PETA versus Tanooki wearing Mario

[The Shawn]

Post it, man, or at least tell me what to search for on youtube. :(

"Chickens are decent people"

[Gameguy]

2) People whom are starving already shouldn't be eating fast food anyway as that food is:
a) Not healthy
b) Not really cheaper
For the homeless what should they eat instead? They don't exactly have a kitchen where they can cook their own food from scratch.


4) You shouldn't fuck your dinner
What about cannibalism?


And someone should take care of all those fucking stray cats that like to shit in my backyard...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmXxrMC5Pv4


Chickens are not domestic animals. They are here for us, believe it or not, to use for eggs and meat. They serve no other purpose in the welfare of humans.
Only for humans? Other animals eat chickens too, not just humans. Foxes and the like. But they aren't just for food, if my research is correct they were originally domesticated by people for the purpose of cockfighting. Using them for food is actually less cruel than their original purpose.


Why must chickens or any other sentient being have to serve a purpose in the welfare of humans? Can't chickens just enjoy being chickens without us having to have a use for them? One way you could reframe this line of thinking is that the weak (chickens) should serve a purpose for the benefit of the powerful (humans). You could extend this line of thinking beyond chickens with barbarous results. What purpose do people who are seriously mentally handicapped serve? How about the homeless?
So you're saying we should eat people too? You have an interesting argument there.

[The Shawn]

Only for humans? Other animals eat chickens too, not just humans. Foxes and the like. But they aren't just for food, if my research is correct they were originally domesticated by people for the purpose of cockfighting. Using them for food is actually less cruel than their original purpose.



I don't believe that they were originally set forth in this world for cockfighting. And you must have allready assumed this by some of my posts in the past.
Hence why you brought it up.

Besides, I would rather tenderize my meat by myself before it's eaten. Not some other cock.

[Buyatari]

You do know that meat production consumes more resources than other foods? Lessening the intake of meat increases the world's food supply.

I think his point is that some people care more about animals than people. That they take up the cause of animals when there are causes he considers to be much greater such as human life.

Just speculation here but if you are a member of PETA it might be ok to get an abortion but not ok to declaw your cat because your landlord demands it.

[Iron Draggon]

Actually, a Tanuki is a Japanese MYTHOLOGICAL creature that resembles a raccoon, which is associated with alcoholism and other forms of addiction. IT'S NOT A REAL ANIMAL!

[The Shawn]

Actually, a Tanuki is a Japanese MYTHOLOGICAL creature that resembles a raccoon, which is associated with alcoholism and other forms of addiction. IT'S NOT A REAL ANIMAL!


Well... That sucks.

*me pulls out my Red Sox cap again....

[Gameguy]

Actually, a Tanuki is a Japanese MYTHOLOGICAL creature that resembles a raccoon, which is associated with alcoholism and other forms of addiction. IT'S NOT A REAL ANIMAL!
No, they are real animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanuki


http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5469/34e0066840fbbc9b9bb81ecfg.jpg

[The Shawn]

No, they are real animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanuki


http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5469/34e0066840fbbc9b9bb81ecfg.jpg

But how do they taste?

[Sunnyvale]

But how do they taste?

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n629/ConneticutLeatherCompany/DEFAULT_A100591097_large.jpg

[j_factor]

I think his point is that some people care more about animals than people. That they take up the cause of animals when there are causes he considers to be much greater such as human life.

You could argue that about almost anything, though. Why is the NRA so worried about gun regulations when there are homeless people dying in the streets? Why is the ACLU so concerned about free speech when thousands of people are dying from a lack of adequate health care?


Just speculation here but if you are a member of PETA it might be ok to get an abortion but not ok to declaw your cat because your landlord demands it.

Actually I think PETA disapproves of pet ownership altogether. They're pretty stupid.

[Aussie2B]

I love how whenever somebody says anything against animal cruelty the conversation always degrades to the point that somebody chimes in with "You care about animals more than people!" At that point, your argument is no better than PETA's. Nobody in this topic has said anything that should remotely give anyone the idea that they place animals above people.

To address a couple things:

1) When a cat plays with a mouse, it's just acting out hunting instincts. It lacks the mental capacity to be humane or inhumane. Most animals feel no malice or desire to inflict suffering. It's just instinctual behavior. In fact, most animals kill as humanely as their bodies make possible because quick kills are in their best interests. When a lion chases after a gazelle, it goes for the throat because it'll take it down fast, before it can have its skull cracked open by a flailing hoof. So, go figure, people are often crueler than animals, especially given that we have the means to kill animals in ways that are practically painless and take next to no effort or cost. Although this is straying off a bit because we're talking about care more than slaughter. The natural world doesn't factor in there because animals don't hold other animals captive for their entire lives.

2) Getting meat should be a pretty low priority for those who are starving. People are omnivores, and like other omnivores, the majority of our diet should not be meat. Grains, vegetables, and fruit are all more important, and there are other sources of protein that are cheaper and more plentiful. I'm not saying people should be vegetarians, but if you can't afford much meat, it's not the end of the world. In general, poorer countries eat less meat, and if you are desperate for meat and will take anything, it can definitely result in bad things. Just look up bushmeat. A lot of very nasty diseases have spread to people through the uncontrolled bushmeat trade. HIV likely came through that. Not to mention they have no clue what the heck animal they're eating. You're WAY better off eating some beans, legumes, nuts, seeds, etc. in that situation. There's a reason why charities send Plumpy Nut to Africa and not steaks.

[Sunnyvale]

1) When a cat plays with a mouse, it's just acting out hunting instincts. It lacks the mental capacity to be humane or inhumane. Most animals feel no malice or desire to inflict suffering. It's just instinctual behavior. In fact, most animals kill as humanely as their bodies make possible because quick kills are in their best interests. When a lion chases after a gazelle, it goes for the throat because it'll take it down fast, before it can have its skull cracked open by a flailing hoof. So, go figure, people are often crueler than animals, especially given that we have the means to kill animals in ways that are practically painless and take next to no effort or cost. Although this is straying off a bit because we're talking about care more than slaughter. The natural world doesn't factor in there because animals don't hold other animals captive for their entire lives.

When humans sear beaks off chickens, we're acting out our instincts to save as much of a resource as possible, to squeeze all the blood out pf a turnip. If it was cheaper to do it more humanely, we would be.

