The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Don't get me wrong, I love eating meat and I'm not going to stop.
But I might start avoiding KFC a little more.
[URL]http://www.peta.org/[/URL] Check out Pammie's video. It's explicit, and there were quite a few scenes that really sickened and shocked me.
I like PETA's methods, but I still don't think about becoming a vegetarian. Animal cruelty, however, is a different subject.
But I might start avoiding KFC a little more.
[URL]http://www.peta.org/[/URL] Check out Pammie's video. It's explicit, and there were quite a few scenes that really sickened and shocked me.
I like PETA's methods, but I still don't think about becoming a vegetarian. Animal cruelty, however, is a different subject.
Page:
I haven't watched the thing... mainly as I don't want to be lectured on by bloody Pamela Anderson.
Let me guess... they have no room to 'run free' before they are brutally kileld and made finger licking good?
All this rubbish about decent conditions about killing them is stupid. They're bred to be killed... harsh but true. I love chicken, yum yum.
I don't wat at fast foods places because the food is rubbish and I'm far more concerned about the corporations... such as McDonalds destroying the rain forrests and native farmers to make way for their cattle.
Pffft Pamela Andreson, give us a break.
Let me guess... they have no room to 'run free' before they are brutally kileld and made finger licking good?
All this rubbish about decent conditions about killing them is stupid. They're bred to be killed... harsh but true. I love chicken, yum yum.
I don't wat at fast foods places because the food is rubbish and I'm far more concerned about the corporations... such as McDonalds destroying the rain forrests and native farmers to make way for their cattle.
Pffft Pamela Andreson, give us a break.
Christ Almighty, you really are one of those folks that need explaining to again and again. Round 457:
Grix Thraves wrote:
>
> I'm not ignoring you here, I'm just questioning your belief. The
> morals of not killing something because we should promote all life
> would apply IF we weren't eating them. As we ARE, we can eliminate
> that by saying we actually ARE promoting life by using them for
> energy. Didn't you ever watch the Lion King? We become the grass,
> Simba.
Like, in just my last post I said it was neccessary. So the point of the above was...?
>
> I think what's confusing me is how plainly black and white you're
> making this. Killing is wrong! etc, unless it's for food and
> surivival etc etc BUT KILLING IS WRONG! Bigger picture etc. I think
> the discussion for justice is over wherever the reason is
> justifiable, and then that outrules the killing. Maybe it's actually
> the mindset that all killing is wrong that's bizarre? But maybe
> that's me.
Aww, your mindset is so closed you can't even see it. Hell, you're having difficulty changing it now to see my views while others wuld have gone "Ohhh, I see" five posts ago. Ever the patient teacher, let's try a different way. Seperate the ideas of killing and the morality for them to give them an OK life before they do. Then mix them together... the two ethics aren't exactly compatible.
>
> "It's like lowering the temperature of a room from 274C to 260C.
> Result is still the same (burnt room in this case), but it seems less
> bad on paper and to how we feel about it."
>
> ..no, you've completely lost me here. I'm enjoying your examples
> though. I would have said something more along the lines of
> "It's like killing a chicken to eat it in comparison to randomly
> stabbing someone in the head."
>
Damn Grix, S_L_O_W.
>
> "Er...no. If that's your thinking, then there would probably be
> several outer boxes as well. Thinking outside the main, conventional
> one is what I was indicating."
>
> ...ok, never mind. Have fun with your maze of walls and I'll sit in
> my big box and play games.
Heh, you were the one coming up with walls and stuff. Go figure buddy.
>
>
> Okey doke, nothing to say there.
Yet... you did?
>
>
> Oh no, not just because you posted tons and tons of stuff over and
> over again, I mean, that's just silly. But if we think a little
> deeper than that, it kinda appears, now point me out here again, that
> you were trying to increase your word count... as if it even
> mattered?
>
> And to think that your word count matters, at all, especially
> considering it was all made up from a ton of crap and rules you
> posted from other forums... no, that's not narrow minded, you really
> are an ass.
