Visit the Cellar!

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: bright folks talking about everything. The Cellar is the original coffeeshop with no coffee and no shop. Founded in 1990, The Cellar is one of the oldest communities on the net. Join us at the table if you like!

 
What's IotD?

The interesting, amazing, or mind-boggling images of our days.

IotD Stuff

ARCHIVES - over 13 years of IotD!
About IotD
RSS2
XML

Permalink Latest Image

June 28th, 2017: Russia's Banksy

Recent Images

June 26th, 2017: Cold Aged
June 26th, 2017: Tricksy Critters
June 25th, 2017: Zero Milestone
June 24th, 2017: North American Food
June 23rd, 2017: Moist Towelettes
June 22nd, 2017: Doodling
June 21st, 2017: Octopus’s Garden

The CELLAR Tip Mug
Some folks who have noticed IotD

Neatorama
Worth1000
Mental Floss
Boing Boing
Switched
W3streams
GruntDoc's Blog
No Quarters
Making Light
darrenbarefoot.com
GromBlog
b3ta
Church of the Whale Penis
UniqueDaily.com
Sailor Coruscant
Projectionist

Link to us and we will try to find you after many months!

Common image haunts

Astro Pic of the Day
Earth Sci Pic of the Day
We Make Money Not Art
Spluch
ochevidec.net
Strange New Products
Geisha Asobi Blog
Cute animals blog (in Russian)
20minutos.es
Yahoo Most Emailed

Please avoid copyrighted images (or get permission) when posting!

Advertising

Philadelphia Pawn Shop
The best real estate agent in Montgomery County
The best T.38 Fax provider
Epps Beverages and Beer, Limerick, PA
Sal's Pizza, Elkins Park
Burholme Auto Body, Philadelphia
Coles Tobacco, Pottstown
ERM Auto Service, Glenside
Glenside Collision
Moorehead Catering, Trappe
Salon 153, Bala
Dominicks Auto Body, Phoenixville

   Undertoad  Thursday Aug 21 10:49 AM

8/21/2003: Huge pig sacrificed



It's an animal picture, but if it's Thursday it must be sad.

The pig is a winner: it's 2116 pounds (960 kilograms), and has won the "Pigs of God" contest.

Unfortunately for the pig, that means it was the largest pig killed in a sacrificial ceremony. It was the largest of 30 such sacrificed pigs, who are neutered at an early age and then force-fed to get them to reach enormous weights.

All for the purpose of this traditional religious ritual of the Hakka people of Taiwan, a culture that makes up about 15% of the island's population.



Elspode  Thursday Aug 21 12:23 PM

Sort of makes the "Have you seen the little piggies?" theme not apply, huh?

So...do they eventually have one hell of a pig roast or what?



Stonan  Thursday Aug 21 12:38 PM

I live in Vancouver, BC. Our local talk/news radio had a rep. from WSPA on for about an hour discussing this.

I can understand how these type of things get started (this is my best guess, Google only brought me to protest pages) get the population to grow massive pigs to increase the food supply under the guise of a contest.

Problem is that the food isn't needed anymore but because it's 'tradition', it continues. I bet most of the people involved don't know why the contest exists, only that tradition dictates it continue.

Somewhere in North America there is another 'tradition' involving hurting animals. It's called a suicide run involving men riding horses along a course at full speed and ending with a run down a severely steep sandy slope straight into a river. Men & horses being injured is standard, being killed is a definate possiblity. According to participants this is part of First Nation peoples heritage. I find this very hard to believe because (from what I've read) Indian braves treated their horses like family. The were an integral part of a warrior's 'make-up'. I don't think they'd risk injuring/killing their mounts just to prove their bravery. I believe they had trials that only involved the warrior, most of the time unarmed.



ndetroit  Thursday Aug 21 12:52 PM

why did they neuter them?

does that make them grow bigger? ...



xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Aug 21 01:14 PM

Sure. I was skinny till my second wifes lawyer cut my........