For every 'humane' example of a lion killing there is, there's also bot flies, tapeworms, constricting snakes, venom that stuns but doesn't kill...
And look into the plight of the poor aphids before you assume we are the only species to keep others as chattle.




2) Getting meat should be a pretty low priority for those who are starving. People are omnivores, and like other omnivores, the majority of our diet should not be meat. Grains, vegetables, and fruit are all more important, and there are other sources of protein that are cheaper and more plentiful. I'm not saying people should be vegetarians, but if you can't afford much meat, it's not the end of the world. In general, poorer countries eat less meat, and if you are desperate for meat and will take anything, it can definitely result in bad things. Just look up bushmeat. A lot of very nasty diseases have spread to people through the uncontrolled bushmeat trade. HIV likely came through that. Not to mention they have no clue what the heck animal they're eating. You're WAY better off eating some beans, legumes, nuts, seeds, etc. in that situation. There's a reason why charities send Plumpy Nut to Africa and not steaks.

Look into the amino acid differences between a steak and an equal amount of soy protein. There is a significant difference, and it's not trivial. Easy to compensate for in the civilized world. Not so much in Ethiopia.

And charities send nuts instead of steaks cause most of those countries are rife with corruption, and the meat won't reach it's destination. Nuts will.
And nuts are cheaper.

[Collector_Gaming]

Actually I think PETA disapproves of pet ownership altogether. They're pretty stupid.

after all the stories i hear of them killing domestic animals because they are domesticated.

yea i think they disapprove of animal ownership in general

[Gameguy]

Actually I think PETA disapproves of pet ownership altogether. They're pretty stupid.
What if you didn't consider an animal so much as a pet but more of an equal? Like with marriage? Would they have a problem with someone marrying an animal to be treated as an equal?


And charities send nuts instead of steaks cause most of those countries are rife with corruption, and the meat won't reach it's destination. Nuts will.
And nuts are cheaper.
Plus nuts are easier to store and transport than meat, nothing to worry about spoiling or needing to refrigerate.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

In a perfect world, sure. But in the real world, people are still starving, and would trade their kids for 2 ounces of meat. So finances is an issue, except not for us. I can eat bacon, steak, or lobster, right now. Others... not. And I know the argument that this is asking for: Big business, Haliburton, GM foods, yaddayaddayadda. But that's besides the point.

Idealistically, none of us would have to eat, right? Realistically...

Fuck them chickens if it feeds one kid.


word.


I'm with this guy

[LaughingMAN.S9]

Just for the hell of it, let's take this argument to a ridiculous level. What if corporate scientist devised a torture technique that made the food tastier and cheaper, but increased the agony of the animals 100 fold? I understand that it is difficult to imagine anything being tasty at McDonalds but try. Does a point come when we say that what benefits us costs others too much? This question could be applied to many other cases of course.

To me, it is one thing for a starving family to do what they must to survive and quite another thing for a multinational corporation to do what they can to make more money.


ever had veal?

[Amon_Re]

http://www.theecologist.org/trial_investigations/336873/killing_fields_the_true_cost_of_europes_cheap_meat .html

People or animals, people or animals...

The choice isn't needed. It costs little extra effort to treat animals with some sense of decency.

Tell me, which is healthier/tastier? A healthy animal or a miserable heap of fat pumped up on antibiotics & steroids?

Also, don't buy your meat at a super market, the quality of meat is lower even if it's cheaper. I'd rather eat less meat but good meat.


Besides the weed, ain't happening. Realistically, if you try to take the fat cat's profits, he gets them somewhere else. Realistically, meat is a commoditity in the world marketplace, a big one. One that's gone up quite a bit in recent years.

When world hunger isn't an issue, I'll give animal rights a serious thought.

With that kind of lazy, defeatist attitude nothing will ever change. The food industry in Europe is heavily regulated and it's about bloody time the rest of the world starts regulating that industry as well.

[Amon_Re]

Other then that, we should put all the chicken's up at the Comfort Inn. I mean really? Do you see Eithiopia complaining about how chickens are treated? Why you ask?

Because they don't give a fuck if you stack them on eachothers heads with barbed wire restraining them, to them they're either gonna get meat, or they're gonna eat the feed for the chickens.

You'd be surprised, a lot of more 'primitive' cultures treat their life stock better then us.


No space in starving countries for "Humane" chicken farms. Everthing is reserved for whatever agriculture they can grow.

The only reason why there are still starving countries is because we let them starve.


To hell with chickens I say, get 'em nice and fat, cut their heads off, give the kids some entertainment while they run around the yard (As I alway's got as a small child) and eat 'em.

Do you let them free roam before you eat them? Or do you keep them confined in small spaces with their beaks chopped of and feed them antibiotics & steroids?

If the answer is NO, then you are already doing a better job at treating your chickens humane then the food industry.

[Amon_Re]

I'm not of the religious 'we're above them' mentality; I'm of the Darwinian 'we're above them' mentality. On this one, even The Shawn and I can find common ground. @_@

Watch a cat play with a mouse. That's what happens to food, it's seldom pretty or humane. And if you want to say 'we're better than them', I agree. So much better, we are the king's and they our foodstuffs.

It's a lot simpler then that really. Treating your life stock decently prevents the outbreaks of massive epidemics (bird flu anyone?) and removes the need to feed animals massive quantities of antibiotics which improves the usability of antibiotics (you slow down the rise of resistant germs).

So even if you care little about the animal's well being (it's going to be killed anyway) you still have a lot of things to gain by improving the quality of life these animals have.

[Amon_Re]

Seriously. It always amazes me how people can cry for the welfare of chickens and crap over that of any starving kids in third world countries, dying to eat something, anything besides mud cookies.

1) Comparing the will to reduce unneeded suffering in life stock to starving kids in Africa is nothing more then lazy ass deflecting
2) Humans are the most cruel species in this world, we seem to enjoy the suffering of others. Want proof? Click this link to an image (not going to embed it into this post for the more easily offended people):
http://lh5.ggpht.com/-uzhNFXP4CW8/RdSAyRLXm5I/AAAAAAAAADQ/_cap__nN8F8/patience.jpg
3) Proper treatment of life stock improves the quality of the meat and reduces illnesses in the life stock

[Amon_Re]

For the homeless what should they eat instead? They don't exactly have a kitchen where they can cook their own food from scratch.

