homeisthewilderness In reply to give-me-a-name [2012-06-17 10:58:54 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

homeisthewilderness In reply to Hiaad [2012-06-05 00:43:55 +0000 UTC]

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Hiaad In reply to homeisthewilderness [2012-06-06 04:46:44 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

homeisthewilderness In reply to Ozuan [2012-04-30 23:29:32 +0000 UTC]

If I really did have a problem I would of blocked you. Oh that's right I didn't, and ignoring you since you somehow thought I wouldn't be "content to sit by and read what you said without responding, and thus I challenge you to disprove what I've said." I reserve they right to decline so battle not accepted. So no winner or loser. No need to get all crazy about it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ozuan In reply to homeisthewilderness [2012-05-01 00:24:01 +0000 UTC]

Why do you decline? It seems odd, to say the least, to rant when you want to and subsequently ignore the response. All I want right now is a counterargument.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

homeisthewilderness In reply to Ozuan [2012-05-01 00:30:21 +0000 UTC]

I reserve they right to decline. We all have the right to make our own decisions and without explanation. My stamp was just out there to make a point about idiots trying to romanticize death. You're dying people and the fact remains there is nothing humane about death.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ozuan In reply to homeisthewilderness [2012-05-01 00:38:17 +0000 UTC]

"You're dying people"? That doesn't even make sense. And I know death is inhumane, it doesn't make sense. I agreed with that.

Nobody's trying to romanticize death. The people who commented on the stamp were unanimous in our opinion that the death of animals is in many cases acceptable. You still haven't said why you removed the comments. You called it a flame war, but really, you're the only one flaming anybody.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

homeisthewilderness In reply to Ozuan [2012-05-01 00:46:15 +0000 UTC]

Dude I haven't flamed anybody, and if flamingointing out holes in you're argument, than we're all flamers. Now if you weren't acting so entitled to an explanation maybe I would talk but why should I?

It seems to me that death is acceptable as long as it is not you. Killing animals when it looks good on you and treating them with respect when it works out for you. Reminds me of another type of "aboo" that exists in the internet.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ozuan In reply to homeisthewilderness [2012-05-01 01:00:40 +0000 UTC]

No, you were flaming by swearing at everyone that disagreed with you. Of course, you hid the comments, but I remember you saying, "Lets see being a whiny fiveyearold asshole" to one of these dissenters. (By your definition of flaming, you have yet to flame me.)

Entitled to an explanation? More like if you don't explain, you'll have been proven wrong. By asking for an explanation, I'm inviting you to prove me wrong in a civilized way, instead of attempting to end conversation by yelling.

I would kill a wolf if it was eating my sheep. I would kill a man if he had murdered my mother. I would treat a wolf with respect if not for its instinctual rage. I would treat a man with respect if he had treated me similarly. So yes, I'd kill an animal if it helps me or it is just, just as I'd do with a human.

I have no idea what you're talking about with aboo, so I'll ignore that entirely.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

homeisthewilderness In reply to Ozuan [2012-05-01 01:13:32 +0000 UTC]

I wonder where the world would be if everyone had you're whole "eye for an eye logic"?

And that "whiny five-year-old" he was complaining about it because it wasn't his version of a stamp henceforth why I treated him as such.

And where was I "yelling", as I recall I am typing and not breaking the caps-lock. But I'll let you think what you want.

Technically I haven't engaged you, so no battle is being waged. It's more like the Cold War than anything with no winner or loser.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ozuan In reply to homeisthewilderness [2012-05-01 01:20:08 +0000 UTC]

It's not eye for an eye, obviously I don't kill everyone I see if they look at me funny. But with animals, one can hardly expect them to change overnight. They'll get hungry again, and then boy will I look delicious.

The fact that you called anyone a whiny five-year-old is enough. And by yelling, you should have realized how others would read your words. Specifically, with a young, angry voice.

I think you have engaged me now, indirectly at least. That makes this our Persian Gulf War.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

homeisthewilderness In reply to Ozuan [2012-05-01 01:34:57 +0000 UTC]

Dude this is the internet no one is at "war" you just choose to be.

Remember you support vigilante justice and the death penalty.

Now let me elaborate on you're whole "ZOMG-ALL-THE-ANIMALS-WANT-TO-EAT-ME!"