Again, it's you close minded view that because of one (though made up of sevral similar) acts you're thinking like that; are you so quick to dismiss a person you've seen around in a community (say a club you regularly attend) just because they went a little mad for a while? Nope. Unless you're narrow minded of course.
>
> And you're defending yourself of spamming and cheating of boosting
> your word count by 'it's out of the way'? Are you sure you just
> didn't want anyone to find it? In that case, why didn't you just
> start a topic saying "Hey everyone, I think it's pretty
> important to have a high word count and hopefully it'll make me seem
> really cool, so I'm going to use the topic to dump all sorts of
> rubbish in, no need to reply, thanks"
As you shold know, word counts are a good thing. Hence I treasure it with all my life. Hell, I'm sure it's on your resume.
>
> I'm sure you would have got a lot of support. Well done for getting
> all those words, I'm sure people will vote for you now!
Vote... for me? Ho ho ho, I'm surprised you stooped that low. Perspective alert.... it's a forum. Online. You seem as if you actually care what goes on around here. Deeply.
>
> "Nah, it'll be a day trip and then some."
>
> No, seriously, am I contradicting myself here?
As i said, need looking into.
Grix Thraves wrote:
>
> I'm not ignoring you here, I'm just questioning your belief. The
> morals of not killing something because we should promote all life
> would apply IF we weren't eating them. As we ARE, we can eliminate
> that by saying we actually ARE promoting life by using them for
> energy. Didn't you ever watch the Lion King? We become the grass,
> Simba.
Like, in just my last post I said it was neccessary. So the point of the above was...?
>
> I think what's confusing me is how plainly black and white you're
> making this. Killing is wrong! etc, unless it's for food and
> surivival etc etc BUT KILLING IS WRONG! Bigger picture etc. I think
> the discussion for justice is over wherever the reason is
> justifiable, and then that outrules the killing. Maybe it's actually
> the mindset that all killing is wrong that's bizarre? But maybe
> that's me.
Aww, your mindset is so closed you can't even see it. Hell, you're having difficulty changing it now to see my views while others wuld have gone "Ohhh, I see" five posts ago. Ever the patient teacher, let's try a different way. Seperate the ideas of killing and the morality for them to give them an OK life before they do. Then mix them together... the two ethics aren't exactly compatible.
>
> "It's like lowering the temperature of a room from 274C to 260C.
> Result is still the same (burnt room in this case), but it seems less
> bad on paper and to how we feel about it."
>
> ..no, you've completely lost me here. I'm enjoying your examples
> though. I would have said something more along the lines of
> "It's like killing a chicken to eat it in comparison to randomly
> stabbing someone in the head."
>
Damn Grix, S_L_O_W.
>
> "Er...no. If that's your thinking, then there would probably be
> several outer boxes as well. Thinking outside the main, conventional
> one is what I was indicating."
>
> ...ok, never mind. Have fun with your maze of walls and I'll sit in
> my big box and play games.
Heh, you were the one coming up with walls and stuff. Go figure buddy.
>
>
> Okey doke, nothing to say there.
Yet... you did?
>
>
> Oh no, not just because you posted tons and tons of stuff over and
> over again, I mean, that's just silly. But if we think a little
> deeper than that, it kinda appears, now point me out here again, that
> you were trying to increase your word count... as if it even
> mattered?
>
> And to think that your word count matters, at all, especially
> considering it was all made up from a ton of crap and rules you
> posted from other forums... no, that's not narrow minded, you really
> are an ass.
Again, it's you close minded view that because of one (though made up of sevral similar) acts you're thinking like that; are you so quick to dismiss a person you've seen around in a community (say a club you regularly attend) just because they went a little mad for a while? Nope. Unless you're narrow minded of course.