I've never seen a homeless person goto McDonalds. Well, not in my part of the world anyway. Over here they get free (helthy) food. The only thing homeless people over here buy is booze & smokes.


What about cannibalism?

You still shouldn't fuck the person you're going to eat.

[Amon_Re]

I think his point is that some people care more about animals than people. That they take up the cause of animals when there are causes he considers to be much greater such as human life.

Just speculation here but if you are a member of PETA it might be ok to get an abortion but not ok to declaw your cat because your landlord demands it.

It's NEVER ok to declaw a cat.

[Amon_Re]

Actually I think PETA disapproves of pet ownership altogether. They're pretty stupid.

And they euthenize about 85% of all the animals that end up in their shelters.

[Amon_Re]

So, go figure, people are often crueler than animals, especially given that we have the means to kill animals in ways that are practically painless and take next to no effort or cost. Although this is straying off a bit because we're talking about care more than slaughter. The natural world doesn't factor in there because animals don't hold other animals captive for their entire lives.

The slaughter of animals is also a hot topic. In Belgium it's forbidden to slaughter an animal without putting it out cold first. Except when it's to be slaughtered in a religious way. Apparently, superstition is more important than a quick efficient death. Go figure.

[Amon_Re]

When humans sear beaks off chickens, we're acting out our instincts to save as much of a resource as possible, to squeeze all the blood out pf a turnip. If it was cheaper to do it more humanely, we would be.

If you want to save as much of a resource as possible you wouldn"t need to sear off their beaks. It's more efficient/healthy to actually grow less animals in the same space as you reduce the need for antibiotics and the risks of sicknesses wiping out the whole stock.

[Amon_Re]

What if you didn't consider an animal so much as a pet but more of an equal? Like with marriage? Would they have a problem with someone marrying an animal to be treated as an equal?

Southpark did it.

[treismac]

The only reason why there are still starving countries is because we let them starve.

Proof.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-eX5T68TQIo#t=1995s)*

Even though this video is long, I set it to the part that deals with how the British under Lord Lytton let eight millions of Indians starve of death while they literally had the biggest banquet in recorded history for the coronation of Queen Vicotria.

* Actually, in this case, British policy caused the famine to be as horrific as it was.

[Buyatari]

Now if PETA was smart they would breed a chicken that tastes like shit and leak them out into the population.

[Sunnyvale]

You'd be surprised, a lot of more 'primitive' cultures treat their life stock better then us.

Up until the day they die. Then it's slow, gruesome, get adrenaline in the meat methods...




[The only reason why there are still starving countries is because we let them starve.

Of course, it has nothing to do with the governments of those countries.
http://www.christianaction.org.za/newsletter_uca/uca-artic_poverty.htm



It's a lot simpler then that really. Treating your life stock decently prevents the outbreaks of massive epidemics (bird flu anyone?) and removes the need to feed animals massive quantities of antibiotics which improves the usability of antibiotics (you slow down the rise of resistant germs).

So even if you care little about the animal's well being (it's going to be killed anyway) you still have a lot of things to gain by improving the quality of life these animals have.

Bird flu has been around a little while longer than beak-searing.
http://www.avianinfluenza.org/bird-flu-origins.php

Improving their quality of life wouldn't help us a bit. Keeping them from being fed bone meal might.


1) Comparing the will to reduce unneeded suffering in life stock to starving kids in Africa is nothing more then lazy ass deflecting
2) Humans are the most cruel species in this world, we seem to enjoy the suffering of others. Want proof? Click this link to an image (not going to embed it into this post for the more easily offended people):
http://lh5.ggpht.com/-uzhNFXP4CW8/RdSAyRLXm5I/AAAAAAAAADQ/_cap__nN8F8/patience.jpg
3) Proper treatment of life stock improves the quality of the meat and reduces illnesses in the life stock

1)The two are intertwined. I've already pointed this out earlier.
2)Bot flies. Wasps that lay eggs inside of living spiders for the young to eat their way through their brains slowly. Equating the perversion of some humans to the entire species is no better than saying all Pit Bulls are bad dogs.
3)Ever eat wild game before? Quality is crap, and the potential for human illness is higher.


It's NEVER ok to declaw a cat.

Own an aggressive cat and a small child at the same time. Bye-bye claws.


If you want to save as much of a resource as possible you wouldn"t need to sear off their beaks. It's more efficient/healthy to actually grow less animals in the same space as you reduce the need for antibiotics and the risks of sicknesses wiping out the whole stock.

Not more effecient. That's why free-range chicken costs a ton more. Again, when one says 'starving kids', it's part and parcel to this discussion.

[Collector_Gaming]

Now if PETA was smart they would breed a chicken that tastes like shit and leak them out into the population.

but having a hand in breeding which in turns kinda makes it domestication of some degree is something they would be completely against

Therefore it would never happen.

Which is why this group is so stupid they can't even organize in way that would effect the masses in such a way where we couldn't do anything about it. because everything outside of rioting is basically against their rules and regulations and beliefs.

Imagine if they did do such. and the chickens spread from farm to farm. what chaos that would ensue.

and all they would have to do is convince a few of their more hardcore members to take the hit. believing they were doing good in their life. when the feds coming knocking on doors looking for whos to blame.

Works on the same idea as your large gangs like MS13

[Amon_Re]

Up until the day they die. Then it's slow, gruesome, get adrenaline in the meat methods...

And that invalidates my point.... how? Because we're going to kill them slowly we shouldn't respect them while they are still alive?


Of course, it has nothing to do with the governments of those countries.
http://www.christianaction.org.za/newsletter_uca/uca-artic_poverty.htm

Oh please, spare me the propaganda. We've gone to war for just about anything except to thrown down a government that's leeching out it's own people.

If we truly wanted to end world hunger we could. We have the means we just lack the will (and there's no $'s to gain).


Bird flu has been around a little while longer than beak-searing.
http://www.avianinfluenza.org/bird-flu-origins.php

I never said that was causing bird flu. This is a fallacy. What I did say is that stuffing lots of birds in small cages stacked next to each other facilitates contamination.


Improving their quality of life wouldn't help us a bit. Keeping them from being fed bone meal might.

Ever wondered why for instance a flock of birds doesn't drop dead due to bird flu?


1)The two are intertwined. I've already pointed this out earlier.