LUVBUGZ  Thursday Aug 21 03:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ndetroit
why did they neuter them?

does that make them grow bigger? ...
I believe it does. Once their neutered they don't spend every waking moment running around trying to screw everyting in sight. They get lazy and figure stuffing their face is the next best thing.

Really thought, it's true. Most domesticated animals who get snipped (male and female) tend to gain weight. You know, like the neighbor's Cocker Spaniel who looks like a torpedo with chicken legs.


xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Aug 21 03:19 PM

It also makes them taste better. Hey, I'm serious here.



LUVBUGZ  Thursday Aug 21 03:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Sure. I was skinny till my second wifes lawyer cut my........
Just how many times have you been married? I would think after losing your manhood you would have a rather difficult time finding number three?


xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Aug 21 03:29 PM

Naw, I'm always on the lookout for my next ex. As women...ah...er...mature the horizontal bop is less important than other traits. Someone to steer them in the right direction.



LUVBUGZ  Thursday Aug 21 04:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Stonan
I can understand how these type of things get started... [to] get the population to grow massive pigs to increase the food supply under the guise of a contest.

Problem is that the food isn't needed anymore but because it's 'tradition', it continues. I bet most of the people involved don't know why the contest exists, only that tradition dictates it continue.
Now don't get me wrong Stonan, I'm probably one of the biggest animal rights advocates in the Cellar, but I don't think this 'tradition' was started under the 'guise' of a contest. If they were that hungry, they would have just grown big pigs and ate them. I'm also not sure that most involved don't know the origin of the tradition. In most places where traditions exist, especially outside the US, the origins have been passed down through the generations. They like to tell stories and talk about their ancestors and stuff like that. It's really not about how the tradition started, but what purpose does it serve in today's society. Most continue for entertainment purposes. I'm by no means against traditions, but do take issue with those that involve animal cruelty. Go ahead, have a log rolling contest or a tree climbing contest (granted those aren't very good examples), but don't hurt or kill an innocent animal in the process just to get your jollies off it.

Now as far as killing the piggies as part of a sacrifical contest I disagree totally. Unless, of course, they aren't tortured and are eaten afterwards. I agree that they probably do suffer pain by being forced to be so overweight, but it is difficult to break traditions of other countries when we are looked upon as outsiders. Take bullfighting, for example. Now don't even get me going on that. This has to be one of the cruelest, inhumane forms of animal torture I know. Who cares how it became a tradition, it just needs to be stopped. As far as I can see it is done now as mainly a form of entertainment. Who needs that when there's the Internet. Seriously though, animal activists have tried to stop it for years without much success. I think in order to stop such inhumane traditions we need to get the native people involved in helping. Most foreigners don't want to hear anything American's have to say, but slowly they might begin listening if their own people started to oppose such acts.

I've also heard of the "suicide run" in North America. Another stupid event even if it is a Native American tradition. It obviously serves no purpose in the modern world other than to entertain. Once again, why do people need to be entertained by watching and participating in animal cruelty. There are so many other things they could be doing like jumping on each others backs and running full speed down the hill ending with a face-plant in the water:p


LUVBUGZ  Thursday Aug 21 04:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Naw, I'm always on the lookout for my next ex. As women...ah...er...mature the horizontal bop is less important than other traits. Someone to steer them in the right direction.
All right, I can probably go along w/ that, but just how many times have you been married?:p


xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Aug 21 05:29 PM

Didn't pick up on steer? Legally, just twice.