>
> And you're defending yourself of spamming and cheating of boosting
> your word count by 'it's out of the way'? Are you sure you just
> didn't want anyone to find it? In that case, why didn't you just
> start a topic saying "Hey everyone, I think it's pretty
> important to have a high word count and hopefully it'll make me seem
> really cool, so I'm going to use the topic to dump all sorts of
> rubbish in, no need to reply, thanks"
As you shold know, word counts are a good thing. Hence I treasure it with all my life. Hell, I'm sure it's on your resume.
>
> I'm sure you would have got a lot of support. Well done for getting
> all those words, I'm sure people will vote for you now!
Vote... for me? Ho ho ho, I'm surprised you stooped that low. Perspective alert.... it's a forum. Online. You seem as if you actually care what goes on around here. Deeply.
>
> "Nah, it'll be a day trip and then some."
>
> No, seriously, am I contradicting myself here?
As i said, need looking into.
Ok, now I'm confused...
I was under the impression that KFC was in fact CAT, not Chicken?
I was under the impression that KFC was in fact CAT, not Chicken?
Ok, so I'm addicted to WoW, that took a while.
Besides, I thought bashing them over the head/breaking necks IS quite humane compared to cutting/kicking/beating them to death. Aiming for the main parts that will kill them quickly, that seems alright.
Anyway, God, here we go.
lcarus wrote:
"As said before (you really do need to have that checked) it's a neccessary part of life; an evil that has to be done. So, killing is immoral in the "promote all life" aspect; on the other hand, it is justifiable because we need the grub."
I'm not ignoring you here, I'm just questioning your belief. The morals of not killing something because we should promote all life would apply IF we weren't eating them. As we ARE, we can eliminate that by saying we actually ARE promoting life by using them for energy. Didn't you ever watch the Lion King? We become the grass, Simba.
The jist of it is, hurting and killing for no good reason (is there ever a good reason for hurting someone apart from trying to get information out of them and maybe getting your own back at your ex?) and killing for a reason of survival are two different things and I find it difficult to see how it's bizarre to compare them.
"It's the sheer cheek of the two sides of humanity that I find strange."
"That was my quote by the way. As in, we're already doing some evil (killing), but at the same time we're thinking of making it less "evil"?"
I think what's confusing me is how plainly black and white you're making this. Killing is wrong! etc, unless it's for food and surivival etc etc BUT KILLING IS WRONG! Bigger picture etc. I think the discussion for justice is over wherever the reason is justifiable, and then that outrules the killing. Maybe it's actually the mindset that all killing is wrong that's bizarre? But maybe that's me.
"It's like lowering the temperature of a room from 274C to 260C. Result is still the same (burnt room in this case), but it seems less bad on paper and to how we feel about it."
..no, you've completely lost me here. I'm enjoying your examples though. I would have said something more along the lines of "It's like killing a chicken to eat it in comparison to randomly stabbing someone in the head."
Yeah, bizarre.
"Er...no. If that's your thinking, then there would probably be several outer boxes as well. Thinking outside the main, conventional one is what I was indicating."
...ok, never mind. Have fun with your maze of walls and I'll sit in my big box and play games.
"Aye, I appreciate that. I never said that I wanted this cruelty to continue, remember; I was making a sideline issue into a discussion. Because I was swaying towards the "let's leave it as it is" mindset in my other points is not saying I don't want standards to be held."
Okey doke, nothing to say there.
"You think so just because I posted that stuff? Kinda narrow minded for you. :S I posted there so it would be secret, out of the way even from the messy Gen Chat. It would have stayed that way too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids... or goth boy even. It was then everybody knew."
Oh no, not just because you posted tons and tons of stuff over and over again, I mean, that's just silly. But if we think a little deeper than that, it kinda appears, now point me out here again, that you were trying to increase your word count... as if it even mattered?
And to think that your word count matters, at all, especially considering it was all made up from a ton of crap and rules you posted from other forums... no, that's not narrow minded, you really are an ass.