And it's already shown why that argument is bs


2)Bot flies. Wasps that lay eggs inside of living spiders for the young to eat their way through their brains slowly. Equating the perversion of some humans to the entire species is no better than saying all Pit Bulls are bad dogs.

Hunting for 'sport', bull fighting, general animal cruelty and cruelty towards other members of our own species, wars, genocide,... I'd say we humans have a pretty bad track record. And that's all besides the point. We have the choice to treat life stock better but we don't because we don't care and we worship the $.


3)Ever eat wild game before? Quality is crap, and the potential for human illness is higher.

As a matter of fact, yes I've eaten wild game before as well as local cattle. Quality surpasses that what you'll find in a supermarket any day, not to mention the lack of steroids & antibiotics.


Own an aggressive cat and a small child at the same time. Bye-bye claws.

This is the most cruel thing you can do to a cat. Either you get rid of the cat or you make damned sure your kid isn't left alone with your cat. Take some damned responsibility for once in your damned life.


Not more effecient. That's why free-range chicken costs a ton more. Again, when one says 'starving kids', it's part and parcel to this discussion.

Mentioning starving kids is a fallacy. no matter we have free range chicken or not they'll still be starving. Lack of food isn't the reason why they're starving.

[Guru of Time and Space]

Soooo many fallacies in this thread.
Oof.

-GoTaS

[Sunnyvale]

And that invalidates my point.... how? Because we're going to kill them slowly we shouldn't respect them while they are still alive?
You said primitive cultures treat their livestock better than us. I was simply showing that is not the case.


Oh please, spare me the propaganda. We've gone to war for just about anything except to thrown down a government that's leeching out it's own people.

Ahem, please open a history book. And ask the Kurds how things were going before we showed up. Are those AJ's words I'm hearing?


If we truly wanted to end world hunger we could. We have the means we just lack the will (and there's no $'s to gain).
Yup! And after world hunger is ironed out by a bunch of tree-huggers on PC's, they can finally finish that perpetual motion machine they've been telling me about.

Reality check.


I never said that was causing bird flu. This is a fallacy. What I did say is that stuffing lots of birds in small cages stacked next to each other facilitates contamination.

Yes it does. Which is why we use antibiotics. Yes, the bugs get stronger as our medicine advances, It's an arms race. One we're winning.


I never said that was causing bird flu. This is a fallacy. What I did say is that stuffing lots of birds in small cages stacked next to each other facilitates contamination.
Ever wondered why for instance a flock of birds doesn't drop dead due to bird flu?
Um... They are the carriers. Typhoid Mary's of the animal kingdom. They don't get sick as often, but when the local farmer's chickens get sick, they probably got it from wild birds.




And it's already shown why that argument is bs
Saying something vehemently don't prove shit. Money is and has been the issue for centuries. You donate lots of meat to charities? Why not? Cause of money?




Hunting for 'sport', bull fighting, general animal cruelty and cruelty towards other members of our own species, wars, genocide,... I'd say we humans have a pretty bad track record. And that's all besides the point. We have the choice to treat life stock better but we don't because we don't care and we worship the $.
Wolverines, cats, even certain species of insect hunt for sport. Bull fighting... a cat toying with a mouse for a few hours... Chimps do the genocide thing on other chimps as well. Nature isn't all Kumbaya.




As a matter of fact, yes I've eaten wild game before as well as local cattle. Quality surpasses that what you'll find in a supermarket any day, not to mention the lack of steroids & antibiotics.
Gamey meat is better tasting than farm-raised? Yeah, and naturally occurring rocks are a better source of gold than a coin. All those eons of farming haven't taught us anything :roll:



This is the most cruel thing you can do to a cat. Either you get rid of the cat or you make damned sure your kid isn't left alone with your cat. Take some damned responsibility for once in your damned life.

I can think of a number of crueler things I could do to a cat. Have any kids? Hover over them 24/7? Oh, so if I get a gal pregnant, we should give the cat to a 'shelter' (concentration camp)? Take responsibility? I am! For my species and my children. Fuck the other guy's till mine are squared away!


Mentioning starving kids is a fallacy. no matter we have free range chicken or not they'll still be starving. Lack of food isn't the reason why they're starving.

Man, I don't even know how to respond to that. 'Timmy, you're not starving because of lack of food."
If food was so cheap and plentiful it wan't necessary to buy or sell it, would they still be starving?

[Amon_Re]

You said primitive cultures treat their livestock better than us. I was simply showing that is not the case.

All you "proved" is that they die slower.


Ahem, please open a history book. And ask the Kurds how things were going before we showed up. Are those AJ's words I'm hearing?

Tell that to Somalians. Like I said, spare me the freaking propaganda.


Yup! And after world hunger is ironed out by a bunch of tree-huggers on PC's, they can finally finish that perpetual motion machine they've been telling me about.

Strawman argument. There are enough resources to feed the whole world. There is however, no desire (no gain) to do so.


Yes it does. Which is why we use antibiotics. Yes, the bugs get stronger as our medicine advances, It's an arms race. One we're winning.

1) Never underestimate nature
2) It's sheer stupidity
3) The quality of the meat produced is horrific


Um... They are the carriers. Typhoid Mary's of the animal kingdom. They don't get sick as often, but when the local farmer's chickens get sick, they probably got it from wild birds.

You can replace probably with most likely. But again, do you see those flocks of birds falling out of the sky? No? Do you understand why?
Do you know why you don't drop dead when you get a cold or a flu?


Saying something vehemently don't prove shit. Money is and has been the issue for centuries. You donate lots of meat to charities? Why not? Cause of money?

I never donate meat to charities, spoils too quickly


Wolverines, cats, even certain species of insect hunt for sport. Bull fighting... a cat toying with a mouse for a few hours... Chimps do the genocide thing on other chimps as well. Nature isn't all Kumbaya.

Again, this is completely besides the point. We have the choice to treat life stock better. We chose not to because we don't care or worship the $.


Gamey meat is better tasting than farm-raised?

Yes. And farm-raised meat tastes better then meat from animals grown in small cases and on steroids & meds.


All those eons of farming haven't taught us anything :roll:

All those 'eons' have taught us something. It's taught us to increase gain and decrease costs. Again, quantity != quality.


I can think of a number of crueler things I could do to a cat. Have any kids? Hover over them 24/7? Oh, so if I get a gal pregnant, we should give the cat to a 'shelter' (concentration camp)? Take responsibility? I am! For my species and my children. Fuck the other guy's till mine are squared away!