But as far as the pig goes, sacrificing a pig or something to the "gods" is very common everywhere. It's only natural to pick the biggest (best) for that and of course the person that raised it would be honored also. As people become wealthier they can feed the critter better and breed them better until the beast gets grotesque. But the tradition continues because it ties the generations together. It honors not only the gods but ancestors, part of the culture. I really see no harm in that the pig was not a pet, but born and raised to be eaten.
I think you'll find that it's predominately modern well fed cultures that this animal rights/welfare attitude exists. Elsewhere animals were food or tools except the occasional pet.
My grandfather didn't abuse his horses, not because he thought they were great noble beasts but for the same reason I don't take a hammer to my cars. They are valuable and I need them.
Bull fighting......I don't approve, but I understand.



Undertoad  Thursday Aug 21 05:39 PM

From another POV, hey, nobody mentioned the fan in the above picture. I bet it stinks like nothin' else in that room. Pigs are good eatin', and smart, but they can reek too.



ndetroit  Thursday Aug 21 05:41 PM

Quote:
It also makes them taste better. Hey, I'm serious here.
why does it make them taste better? .. More fat per lb of meat? (kind of like how a lot of people prefer a RibEye, because it's marbled with fat and more flavorful) ?.... ... ... or are the pigs hormones altered as a result of the neutering in some taste-affecting way?

just curious.


xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Aug 21 05:49 PM

It's the hormones. Testosterone is really foul. If a boar gets over 300 lbs or so without being cut, you wouldn't like the taste. Even if they're cut at that point and grow much bigger and older, they still don't taste good.



xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Aug 21 05:56 PM

Quote:
From another POV, hey, nobody mentioned the fan in the above picture. I bet it stinks like nothin' else in that room. Pigs are good eatin', and smart, but they can reek too.
Since pigs don't sweat the don't stink that way. Their crap and farts however are realllllly rank. If you keep them in a pasture instead of a pen and give them water they can swim in, they hardly smell at all. But anyone that's been near a pig farm knows when you concentrate the population, you concentrate the smell.


Uryoces  Thursday Aug 21 06:52 PM

Quote:
Somewhere in North America there is another 'tradition' involving hurting animals. It's called a suicide run involving men riding horses along a course at full speed and ending with a run down a severely steep sandy slope straight into a river. Men & horses being injured is standard, being killed is a definate possiblity.
It's called the Omak Stampede and Suicide Race. Right here in the Pacific Northwest in Eastern Washington. It's a knucklebiter to watch. It's very exciting, but you wouldn't catch me doing that to myself or a horse.


Leah  Thursday Aug 21 06:57 PM

Poor piggie, he thought he was in heaven being so pampered and loved for so long, then they did that to him.



xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Aug 21 09:47 PM

Look on the bright side Leah. He could have been treated like any other pig and then eaten. So he made out well.



xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Aug 21 09:51 PM

The suicide race looks pretty hairy but then again steeplechase looks pretty dangerous too.



quzah  Thursday Aug 21 11:19 PM

Re: 8/21/2003: Huge pig sacrificed

Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
Unfortunately for the pig, that means it was the largest pig killed in a sacrificial ceremony. It was the largest of 30 such sacrificed pigs, who are neutered at an early age and then force-fed to get them to reach enormous weights.

All for the purpose of this traditional religious ritual of the Hakka people of Taiwan, a culture that makes up about 15% of the island's population.
And this is news why? Who gives a fuck? Go enjoy your ham sandwich and stop trying to protray this as bad. If you actually care, go vegan, or shut the fuck up.

Now I know you're trying to just report interesting news, so I'll give you that. But don't try and add some boo hoo woe is the pig angle on it, while none of you actually give a shit.

Quzah.


Elspode  Thursday Aug 21 11:59 PM

Oh oh...whatever Goethean has got, it is spreading like wildfire...



juju  Friday Aug 22 01:29 AM

For God's sake... where does it end??



tw  Friday Aug 22 02:28 AM

What is the difference between a sacrifice and cooking dinner?



juju  Friday Aug 22 02:30 AM

With a sacrifice, the animal's death has religious significance.