And you're defending yourself of spamming and cheating of boosting your word count by 'it's out of the way'? Are you sure you just didn't want anyone to find it? In that case, why didn't you just start a topic saying "Hey everyone, I think it's pretty important to have a high word count and hopefully it'll make me seem really cool, so I'm going to use the topic to dump all sorts of rubbish in, no need to reply, thanks"
I'm sure you would have got a lot of support. Well done for getting all those words, I'm sure people will vote for you now!
But that's got nothing to do with this, so whatever. There's not really going to be a way of convincing me you're not really, really dull for doing that.
"Nah, it'll be a day trip and then some."
No, seriously, am I contradicting myself here?
Anyway, God, here we go.
lcarus wrote:
"As said before (you really do need to have that checked) it's a neccessary part of life; an evil that has to be done. So, killing is immoral in the "promote all life" aspect; on the other hand, it is justifiable because we need the grub."
I'm not ignoring you here, I'm just questioning your belief. The morals of not killing something because we should promote all life would apply IF we weren't eating them. As we ARE, we can eliminate that by saying we actually ARE promoting life by using them for energy. Didn't you ever watch the Lion King? We become the grass, Simba.
The jist of it is, hurting and killing for no good reason (is there ever a good reason for hurting someone apart from trying to get information out of them and maybe getting your own back at your ex?) and killing for a reason of survival are two different things and I find it difficult to see how it's bizarre to compare them.
"It's the sheer cheek of the two sides of humanity that I find strange."
"That was my quote by the way. As in, we're already doing some evil (killing), but at the same time we're thinking of making it less "evil"?"
I think what's confusing me is how plainly black and white you're making this. Killing is wrong! etc, unless it's for food and surivival etc etc BUT KILLING IS WRONG! Bigger picture etc. I think the discussion for justice is over wherever the reason is justifiable, and then that outrules the killing. Maybe it's actually the mindset that all killing is wrong that's bizarre? But maybe that's me.
"It's like lowering the temperature of a room from 274C to 260C. Result is still the same (burnt room in this case), but it seems less bad on paper and to how we feel about it."
..no, you've completely lost me here. I'm enjoying your examples though. I would have said something more along the lines of "It's like killing a chicken to eat it in comparison to randomly stabbing someone in the head."
Yeah, bizarre.
"Er...no. If that's your thinking, then there would probably be several outer boxes as well. Thinking outside the main, conventional one is what I was indicating."
...ok, never mind. Have fun with your maze of walls and I'll sit in my big box and play games.
"Aye, I appreciate that. I never said that I wanted this cruelty to continue, remember; I was making a sideline issue into a discussion. Because I was swaying towards the "let's leave it as it is" mindset in my other points is not saying I don't want standards to be held."
Okey doke, nothing to say there.
"You think so just because I posted that stuff? Kinda narrow minded for you. :S I posted there so it would be secret, out of the way even from the messy Gen Chat. It would have stayed that way too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids... or goth boy even. It was then everybody knew."
Oh no, not just because you posted tons and tons of stuff over and over again, I mean, that's just silly. But if we think a little deeper than that, it kinda appears, now point me out here again, that you were trying to increase your word count... as if it even mattered?
And to think that your word count matters, at all, especially considering it was all made up from a ton of crap and rules you posted from other forums... no, that's not narrow minded, you really are an ass.
And you're defending yourself of spamming and cheating of boosting your word count by 'it's out of the way'? Are you sure you just didn't want anyone to find it? In that case, why didn't you just start a topic saying "Hey everyone, I think it's pretty important to have a high word count and hopefully it'll make me seem really cool, so I'm going to use the topic to dump all sorts of rubbish in, no need to reply, thanks"
I'm sure you would have got a lot of support. Well done for getting all those words, I'm sure people will vote for you now!
But that's got nothing to do with this, so whatever. There's not really going to be a way of convincing me you're not really, really dull for doing that.
"Nah, it'll be a day trip and then some."
No, seriously, am I contradicting myself here?
Reminds me of Worms...
Explosives! Boom
Gassing them.
Grix Thraves wrote:
> But of course it's not savage to kill animals to stop the spread of
> disease etc, but the WAY that they're killed is, that's what I mean.