If you truly were to take responsibility you'd make sure your kid isn't left alone with cats (or dogs for that matter). What about teeth? Maybe you should pull the cat's teeth too? She might bite! (Actually, she is more likely to bite when declawed as those are her only means of defence left.)

No matter what excuse you bring up, declawing a cat is
A) Cruel
B) The lazy escape
C) An escape of your responsibility.

You should consider this before getting a cat, not punish the thing because you were too stupid to realize cats got claws.


Man, I don't even know how to respond to that. 'Timmy, you're not starving because of lack of food."
If food was so cheap and plentiful it wan't necessary to buy or sell it, would they still be starving?

Yes because there is no gain in giving away free food. You do realize what they do with food they can't sell right? It gets tossed on a landfill or used as manure because it's cheaper to dispose of it than to ship it to starving people.

Lack of food/resources isn't why people are starving. It's because we f'cking let them.

[Aussie2B]

For every 'humane' example of a lion killing there is, there's also bot flies, tapeworms, constricting snakes, venom that stuns but doesn't kill...
And look into the plight of the poor aphids before you assume we are the only species to keep others as chattle.

While technically, yes, insects are in the Animalia Kingdom, when people are talking about "animals" colloquially, they're typically talking about vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish), rather than invertebrates. So, personally, all of your insect examples are irrelevant to my conversation. Your one vertebrate example, constricting snakes, go along with my statement just fine. They're still aiming for the quickest death they can get, and they're doing the best with the abilities of their bodies. I mean, what else can they do with no arms, legs, or venom?


Look into the amino acid differences between a steak and an equal amount of soy protein. There is a significant difference, and it's not trivial. Easy to compensate for in the civilized world. Not so much in Ethiopia.

And charities send nuts instead of steaks cause most of those countries are rife with corruption, and the meat won't reach it's destination. Nuts will.
And nuts are cheaper.

I fail to see what your argument is here. That the efforts of charities are worthless unless they send meat? If your starving, you should just be concerned with staying alive. Having a balanced, nutritionally complete diet is the ultimate goal, but, heck, even a lot of fat Americans that gorge themselves on meat don't have that. There's no arguing my point that we can feed the starving people of the world much more effectively with options other than meat. You said yourself that it's cheaper, and we all know that it takes far less money and land for agriculture than to produce meat. That's even ignoring the perishability factor. And my point about bushmeat.

Also, plenty of poor nations/cultures can compensate for a meatless diet. What, do you think only rich, white hipsters are vegetarians? A large percentage of the Indian population is vegetarian or vegan, and they're definitely not a first world country.

So the bottom line is that starving people have absolutely NOTHING to do with humane farming practices.

People just like to be judgmental and tell other people what to do. Like "How dare you care about how animals are treated when... blah blah blah?" More like how dare you try to enforce what I can and can't care about? The whole "this cause is more important than that cause" mentality is complete and utter BS. If you follow that train of thought, then I guess we shouldn't care at all about homeless and hungry people in America too because people in other countries have it so much worse, right? C'mon. These are ALL issues that deserve attention. There's no reason why someone can't care about the needless suffering of ALL life. Everybody could take a lesson from Saint Francis.

[tom]

If you truly were to take responsibility you'd make sure your kid isn't left alone with cats (or dogs for that matter). What about teeth? Maybe you should pull the cat's teeth too? She might bite! (Actually, she is more likely to bite when declawed as those are her only means of defence left.)

No matter what excuse you bring up, declawing a cat is
A) Cruel
B) The lazy escape
C) An escape of your responsibility.

You should consider this before getting a cat, not punish the thing because you were too stupid to realize cats got claws.

.

I'd get rid of the kid.

[Aswald]

Maybe someone should remind PETA of the survival chances of animals in their own shelters.....

In the meanwhile, I'll go eat some bacon.


Guess this has to be posted here...

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Berman_cares_about_animals :_clients_exposed


Fact is, PETA has strongly opposed the corporations. Since the corporations run the media, it is no surprise that any rumor started about them will be scooped up by the media.

It is along the same lines as the media hostility towards the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.

[Amon_Re]

I'd get rid of the kid.

And waste all that sweet, sweet meat?!

[tpugmire]

I'm against animal cruelty and all that, but I'd totally kill a tanuki without hesitation if it would grant me the power of flight.

[Ryaan1234]

http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=687268

More stupidity from PETA.

[The Shawn]

No matter what excuse you bring up, declawing a cat is
A) Cruel
B) The lazy escape
C) An escape of your responsibility.


You are truly out of touch with reality.
Perhaps you speak cat?
If so you should ask one if they would prefer to be 'put to sleep' in a shelter or be declawed and stay with the same loving family. Besides, what purpose do their claws serve when they are indoor cat's?

Our cat just died, he was 17, he was declawed. For good reason also.


I could debunk pretty much all your views, as you don't seem to grasp particular concepts as well as other folks responding in this thread who are Pro-animal welfare. But I won't bother.

This really should be moved to OT.

[RP2A03]

Tofurky, Texas? O_O

[Bad Atom]

I think the real question that needs to be asked is, how does PETA feel about the Frog Suit???

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0908/frog-suit-mario-demotivational-poster-1249737663.jpg

[treismac]

Own an aggressive cat and a small child at the same time. Bye-bye claws.


Naw. Give the small child a wiffle bat and teach him what it means to be a man.

[treismac]

I'm against animal cruelty and all that, but I'd totally kill a tanuki without hesitation if it would grant me the power of flight.

Oh, God, yes!!! I bet the people at PETA would, too, if they were honest with themselves. I mean, they aren't that cute, are they?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/308330_10150954337950294_516975293_21941647_932373 655_n.jpg

Oh... :bawling: That's pretty darn cute, I suppose. I didn't wanna really fly all that much anyway.

[j_factor]

I think the real question that needs to be asked is, how does PETA feel about the Frog Suit???

How does PETA feel about furries? And would they feel different about Mario if he was one (http://www.dorkly.com/video/26035/dorkly-bits-mario-is-a-furry)?

[buzz_n64]

How does PETA feel about furries? And would they feel different about Mario if he was one (http://www.dorkly.com/video/26035/dorkly-bits-mario-is-a-furry)?