Take this for thought. We are able to take an atom split it and destroy half of the planet with 1 or 2 bombs. Think about it for one second............a atom smallest thing existing, split it, and cause global ruin with it. An atom smaller than a singular particle of sand. ......................................................... take it and destroy half of planet earth. Now, you want me to believe we cant outsmart a wolf in a way that we can all exist at the same time? Nope, sorry, my answer to that is, they are simply lazy. Blame the wolf because they can't talk and prove explain their case. Easy, like beating the deaf and blind person and robbing them because they can't point the finger at anyone, they can't see who did it or say anything about what happened. Nice isn't it?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ozuan In reply to homeisthewilderness [2012-05-01 01:48:59 +0000 UTC]

Dude. It was continuing your Cold War analogy. The Persian Gulf War was more of a skirmish, reaffirming the might of the Americans without ticking off the Soviets.

Vigilante justice and the death penalty are great solutions in certain situations. You continue to insinuate that I have no qualifications in who or what deserves to live and die.

Thermonuclear warheads were a necessary weapon against an indomitable foe, the Japanese. Without them, World War Two would have lasted longer and costed thousands of lives, that were spared by their use. With that scale, the problem of wolf attacks is relatively small, and thus no progress is needed. Animals attack people for basic reasons, out of hunger or territoriality; they have no need to explain themselves anyways. Besides, as I have said before, humans have created ways to separate wolves and people, like buildings and fences. Wolf attacks are no longer an issue, except in the wild.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

homeisthewilderness In reply to Ozuan [2012-05-01 02:01:17 +0000 UTC]

So your philosophy is the whole "sacrifice the few for the many"?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ozuan In reply to homeisthewilderness [2012-05-01 02:05:23 +0000 UTC]

Utilitarianism is its official name. And I can't help it if it makes sense. What do you have against it?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

homeisthewilderness In reply to Ozuan [2012-05-01 17:08:08 +0000 UTC]

Being "official" doesn't change the fact that you support violence on a massive scale.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ozuan In reply to homeisthewilderness [2012-05-02 05:12:19 +0000 UTC]

Obviously I'm going to define utilitarianism for you.

Originally theorized during the Enlightenment by philosoph Jeremy Bentham, utilitarianism is the belief that if all actions are done only after a calculation of the positive and negative consequences of the action, then humanity would be the happiest. It's a sort of ethical code.

So, let's put it to use in your original argument, that ending a dog's life is worse than letting it starve. We will do this by taking a look at the fictitious dog, Sparky. Poor Sparky has a broken paw, a missing leg, arthritis, and lung cancer. Frankly, it's a wonder he's still shuffling along. You have known Sparky for years; you remember when you were a high-schooler and he would always greet you with a chipper bark every day you came home. Now, ten years later and neither of you have aged well. Sparky coughs up blood one day, so you take him to the vet, who tells you that a more unhealthy animal he never did see. He takes off his glasses as docs are known to do, leans in close, and looks at you with hard blue eyes. He tells you that it is time to let Sparky go.

"No!" you cry. "I love Sparky! Isn't there some way we can save him?"

"I... don't know." The veterinarian sighs. "I guess there are some surgeries, but saving him is out of the question. I'd give him six months, maybe seven. But it would cost-"

"Money is not a problem. I'll do anything for Sparky. He's like my brother." You tear up a bit, but retain facial composure as you take out your checkbook with a shaky hand.

Months later, we find you on the side of the street. You're nothing. You have no money, no dog, and no respect. You've eaten up all of your life savings for that dumb dog, who died during surgery anyways. You drank away your sorrow with money you didn't have, and got angry one day and in a drunken rage, you killed a man. You've just been released from jail, and don't have a place in the damn world to turn to.

Here's where utilitarianism steps in. Back at the moment you handed the vet your checkbook, your utilitarian brain says, "Wait. This isn't looking good." You retract your arm, and think. If you let the dog live, you will go through what I have described (or at least a situation similar to it). If you let the dog go, you can make a nice grave for a small fraction of the money, and remember the good times you and Sparky had for the rest of your life.

Congratulations, utilitarianism just saved your life!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

homeisthewilderness In reply to Ozuan [2012-05-02 12:33:58 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, I think I would not support this. You know what when I moved to Alaska I had $1500 and a head full of dreams and guess what? I got to a point where I'm happy. You just think happiness is made by money.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ozuan In reply to homeisthewilderness [2012-05-02 22:55:09 +0000 UTC]

No! Utilitarianism is not about the conservation of money. It's about choosing a decision based on the least negative outcome. In my Sparky example, the best outcome leaves you with money, sure; but in the alternative, the absence of your dog is what leads to your sorrow (that, and the irony of spending so much money to save him, just for him to die anyways). Although this choice often results in the outcome that has has less negative impact on your finances, that is not the direct aim of this belief. I'm sure that even with relatively little money, as you apparently were, one can make the best out of a situation using utilitarianism.

Anyways, we've gotten sidetracked from the real problem; that is, what to do about Sparky: whether to euthanize him or pay for his surgeries. I'd like to hear your take on the Sparky example. How would you avoid euthanizing him, as you seem so keen to do, without spending massive amounts of money on a lost cause?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

homeisthewilderness In reply to Ozuan [2012-05-02 23:12:55 +0000 UTC]

Sorry, but Utilitarianism is about the "path of least resistance" or doing something only because it works out for you.

No, I wouldn't kill "Sparky", for one thing none of us can see into the future so who knows what would happen to him. You seem to be a "Future Oriented" type while unlike me my time is set in the present not the future. If this is too confusing here's a link that should clear things up.[link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ozuan In reply to homeisthewilderness [2012-05-02 23:39:00 +0000 UTC]

No, again you've misunderstood me. The path of least resistance is not always the way that a utilitarianist will turn. If it means obtaining the maximum positive out of a choice, I would gladly sacrifice time or money. However, going back to Sparky once more, I would argue against sacrificing time and money and everything else to save Sparky. Remember, the given is that Sparky is going to die. All you can do is prolong his life, with the cost for this choice growing exponentially every week. Sparky's life, like yours, mine, and those of trillions of people, animals, and plants, will come to an end. Sparky's end is sooner than you would like it to be; that is why you feel such emotion about prolonging it. You, by hoping for a miracle and his life being saved (which, mind you, is only for a relatively short time before he dies naturally anyways), would be deluding yourself and pouring money into an impossible hope.

I did watch the video you linked to, and although I disagree entirely with it, at this point I would label you a present hedonistic. You, by trying to keep Sparky and all other animals around the globe alive forever, are only helping yourself feel better. Tell me, what will you do about the animals that die at the hands of vicious predators who would tear them to shreds? You can't feed them anything that isn't meat, or train them not to kill cute little squirrels or bunnies.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

homeisthewilderness In reply to Ozuan [2012-05-03 01:29:22 +0000 UTC]

I don't think you get the fact that for one thing we as humans know what where doing, who and what it affects. Why do you think we where given a conscience and higher intelligence?

Human with guns= greed and intellect, while actual predators only kill with what they where born with. I highly doubt you came into the world with a gun, hunting tags, license to own/use a gun, and a bright orange hat? but if you did then I guess I'm wrong.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ozuan In reply to homeisthewilderness [2012-05-03 02:58:24 +0000 UTC]

Hold on, you're sounding religious now. And we agreed for the sake of the argument that we would leave religion out of this, as I'm sure you remember from my original counterargument. So on to your argument of humans and guns.

Human intelligence (and through it, guns and weapons of all kinds) is the result of intense eons of natural selection, as you claimed to be aware of in your original post. Humans have invented guns to defend themselves with, while animals lack the capacity to use tools at all, with the exception of certain types of simians. Humans that kill animals do so out of necessity; for profit, or self-use. Remember, if a man kills a cow, he uses every part of it for something, such as its hide, milk, and meat. This cannot be defined as greed; the desire for acquisition is greed, which is different from having a necessity for something, like food or water, which are both easily provided by animals.

Let me ask you, how animal-friendly are you? Do you own any leather products? By simply using the internet, you are consuming electricity, which is powered by the combustion of fossil fuels, which create poisonous and detrimental greenhouse gases that make the world less safe for animals. So at what point will you draw the line? Being on the internet, using electricity, driving a car, practically everything you do hurts an animal. Is it even possible to live without harming the environment?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

homeisthewilderness In reply to Ozuan [2012-05-03 14:51:54 +0000 UTC]

Until I say "god" then it will be religious.

It weird how you can't see the difference between intentional acts of violence. That's what is lacking. Fossil fuels is not everything and the fact remains that we did not kill those creatures, which over thousands of years turned into a fuel source. Now for me, I use natural gas lines and if you have even seen Alaska not everyone owns cars. The Alaska you are thinking of is the one with roads, but the one I see is made out of dirt.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ozuan In reply to homeisthewilderness [2012-05-08 01:34:20 +0000 UTC]

By implying that humans were gifted with intelligence, rather than supplied with it through the evolutionary process of natural selection, you made a religious allusion unacceptable in our current conversation.

The combustion of fossil fuels, deforestation, and overconsumption of animals like fish can all be considered intentional acts of violence. Humans have destroyed the process of natural selection; today, instead of packs of wolves surviving because of their own might and cunning, humans have manipulated the breeding and phenotypes of dogs and hold dog shows, in which dogs survive based on their sheen and fur patterns, rather than their ability to gather food. For these dogs, there is no freedom. They are told what and when to eat and breed, and no consideration is given to what would happen to them without humans. Still, you would support this and go against nature. This is also contradictory to your original premise, that "sadly a lot of us are like 'I want it right now![.]' w[W]ell sorry my friend[,] but again Mother n[N]ature will work things out on her own time."

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove by saying that you live in an area in Alaska that has not yet been suburbanized; the fact that you live with dirt roads means that you have to travel extensively very often, through cars or planes at low gas mileage. Tell me, how is that life green at all? You also tried to rationalize how using fossil fuels is okay; however, the problem is not that you are consuming fossil fuels, it's that to use them to create energy, combustion is necessary, which results in greenhouse gases that change the environment for the worse.

I apologize for the tardiness of this response, but I have been otherwise occupied for the past few days. Rest assured that I will be standing by for your next comment.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

homeisthewilderness In reply to Ozuan [2012-05-08 12:33:06 +0000 UTC]

You seen to be keen on being an anti-religious freak, but you haven't figured it out that I am also non-religious. Whether it was "given" or "received" our gift of higher intelligence got here somehow.

Now now, that statement was directly related to population "control" supporters nothing else so it's really not a contradiction.

Again you didn't see the whole premise of not owning a car. For me I am the biker type. What better source of re-newable energy than yourself? Yes it would be quicker to use a plane, car, or my wife's ATV but I like to enjoy they journey there.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ozuan In reply to homeisthewilderness [2012-05-09 01:58:07 +0000 UTC]

As you saw from my original reply, I am not an "anti-religious freak". I was just reminding you that I will not allow religion to be a reasonable argument by itself. (That you are non-religious surprises me though; if you are indeed an atheist, what compels you to defend animals like this?)

Population control supporters are actually benefiting the animals anyways; by keeping rabbits from overpopulating and subsequently depopulating, humans keep to a minimum the predator-prey population rise and fall.

Regardless of how you yourself travel, the fact that you live so far away from civilization means that everything you live with (your house, your bike, the foods you eat (unless it is all homegrown)) had to get to you by means of plane or truck. And that burns gas anyways. Unless, of course, you carried your house piece by piece by bike. (For the sake of brevity, I won't go into how riding a bike consumes your energy, which translates into you being more hungry.)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

homeisthewilderness In reply to Ozuan [2012-05-09 12:33:57 +0000 UTC]

"if you are indeed an atheist, what compels you to defend animals like this?"

So now every "atheist" is supposed to be some animal-killing supporter? Some of us have morals and actually care about the many creatures of this earth.

"I hold that the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man" -Mahamata Gandhi

"The greatness of a nation and it's moral progress can be judged by the way it's animals are treated" -Gandhi-

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ozuan In reply to homeisthewilderness [2012-05-09 23:42:51 +0000 UTC]

Of course not. Again, I don't go around killing things. I was simply asking what you think their place is; if animals have no souls, what is their worth? What makes them special? Why are they as important as humans, who have in their relatively brief existence singlehandedly reshaped and redefined the world?

Also, Gandhi was an idealist, and as we are discussing realistically here, he and all of his quotes are irrelevant.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ozuan In reply to Ozuan [2012-06-14 02:17:27 +0000 UTC]

If you have a counterpoint, feel free to state it. Otherwise, we both will know that I have disproven your beliefs, and although you may be able to hide this from the comments, you won't be able to hide this from yourself.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

homeisthewilderness In reply to kapieren [2012-04-30 16:15:39 +0000 UTC]

Hidden by Owner

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kapieren In reply to homeisthewilderness [2012-04-30 17:03:51 +0000 UTC]

Hidden by Owner

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

homeisthewilderness In reply to kapieren [2012-04-30 21:41:03 +0000 UTC]

Hidden by Owner

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

kapieren In reply to homeisthewilderness [2012-04-30 22:17:05 +0000 UTC]

Oh! I think I know who you're talking about. So, my bad indeed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0