> Survival is one thing, but going about it a bit heavy handed is a bit
> naughty.
Well what do you suggest. It's not like poverty stricken people have lethal injections or anything. The only way to kill them is probably to bash them over the head with a big rock or break their necks. What do you suggest in the way of "humane" killing?
> But of course it's not savage to kill animals to stop the spread of
> disease etc, but the WAY that they're killed is, that's what I mean.
> Survival is one thing, but going about it a bit heavy handed is a bit
> naughty.
Well what do you suggest. It's not like poverty stricken people have lethal injections or anything. The only way to kill them is probably to bash them over the head with a big rock or break their necks. What do you suggest in the way of "humane" killing?
Grix Thraves wrote:
> lcarus wrote:
>
>
> "For example, place yourself stealing money from your parents
> and then asking them for more money. It's the sheer cheek of the two
> sides of humanity that I find strange."
>
> That's a rather confusing example in the context you're trying to
> give. I'm assuming here that the stealing is the immoral and the
> asking is the moral? Or are they both immoral? I thought you were
> saying killing something is immoral? At least, as Mr Putting Words in
> Your Mouth here, it seems that way, as you're saying that putting a
> morality side to it is bizarre.
As said before (you really do need to have that checked) it's a neccessary part of life; an evil that has to be done. So, killing is immoral in the "promote all life" aspect; on the other hand, it is justifiable because we need the grub.
"It's the sheer cheek of the two sides of humanity that I find strange."
That was my quote by the way. As in, we're already doing some evil (killing), but at the same time we're thinking of making it less "evil"? It's like lowering the temperature of a room from 274C to 260C. Result is still the same (burnt room in this case), but it seems less bad on paper and to how we feel about it.
>
> Ok, about "thinking outside the box".
>
> The reason I think it's stupid is because of the assumption that it's
> 'the' box and the one and only one. That suddenly, there's no
> limitations on your thought processes and you have an open mind!
Er...no. If that's your thinking, then there would probably be several outer boxes as well. Thinking outside the main, conventional one is what I was indicating.
>
> Having an open mind is no more than illusion. Of course some of us
> are going to be more open minded than others, but I'm sure even
> Buddha wasn't truly open minded. To say we can possible escape from
> the 'box' is ridiculous, it can't happen. We can push ourselves, we
> can open the box -wider- but we can't go outside. Just increase the
> space inside. That's why I find it stupid.
Yeah.... rambling on now.
>
> "Again, of course there isn't. Shame it's not what I said. Ifyou
> genuinely, subconciously even, cared - then can you say you've given
> thought to how every animal you've eaten was killed and prepared
> beforehand?"
>
> Nope. Being naive doesn't mean you don't care, or even if your mind
> slips from some of the more important things.. Our brains just aren't
> powerful enough, too many voices and we'd all go insane. We're not
> designed to think constantly about every little detail.
>
> That doesn't mean we don't care. It doesn't make it bizarre, and it
> doesn't make it ironic either. It means, with our quite pathetic
> little minds, we're able to make some sort of distinction, at one
> point or another, that what is going on is BAD. Those that care don't
> think about it constantly, that's just stupid. But they may make an
> effort to change what's going on, even if it is just a small protest
> and not eating at certain places that they know are doing baaaad
> things to animals.
Aye, I appreciate that. I never said that I wanted this cruelty to continue, remember; I was making a sideline issue into a discussion. Because I was swaying towards the "let's leave it as it is" mindset in my other points is not saying I don't want standards to be held.
>
> "Ugh. How to be a pri ck 101. There was no need for that at
> all."
>
>
> Haha, sorry, it was honestly a joke, it wasn't meant to upset you.
> Seriously, there are no hard feelings here, I only think you're an
> ass because of all the crap you posted in the secret forums, but this
> isn't a personal attack, I promise, it's just your viewpoint on a few
> things I find a little confusing. If I'm repeating myself,
> contradicting, point me out, I tend to do that occasionally.