LUVBUGZ  Friday Aug 22 03:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
But as far as the pig goes, sacrificing a pig or something to the "gods" is very common everywhere. It's only natural to pick the biggest (best) for that and of course the person that raised it would be honored also....But the tradition continues because it ties the generations together. It honors not only the gods but ancestors, part of the culture. I really see no harm in that the pig was not a pet, but born and raised to be eaten.
I think you'll find that it's predominately modern well fed cultures that this animal rights/welfare attitude exists. Elsewhere animals were food or tools except the occasional pet.
Luckly, Bruce, I agree with you (I'm not sure, but I don't think Stonan would, of course we haven't heard any reply yet.) I realize that many cultures sacrifice animals to the gods and although I would never do that I don't have a huge issue with it as long as the people don't ultimately kill it in an inhumane way such as burning it alive or something. As I said before, I do feel that the pig suffered having been forced to be obese, but I realize piggie's ultimate purpose was to be eaten and as long as the people do comsume the pig after 'sacrificing' it I can live w/ that.

Believe it or not, my reply post was mainly for Stonan. I am a huge animal right's advocate, but I don't appreciate "wanna-be's" who randomly go around sticking their 2-cents in saying everything under the sun is animal abuse and then quietly leaving without defending their position. It makes the rest of 'us' who actually try to do something about animal abuses look like blubbering idiots and then we are left to deal w/ the Quzah's of the world. I was kinda testing Stonan to see if he/she has what it takes to come into the Cellar and make a remark like that. I was trying to find out if Stonan is someone I could make future alliances w/ regarding animal right's stuff or if he/she is just an uninformed trouble-maker. This has yet to be seen and I'm waiting to hear back from Stonan.

Enjoy the ham sammie, Quzah:p


ndetroit  Friday Aug 22 03:21 AM

Quote:
It's the hormones. Testosterone is really foul. If a boar gets over 300 lbs or so without being cut, you wouldn't like the taste. Even if they're cut at that point and grow much bigger and older, they still don't taste good.

Is that true for beef and poultry as well, or just pork? .. I've never heard this before, and I suppose this is pretty useful stuff.. Are most bred-for-consumption pigs neutered early in life? Is that the way it is for cows, etc too?

Is there a certain label I should be looking for on my meat when I go to the butcher shop?

I find it weird that there is such a differentiating factor in meats that I never knew about....

... and I used to work in a butcher shop.. O.o


LUVBUGZ  Friday Aug 22 03:30 AM

Bruce said.....

Quote:
My grandfather didn't abuse his horses, not because he thought they were great noble beasts but for the same reason I don't take a hammer to my cars. They are valuable and I need them.
I'm sure your grandpa didn't abuse his horses, but I'm just as sure he did consider them "great noble beasts". Most people who work and live w/ animals, using them as 'tools' or for food, as opposed to simply having a pet, have a mutual respect for their animals and treat them with such.


quzah  Friday Aug 22 04:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
It makes the rest of 'us' who actually try to do something about animal abuses look like blubbering idiots and then we are left to deal w/ the Quzah's of the world.

Enjoy the ham sammie, Quzah:p
Here's a clue stick, now hit yourself upside the head with it. I am vegan. I don't eat animals.

Quzah.


LUVBUGZ  Friday Aug 22 05:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah


Here's a clue stick, now hit yourself upside the head with it. I am vegan. I don't eat animals.

Quzah.
Well, that felt good, hitting myself upside the head that is. I must now publicly apologize to Quzah for my premature comment. Not knowing you from Adam, I made the false assumption based on your reply to UT that you were an ignorant butt-head, but I guess I'm the butt-head here. I am sorry Quzah for my stab at you. Feel free to stab back. Just curious, do you think that Vegans are the only ones who really care about animal welfare because they don't eat them? I hope you're not one of those Vegans that proclaim to be the ultimate animal right's advocate while wearing a leather jacket and leather shoes with an egg and cheese burrito hanging out your mouth!


quzah  Friday Aug 22 07:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
I hope you're not one of those Vegans that proclaim to be the ultimate animal right's advocate while wearing a leather jacket and leather shoes with an egg and cheese burrito hanging out your mouth!
You should look up the word vegan, because you seem to be confusing it with the word vegetarian*. I am a strict vegan. I don't eat or use any animal products if at all humanly possible.