Dorkly Bits: Mario is a Furry
http://www.dorkly.com/video/26035/dorkly-bits-mario-is-a-furry

[j_factor]

Dorkly Bits: Mario is a Furry
http://www.dorkly.com/video/26035/dorkly-bits-mario-is-a-furry

...Are you a bot?

[buzz_n64]

...Are you a bot?

Oh crap. Didn't realize you had an embedded link, and to the same video. LMAO!

[Sunnyvale]

Yes because there is no gain in giving away free food. You do realize what they do with food they can't sell right? It gets tossed on a landfill or used as manure because it's cheaper to dispose of it than to ship it to starving people.

Lack of food/resources isn't why people are starving. It's because we f'cking let them.

Back to what I said a few posts ago... The 'fat cats' will donate what they can afford to. Again, if food was plentiful to the point of being worthless, would people still starve? So to save the suffering of some chickens, we need to take the rich and make their money the poor's...
No thanks.


While technically, yes, insects are in the Animalia Kingdom, when people are talking about "animals" colloquially, they're typically talking about vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish), rather than invertebrates. So, personally, all of your insect examples are irrelevant to my conversation. Your one vertebrate example, constricting snakes, go along with my statement just fine. They're still aiming for the quickest death they can get, and they're doing the best with the abilities of their bodies. I mean, what else can they do with no arms, legs, or venom?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPznMbNcfO8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUPhRYi_caY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq6hIt1dqnA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqrThbOG5rs&feature=related

Ad Infitum


People just like to be judgmental and tell other people what to do. Like "How dare you care about how animals are treated when... blah blah blah?" More like how dare you try to enforce what I can and can't care about? The whole "this cause is more important than that cause" mentality is complete and utter BS. If you follow that train of thought, then I guess we shouldn't care at all about homeless and hungry people in America too because people in other countries have it so much worse, right? C'mon. These are ALL issues that deserve attention. There's no reason why someone can't care about the needless suffering of ALL life. Everybody could take a lesson from Saint Francis.

I have no issue with how you feel, it's what you do with those feelings I take issue with. I actually applaud the humanitarian feelings you and Amon Re and others feel. However, if it is going to make it more expensive to feed my kids, to hell with your philosophy. I have every right to feel this 'cause' is a joke, a waste of human resources. Again, when all of the human issues are solved, I'll start worrying about the poor chickens.

To me, to worry about another species while your own has such serious troubles (that are directly related, but eh, I'm tired of trying to teach business here) is no different than a person who can't feed their family giving to a charity or a church. That is irresponsible.

[Amon_Re]

You are truly out of touch with reality.
Perhaps you speak cat?
If so you should ask one if they would prefer to be 'put to sleep' in a shelter or be declawed and stay with the same loving family. Besides, what purpose do their claws serve when they are indoor cat's?

I'm not the only one who considers declawing cats cruel, it's illegal in Europe and Australia and Israel. Declawing a cat involves amputation of the last bone in it's toes.

Not only is it cruel mutilation it also causes stress to the animal. Cats use their claws for more then scratching, they use it to grasp things, digging (even in litter boxes) running, climbing,...

You could draw an analogy with humans, you don't need your toes to live, but you sure wouldn't want to chop those off now would you?

Again, declawing a cat is a lazy way of evading your responsibility. If you can't live with the fact that cats have claws, then don't f'cking get a cat!

I've had cats all my life, my parents had cats all their lives and my sister who just had her fourth kid also has cats, we never declawed a cat (nor had to get rid of cats even though not all cats are as friendly as one would like). Cats don't go about attacking kids not even aggressive ones, they rather go sit somewhere out of reach of the objects that annoy them (dogs, kids, ...)

If you can't accept that cats have claws and that you might get scratched (be it while playing with a cat or something else) then you shouldn't f'king own one!


Our cat just died, he was 17, he was declawed. For good reason also.

There is NEVER a good reason to declaw a cat just like there is NEVER a good reason to chop of your own toes.


I could debunk pretty much all your views, as you don't seem to grasp particular concepts as well as other folks responding in this thread who are Pro-animal welfare. But I won't bother.

And I have a perpetual motion device but I won't show it to you guys *rolls eyes*. Face it, the only reason why we don't take care of animals (be it life stock or pets) is because we're too f'cking lazy & greedy.

[Amon_Re]

Back to what I said a few posts ago... The 'fat cats' will donate what they can afford to.

ROFL :D


Again, if food was plentiful to the point of being worthless, would people still starve? So to save the suffering of some chickens, we need to take the rich and make their money the poor's...
No thanks.

Look into overproduction of food & subsidies of farming. You'd be amazed how much food is voluntarily destroyed because it's cheaper then actually using it to feed the poor.


I have no issue with how you feel, it's what you do with those feelings I take issue with. I actually applaud the humanitarian feelings you and Amon Re and others feel. However, if it is going to make it more expensive to feed my kids, to hell with your philosophy.

The thing is, it doesn't make it more expensive to feed your kids, it might at worst mean you have to give them a more balanced diet, but that too is a good thing.


I have every right to feel this 'cause' is a joke, a waste of human resources. Again, when all of the human issues are solved, I'll start worrying about the poor chickens.

There is no profit in solving 'all human issues' hence you will never see it come to pass. Like has been said many times already: We have the means and resources to feed the whole world population but we chose not to.

It's like the (pointless) argument of capitalism vs socialism. You don't need to pick one or the other, you can take the best of both.


To me, to worry about another species while your own has such serious troubles (that are directly related, but eh, I'm tired of trying to teach business here) is no different than a person who can't feed their family giving to a charity or a church. That is irresponsible.

They are not directly related as there is food aplenty and most of it is actually healthy (compared McDonalds/KFC just about anything is healthy). Do some googling about the overproduction of food please.

[j_factor]

Again, if food was plentiful to the point of being worthless, would people still starve?

Yes, since that's pretty much the case already. We live in a world where feeding the homeless can get you arrested (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/10/orlando-food-not-bombs-arrests_n_874840.html). Food is plentiful to the point that huge amounts are wasted every day, while people still starve. Groups like Food Not Bombs wouldn't exist if this weren't the case. They would have no cause.


So to save the suffering of some chickens, we need to take the rich and make their money the poor's...
No thanks.

I have no issue with how you feel, it's what you do with those feelings I take issue with. I actually applaud the humanitarian feelings you and Amon Re and others feel. However, if it is going to make it more expensive to feed my kids, to hell with your philosophy.

Taken together, these two statements are kind of ironic. The price of meat is kept artificially low by taxpayer-funded government subsidies. So you say "no thanks" to taking from the rich, except you're already taking from the rich, and to discontinue doing that would make it more expensive to feed your kids, and to hell with that.

http://i.imgur.com/arqA3.jpg


I have every right to feel this 'cause' is a joke, a waste of human resources. Again, when all of the human issues are solved, I'll start worrying about the poor chickens.

It's not just about the poor chickens. Better farming practices (and/or de-emphasizing meat consumption) are in humanity's own best interests. There is a good reason why you and I can't just waltz into a drug store and buy amoxicillin -- bacteria evolves. Yet requiring a prescription hasn't come close to addressing the problem thanks to the meat industry. Now it's only a matter of time before we're fucked.

[Buyatari]

I'm not the only one who considers declawing cats cruel, it's illegal in Europe and Australia and Israel. Declawing a cat involves amputation of the last bone in it's toes.

Not only is it cruel mutilation it also causes stress to the animal. Cats use their claws for more then scratching, they use it to grasp things, digging (even in litter boxes) running, climbing,...

You could draw an analogy with humans, you don't need your toes to live, but you sure wouldn't want to chop those off now would you?

Again, declawing a cat is a lazy way of evading your responsibility. If you can't live with the fact that cats have claws, then don't f'cking get a cat!

I've had cats all my life, my parents had cats all their lives and my sister who just had her fourth kid also has cats, we never declawed a cat (nor had to get rid of cats even though not all cats are as friendly as one would like). Cats don't go about attacking kids not even aggressive ones, they rather go sit somewhere out of reach of the objects that annoy them (dogs, kids, ...)

If you can't accept that cats have claws and that you might get scratched (be it while playing with a cat or something else) then you shouldn't f'king own one!



There is NEVER a good reason to declaw a cat just like there is NEVER a good reason to chop of your own toes.



And I have a perpetual motion device but I won't show it to you guys *rolls eyes*. Face it, the only reason why we don't take care of animals (be it life stock or pets) is because we're too f'cking lazy & greedy.


There are more cats in the world than there are people to care for them. Every year many are destroyed. It is better that a cat be destroyed than for someone who is lazy to adopt one and have it declawed?

Also many people rent and it is part of the lease. It may be hard to find a place to stay that a pet owner can afford. I know because I own rental property and I am not a huge fan of pets. A landlord can not afford to assume that a pet owner will be responsible.

Of course people have children that they can not afford to take care of properly as well. People want what they want and do the best that they can with what they have so long as it is not too much work to do so. Most are not willing to change lifelong existing habits to accommodate the things they have, children and pets included.

[Amon_Re]

There are more cats in the world than there are people to care for them. Every year many are destroyed. It is better that a cat be destroyed than for someone who is lazy to adopt one and have it declawed?

Nice fallacy you got going there mate. "Oh they're going to die anyway so we might as well take one in and chop of it's toes". People who think it's OK to declaw a cat shouldn't be allowed to own cats. It's as simple as that.


Also many people rent and it is part of the lease. It may be hard to find a place to stay that a pet owner can afford. I know because I own rental property and I am not a huge fan of pets. A landlord can not afford to assume that a pet owner will be responsible.

If you can't keep a pet in your apartment without mutilating it, then don't f'cking own one.


Of course people have children that they can not afford to take care of properly as well. People want what they want and do the best that they can with what they have so long as it is not too much work to do so. Most are not willing to change lifelong existing habits to accommodate the things they have, children and pets included.

If you're unwilling or unable to take responsibility be it for a pet or a kid or even a f'cking plant, then don't get those things.

[The Shawn]

I'm not the only one who considers declawing cats cruel, it's illegal in Europe and Australia and Israel. Declawing a cat involves amputation of the last bone in it's toes.

Not only is it cruel mutilation it also causes stress to the animal. Cats use their claws for more then scratching, they use it to grasp things, digging (even in litter boxes) running, climbing,...

You could draw an analogy with humans, you don't need your toes to live, but you sure wouldn't want to chop those off now would you?

Again, declawing a cat is a lazy way of evading your responsibility. If you can't live with the fact that cats have claws, then don't f'cking get a cat!

I've had cats all my life, my parents had cats all their lives and my sister who just had her fourth kid also has cats, we never declawed a cat (nor had to get rid of cats even though not all cats are as friendly as one would like). Cats don't go about attacking kids not even aggressive ones, they rather go sit somewhere out of reach of the objects that annoy them (dogs, kids, ...)

If you can't accept that cats have claws and that you might get scratched (be it while playing with a cat or something else) then you shouldn't f'king own one!



There is NEVER a good reason to declaw a cat just like there is NEVER a good reason to chop of your own toes.



And I have a perpetual motion device but I won't show it to you guys *rolls eyes*. Face it, the only reason why we don't take care of animals (be it life stock or pets) is because we're too f'cking lazy & greedy.


Oh posh!


This cat got along just fine. He still thought he had claws and would still 'Sharpen' his 'toes' on the scratching post and grab things with them. And I don't recall ever seeing any difference in his paws then the other 2 cats as far as 'Chopping off his toes ' went. He walked and played just fine.

If you chop off a human's toes they would have a problem walking I suspect, with balance being an issue.

Your general argument is reaaallllllly stretching here.

On a side note, we are having our newest cat declawed after Christmas when I can afford it,I'm diabetic and can't have my legs used as scrating posts also he's murdering $3000 worth of new carpet and the people who own the house (Well....us) said it's either that or to take him back to the crazy woman who runs some kind of stray animal shelter out of her HOUSE.

When we got him he needed 2 operations and has a chronic cough because he was almost frozen to death and had bad untreated lung infections. Not to mention ear mites and fleas.

I'll ask him which he would prefer Yes?




But whatever.

[Amon_Re]

Oh posh!

This cat got along just fine. He still thought he had claws and would still 'Sharpen' his 'toes' on the scratching post and grab things with them. And I don't recall ever seeing any difference in his paws then the other 2 cats as far as 'Chopping off his toes ' went. He walked and played just fine.

There is a reason it's forbidden in 24 countries. You figure it out.


If you chop off a human's toes they would have a problem walking I suspect, with balance being an issue.

Your general argument is reaaallllllly stretching here.

What? You don't think cats use their claws for running or jumping or anything else? The simple fact is that you are amputating parts of their paws for no valid reason whatsoever.


On a side note, we are having our newest cat declawed after Christmas when I can afford it,I'm diabetic and can't have my legs used as scrating posts also he's murdering $3000 worth of new carpet and the people who own the house (Well....us) said it's either that or to take him back to the crazy woman who runs some kind of stray animal shelter out of her HOUSE.

Oh boohoohoo, your poor poor carpet.


When we got him he needed 2 operations and has a chronic cough because he was almost frozen to death and had bad untreated lung infections. Not to mention ear mites and fleas.

And this justifies mutilating him.... how?

[The Shawn]

Well, if it's any consolation, if you lived here and scratched the fuck out of my legs and destroyed things with your fingernails I'd have your nails dug out too.

Also if you're going to quote me please quote the whole post without leaving out key arguments or reasons.


This will be my last response to you, it's obvious your trolling.


:)

[skaar]

This will be my last response to you, it's obvious your trolling.


:)

You mean "you're" ;)

[The Shawn]

You mean "you're" ;)

Gah!
.....

[tom]

Putting a carpet before the life of an animal is totally wrong and you shouldn't be allowed to have animals, not to mention children.

[The Shawn]

Putting a carpet before the life of an animal is totally wrong and you shouldn't be allowed to have animals, not to mention children.

I'll tell my kids next time they spill something on it.

[j_factor]

PETA: It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. (http://kotaku.com/5860212/peta-that-whole-bloody-mario-thing-that-was-just-a-joke)

[Kitsune Sniper]

And by that they mean "We're scared shitless that Nintendo will sue our asses off so by saying it was satire our ass is covered."

[Amon_Re]

Well, if it's any consolation, if you lived here and scratched the fuck out of my legs and destroyed things with your fingernails I'd have your nails dug out too.

Oh boohoohoo you poor thing. It's amazing that we here in Europe cope with cats without having them declawed, we must have super skin and indestructible furniture.

Or maybe, just maybe, we actually take responsibility and know what the hell we're doing when we're keeping cats.

You know, I have leather seats here without any scratch mark from any cat despite the fact that my cats do sleep in there. They have a little pillow on the seats where they sleep on, they have 3 scratch posts and one little rug they can use to scratch on.

Get of your lazy ass and take responsibility.


Also if you're going to quote me please quote the whole post without leaving out key arguments or reasons.

Wait, the following is a key argument or reason?!


I'll ask him which he would prefer Yes?

But whatever.

Gee, I thought it was just you being sarcastic. I mean, really, that's a key argument?


This will be my last response to you, it's obvious your trolling.

Maybe I'm not making my arguments as well as I should since English isn't my native tongue, but I'm definitely not trolling. I'm serious. Declawing a cat is mutilating a cat, and I'm not alone in this little old world who thinks this way, after all declawing is forbidden in over twenty countries.

[The Shawn]

And by that they mean "We're scared shitless that Nintendo will sue our asses off so by saying it was satire our ass is covered."

That's exactly what I was thinking when I read the article. I'd like to see Nintendo sue the snot out of them.

[Buyatari]

Nice fallacy you got going there mate. "Oh they're going to die anyway so we might as well take one in and chop of it's toes". People who think it's OK to declaw a cat shouldn't be allowed to own cats. It's as simple as that.

What about being neutered?

[The Shawn]

What about being neutered?

Yeah I was going to say my dog didn't seem to like having his balls 'chopped' off much either, but he seems to have gotton over it.

[Sunnyvale]

The thing is, it doesn't make it more expensive to feed your kids, it might at worst mean you have to give them a more balanced diet, but that too is a good thing.

I can't honestly believe you think it won't cost any more to feed my kids free-range chickens then seared-beak birds! I could go get some links to avergae proces, but ugh. You're more concerned with being 'right' than actually thinking about this. Methinks I'm done with you.

[Amon_Re]

What about being neutered?

Compared to declawing this is a lot less cruel then the alternative (termination of unwanted offspring/strays)

[Sunnyvale]

Compared to declawing this is a lot less cruel then the alternative (termination of unwanted offspring/strays)

If given the choice of death or having my balls cut off, kill me every time.

[Amon_Re]

I can't honestly believe you think it won't cost any more to feed my kids free-range chickens then seared-beak birds!

Just how much chicken do you eat? I buy free range chicken (and free range eggs) the price difference is minimal. Drink one beer less per chicken.


I could go get some links to avergae proces, but ugh. You're more concerned with being 'right' than actually thinking about this.

Well, It seems to work in Europe, after all, I'm not going bankrupt due to the price of chicken (despite the near 50% tax rate we have here in Belgium)

[Amon_Re]

If given the choice of death or having my balls cut off, kill me every time.

Well I guess the results would be the same, no offspring

[substantial_snake]

Compared to declawing this is a lot less cruel then the alternative (termination of unwanted offspring/strays)

Whats the logic in that?

In a choice to take away one of the cats defensive measures or taking away its ability to pass on its genetic legacy I think that the former is less cruel then the latter. I would think that one would have a much larger impact on the animal then the other, not to mention the physical damage of having hormone producing glands in an animal removed. There is a reason why most pets after they have been spayed/neutered are much more docile and lethargic afterwards.

On the other hand declawing does not have to use the bone amputation process. The two other methods that I am aware of are a much less invasive surgery which cuts the tendon used to retract and expose the claw.The other being plastic/vinyl caps that, although need to be peridotically changed, prevent the cat from tearing up anything while keeping its everything intact. There are options you just keep posting up a widely shunned practice in the veterinary community regardless of country of origin.

I am personally not a fan of either practice and I agree with you that if your life changes and you are unable or are just irresponsible then you shouldn't own a pet. If you feel like you need to take these steps in order to have a pet then IMO your doing it wrong. However it does seem at others have noted that you a determined to be right regardless of anything else, its the attitude that Europeans seem to have when something comes up that has anything to do with America that they don't agree with. We get it you have a different opinion about it, you don't need to be a dick to prove it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI

[Sunnyvale]

However it does seem at others have noted that you a determined to be right regardless of anything else, its the attitude that Europeans seem to have when something comes up that has anything to do with America that they don't agree with.

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n629/ConneticutLeatherCompany/A-winner-is-you-1.jpg