond of rum
JohnDonne wrote:
I don't understand. How is it anarchy to make a law against breeding animals for consumption, or any other purpose? Other posters call it communism, I find both characterizations inaccurate.
Let me ask you something. The horse carries us. The chicken feeds us. The pig polices. The crow kaws.what law do you propose to change the nature of the paradigm?
The monkeys stand for honesty. Giraffes are insincere. And the elephants are kindly, but they're dumb. Orangutans are skeptical of changes in their cages. And the zookeeper is very fond of rum
Nukedog wrote:
Let me ask you something. The horse carries us. The chicken feeds us. The pig polices. The crow kaws.what law do you propose to change the nature of the paradigm?
The monkeys stand for honesty. Giraffes are insincere. And the elephants are kindly, but they're dumb. Orangutans are skeptical of changes in their cages. And the zookeeper is very fond of rum
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
Okeefenokee wrote:
If we stopped hunting deer they would likely be wiped out by disease.
White tail have been no limit all season for years, and they are still over populated.
Deer populations can be controlled through vasectomies. That's a non-lethal alternative right there.
but what about their liberty?
Lulz. You really think I believe in one hundred percent liberty for animals at all times regardless of circumstances just because I am arguing against their wanton slaughter? That's stupid, real life has to allow for ethical trade-offs, that's true for any principle. But wait, if you think you can beat my argument, why do you have to imply that it's something it's not?
Nukedog wrote:
But you just legislated the roles out of what our animals that we care for out of existence. You are advocating anarchy.
I don't understand. How is it anarchy to make a law against breeding animals for consumption, or any other purpose? Other posters call it communism, I find both characterizations inaccurate.
Let me ask you something. The horse carries us. The chicken feeds us. The pig polices. The crow kaws.what law do you propose to change the nature of the paradigm?
By making laws against breeding animals for consumption and make the intentional killing of animals illegal?
JohnDonne wrote:
I don't understand. How is it anarchy to make a law against breeding animals for consumption, or any other purpose? Other posters call it communism, I find both characterizations inaccurate.
Let me ask you something. The horse carries us. The chicken feeds us. The pig polices. The crow kaws.what law do you propose to change the nature of the paradigm?
By making laws against breeding animals for consumption and make the intentional killing of animals illegal?
This is nonsense. You can't draw the line between industrial meat plants and farmers. You are essentially radically overthrowing the paradigm.
Look I get that there are issues here but.what you advocate leads to nothing but disaster. I too have concerns but I don't do this. Not really.