I personally don't care what anyone does, uses, eats, whatever. It's your body, if you want to have a heart attack or get colon cancer, feel free. No sweat off my brow. It's not my goal in life to convince anyone of anything. Believe what you want, do what you want, it has no effect on me either way.

I just find it absurd when people profess some kind of shock or horror at how an animal is treated when they go munch down on a (insert food item here). I guess I just don't like hypocrites. Which is why I loath vegetarians.

Quzah.

*Slight edit here. That isn't the greatest definition of vegetarian. The premise is correct, but the common definition of a vegetarian is some one who doesn't eat meat. Oddly enough they seem to find excuses to eat egg, drink milk, eat either chicken or sea food (because for some unknown reason, those aren't meat. I know, it boggles the mind). People will find a reason to justify any behaviour that makes them feel good about themselves.


evansk7  Friday Aug 22 08:23 AM

LUVBUGZ:

Out of curiosity, since when did someone have to be a vegan, or vegetarian, to care about animals?

I care deeply about animals. It's a fairly well-known British stereotype, but there's something inherently worse about - say - shooting a burglar's dog than shooting a burglar.

I don't like the thought of animals suffering at the hands of their keepers, and I don't like the thought of *any* living thing being mistreated.

On the other hand, I don't consider - for example - free range eggs to be "mistreatment".. the little hens run round in the sunshine, with their beaks and claws still attached. They lay their little eggs on the ground, and someone comes and picks them up. Then I boil, fry or poach them, and the hen's just fine and dandy. I don't buy eggs other than those raised in free-range farms.

Likewise, I don't consider the humane (i.e. as fast as possible, with as little interval between "alive and well" and "dead and filleted" as possible) slaughter of animals for food to be mistreatment, or "uncaring".

I happen to like meat. I like the taste of meat, I like the texture of meat, I like the nutritional value of meat, and I accept that in order to eat meat animals have to be slaughtered. I won't accept that they be tortured to death for the purposes of feeding me, and I won't accept that they be shoved in little cages and shipped the length and breadth of the country (which is why I don't eat veal) but I *do* absolutely stand by the fact that we're omnivores. We're at the top of a food chain, and we eat the things below us in it - just like every other carnivore and omnivore on the planet.

If you choose not to eat meat do so that's your prerogative, and I completely support you in it - but don't presume to judge me and label me "someone who doesn't care" just because you happen to have a different point of view about a single theme than I do.

Kev



OnyxCougar  Friday Aug 22 09:14 AM

I second that.

Beef. It's what's for dinner at MY house. (And pork, and chicken and seafood).

I don't want animals TORTURED for my meal, and I buy the tuna that is dolphin-safe (as far as that goes).

What I wanna know is, are they gonna barbie that pig and feed the natives in a ceremonial post-sacrificial feast?



quzah  Friday Aug 22 09:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by evansk7
On the other hand, I don't consider - for example - free range eggs to be "mistreatment".. the little hens run round in the sunshine, with their beaks and claws still attached. They lay their little eggs on the ground, and someone comes and picks them up.
Ignorance is bliss. Prepare to be enlightened...

Here.
Quote:
Loose federal guidelines do exist. If chicken producers claim their birds are "free-range," they must be able to document that the chickens do not consume antibiotics or growth enhancers and that the chickens have access to an "outdoor yard". An outdoor yard may be as small as an opening in the sidewall of a standard chicken house. But chickens naturally flock and are territorial. If a side wall is created in a standard chicken house, a few may walk out and take a look. Most will stay in their own territory inside the house.
Here's more info.
And well, if you're really bored...