You think so just because I posted that stuff? Kinda narrow minded for you. :S I posted there so it would be secret, out of the way even from the messy Gen Chat. It would have stayed that way too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids... or goth boy even. It was then everybody knew.
> If I'm repeating myself, contradicting, point me out, I tend to do that occasionally.
Nah, it'll be a day trip and then some.
> lcarus wrote:
>
>
> "For example, place yourself stealing money from your parents
> and then asking them for more money. It's the sheer cheek of the two
> sides of humanity that I find strange."
>
> That's a rather confusing example in the context you're trying to
> give. I'm assuming here that the stealing is the immoral and the
> asking is the moral? Or are they both immoral? I thought you were
> saying killing something is immoral? At least, as Mr Putting Words in
> Your Mouth here, it seems that way, as you're saying that putting a
> morality side to it is bizarre.
As said before (you really do need to have that checked) it's a neccessary part of life; an evil that has to be done. So, killing is immoral in the "promote all life" aspect; on the other hand, it is justifiable because we need the grub.
"It's the sheer cheek of the two sides of humanity that I find strange."
That was my quote by the way. As in, we're already doing some evil (killing), but at the same time we're thinking of making it less "evil"? It's like lowering the temperature of a room from 274C to 260C. Result is still the same (burnt room in this case), but it seems less bad on paper and to how we feel about it.
>
> Ok, about "thinking outside the box".
>
> The reason I think it's stupid is because of the assumption that it's
> 'the' box and the one and only one. That suddenly, there's no
> limitations on your thought processes and you have an open mind!
Er...no. If that's your thinking, then there would probably be several outer boxes as well. Thinking outside the main, conventional one is what I was indicating.
>
> Having an open mind is no more than illusion. Of course some of us
> are going to be more open minded than others, but I'm sure even
> Buddha wasn't truly open minded. To say we can possible escape from
> the 'box' is ridiculous, it can't happen. We can push ourselves, we
> can open the box -wider- but we can't go outside. Just increase the
> space inside. That's why I find it stupid.
Yeah.... rambling on now.
>
> "Again, of course there isn't. Shame it's not what I said. Ifyou
> genuinely, subconciously even, cared - then can you say you've given
> thought to how every animal you've eaten was killed and prepared
> beforehand?"
>
> Nope. Being naive doesn't mean you don't care, or even if your mind
> slips from some of the more important things.. Our brains just aren't
> powerful enough, too many voices and we'd all go insane. We're not
> designed to think constantly about every little detail.
>
> That doesn't mean we don't care. It doesn't make it bizarre, and it
> doesn't make it ironic either. It means, with our quite pathetic
> little minds, we're able to make some sort of distinction, at one
> point or another, that what is going on is BAD. Those that care don't
> think about it constantly, that's just stupid. But they may make an
> effort to change what's going on, even if it is just a small protest
> and not eating at certain places that they know are doing baaaad
> things to animals.
Aye, I appreciate that. I never said that I wanted this cruelty to continue, remember; I was making a sideline issue into a discussion. Because I was swaying towards the "let's leave it as it is" mindset in my other points is not saying I don't want standards to be held.
>
> "Ugh. How to be a pri ck 101. There was no need for that at
> all."
>
>
> Haha, sorry, it was honestly a joke, it wasn't meant to upset you.
> Seriously, there are no hard feelings here, I only think you're an
> ass because of all the crap you posted in the secret forums, but this
> isn't a personal attack, I promise, it's just your viewpoint on a few
> things I find a little confusing. If I'm repeating myself,
> contradicting, point me out, I tend to do that occasionally.
You think so just because I posted that stuff? Kinda narrow minded for you. :S I posted there so it would be secret, out of the way even from the messy Gen Chat. It would have stayed that way too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids... or goth boy even. It was then everybody knew.
> If I'm repeating myself, contradicting, point me out, I tend to do that occasionally.
Nah, it'll be a day trip and then some.
Page: