Why should I give a damn about whaling?

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

I'm not purposely posting anything deceptive, they are just passages from a search result of vegetarianism in the bible.
Deceptive, nonsensical, and out of context passages.

There's no point to be made when bringing religion into this. Whatever the bible says, I will still ask these questions: Why would god make humans part of the animal kingdom if killing animals was ok?

Why not ask God? Maybe you misunderstand his intentions, or maybe we aren't animals. (the bible states we aren't, by the way)

If animals were created for humans, why do some exist in inaccessible areas?

Stupid question. Inaccessible to who? Humans can access pretty much every area of this planet. Why does he make oxygen in inaccessible areas? Why are there planets other than earth with an earthlike atmosphere? Dumb.

Why are some dangerous to humans?

Someone who believed in God enough (I.E. not me) would tell you that if you use God as your shield and your spear, then no animals are dangerous to you. I'll just tell you that this is a stupid question. Why are some rocks dangerous to humans?

Why would god make them able to feel pain and suffer?

All living things feel pain and suffer. It's a pretty essential part of life.

Why do people have a natural compassion for animals if they are to be killed?

You say this like it's a fact. It's not. Nor are the two things mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible to have compassion for an animal, and then kill and eat it. If you don't believe in the bible, and are unfamiliar with it, please stop quoting bible scriptures. At LEAST be familiar with it. It becomes even more apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about than normal otherwise, and you are likely to piss someone off. In other words, you should learn to keep your mouth shut about things you don't know anything about. Probably my main issue with you.

 

[Nosu3]

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Many people are compassionate to animals and still eat them. You changed your tune from "people are compassionate " to " many people are compassionate".

I was merely correcting your assumed statement that people as a whole are, as if it was a fact, compassionate towards animals and that being compassionate and not eating meat are mutually exclusive. Neither of which are true.

How do you know the sites you copied and pasted from are familiar with the Bible? Considering the quotes you posted were of such bias and misrepresentative to such a degree as to be completely worthless to show the point you were trying to make, maybe you should try not getting your information from sources trying to sell an ideology to dumbasses.

 

[KitAkira]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Why would god make humans part of the animal kingdom if killing animals was ok? If animals were created for humans, why do some exist in inaccessible areas? Why are some dangerous to humans? Why would god make them able to feel pain and suffer? Why do people have a natural compassion for animals if they are to be killed?

 

[SeanH]

Originally Posted by KitAkira

That isn't my solution, I don't care nor wish to change anything,

You seemed to be implying that cattle emissions could destroy the earth. This is okay with you?

And if by "dead shortly" you mean "dead in 20 years" then I suppose you're right

The massive amount of feed needed to keep cattle alive would not be provided unless there was profit involved. They'd only last a week or two.

 

[Contingency Plan]

Nosu3, you are ******* idiot who doesn't understand anything the Bible is saying.

 

[KitAkira]

Originally Posted by SeanH

You seemed to be implying that cattle emissions could destroy the earth. This is okay with you? The massive amount of feed needed to keep cattle alive would not be provided unless there was profit involved. They'd only last a week or two.
Perfectly. So now you endorse starving animals? Let's replace a quick slaughter for a slow death, good idea!

 

[Nosu3]

 

[scarphe]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

You must have missed it the first time, I don't care to understand the bible. If there is something someone doesn't agree with, it just gets interpreted a different way, so it'd be difficult to understand because everyone will have their own personal interpretation.

I searched "VEGETARIANISM IN THE BIBLE". There are many websites (some churches) suggesting jesus was a vegetarian and that the bible promotes vegetarianism. The bible is not significant to justify meat eating or vegetarianism, so it doesn't matter anyway.

so you do nto know greek or have read the the new testmament in greek to support your absurd case that the term fish is mistranslated.

 

[Nosu3]

Originally Posted by scarphe

so you do nto know greek or have read the the new testmament in greek to support your absurd case that the term fish is mistranslated.

It's not my case...

 

[scarphe]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

The explanation is that the translation was wrong. By fish, it is meant to be "fish weed" which is some type of seaweed. Fishweed and bread were commonly eaten in combination during that time.

wther an arguemnt is originally made by you or nto the moment you star arguing it, at aht moment it be comes your arguement borrowed or not....

this was your was post concerning the supposed mistranslation, so yes it your case, as is all the thing you are saying about eh bbile since you are argeuing it, is this concept really difficult to understand.
so what is your support for the supposed mistranslation of the word ἰχθύς?

 

[SeanH]

Originally Posted by KitAkira

Perfectly.

So now you endorse starving animals? Let's replace a quick slaughter for a slow death, good idea!

You're the one who claimed they were spewing greenhouse gases and destroying our world. You do realize that if this is true it means slow death for everything on earth, don't you? If my options are that, or a week or two of suffering for one species which we kill by the millions on a daily basis anyway, then I think the choice is clear.

Or, put another way, you can stop patting yourself on the back for reducing greenhouse emissions. You aren't doing that. You're just enjoying a tasty meal.

 

[MetroStyles]

Ok, trying to make this thread serious has epically failed, so back to the important questions.

For those of you that have gone land-whaling: Do fat chicks have tighter coochies than non-fats because of all the fat cushioning? This seems like a very intriguing proposition.

 

[Davidko19]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Ok, trying to make this thread serious has epically failed, so back to the important questions.

For those of you that have gone land-whaling: Do fat chicks have tighter coochies than non-fats because of all the fat cushioning? This seems like a very intriguing proposition.

As an active hogger, my experience has been a definite no. While they are generally better at the oral lovin, the coochie is not noticeably tighter and certainly wouldnt be because of the additional fat. ymmv.

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by Davidko19

As an active hogger, my experience has been a definite no. While they are generally better at the oral lovin, the coochie is not noticeably tighter and certainly wouldnt be because of the additional fat. ymmv.

Just out of curiosity, how did you first get started in hogging?