Like I said, I don't care what you eat. I'd try and put the wool back over your eyes, but I don't use wool either so you're out of luck with me around.

Quote:
Originally posted by evansk7
I won't accept that they be tortured to death for the purposes of feeding me, and I won't accept that they be shoved in little cages and shipped the length and breadth of the country (which is why I don't eat veal)
Sadly, there are all kinds of cruel shit for just about any kind of animal "product" you can think of. I'll stop searching now, you can do that if you want to further depress yourself.

If you really care, you'll do something about it. Otherwise you'll do whatever you like to feel better about yourself. Like I've said in the past, people can justify anything.

I justify being an asshole because, well I am one.

Quzah.


LUVBUGZ  Friday Aug 22 01:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah

You should look up the word vegan, because you seem to be confusing it with the word vegetarian*. I am a strict vegan. I don't eat or use any animal products if at all humanly possible.
Yes, I'm familiar with these two terms. I was just checking to make sure you weren't one of those people who is a actually a vegetarian, but proclaims to be a vegan.


LUVBUGZ  Friday Aug 22 01:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by evansk7
LUVBUGZ:

Out of curiosity, since when did someone have to be a vegan, or vegetarian, to care about animals?
This was point exactly. I don't believe you have to be vegan or vegetarian to care about animals. If you re-read my post (this time a little more carefully), you will see that I was basically asking Quzah this same question. I wanted to know if that was his/her position as a vegan, because I don't agree. I am for the record neither vegan, nor vegetarian and I basically feel the exact same way you do regarding the comsumption of animals. I actually even wear leather and I don't consider myself a hypocrite for doing so. I don't profess to be a vegan or vegetarian, therefore I eat meat (not all meat, by the way...NO lamb or veal) and I feel that if you are going to kill a cow for it's meat, then you better use the rest of it too. Leather is a strong, useful material that lasts much longer than most synthetic materials, so you're damn right I'm gonna put every part of that cow--who gave his life to sustain mine--to use. To not do so would be in a sense a waste of life and that's not right. Sorry to go off on the 'leather' tangent, but since I got that jab in on my Quzah reply I thought I'd address it now to preempt any forthcoming attack on that front. See, I've run into vegans who think that because I'm not vegan that I couldn't possibly care more about animals than they do, yet at the same time they aren't even true vegans because they have leather shoes on and are eating a cheese and mayo sandwich. It really pisses me off. It doesn't bother me what you believe, but don't pull a holier than thou attitude with me while your hypocritical ass can't even practice what you preach. In a round about way I was trying to find out if Quzah was one such vegan, and have since realized that this is not the case.

Quzah, with all that out of the way I hope we can still be friends, unless you loath meat-eaters more than you loath vegetarians:p


LUVBUGZ  Friday Aug 22 02:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
What I wanna know is, are they gonna barbie that pig and feed the natives in a ceremonial post-sacrificial feast?
I also addressed this in my earlier post. I said I didn't really have a problem with this "tradition" as long as the pig wasn't abused while alive and wasn't tortured while being killed and was eaten by the people afterwards.


bmgb  Friday Aug 22 02:19 PM

Quote:
Ignorance is bliss. Prepare to be enlightened...
Here.
Good link. It's amusing that all they have is pictures of people smiling... and a cartoonish image of a chicken in oversize clown shoes.

No pics of chickens hanging by their feet, waiting to be slaughtered.


LUVBUGZ  Friday Aug 22 02:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah

Sadly, there are all kinds of cruel shit for just about any kind of animal "product" you can think of. I'll stop searching now, you can do that if you want to further depress yourself.

If you really care, you'll do something about it. Otherwise you'll do whatever you like to feel better about yourself. Like I've said in the past, people can justify anything.

I justify being an asshole because, well I am one.

Quzah.
Thanks for the links Quzah. I've basically seen most of these, but it's been awhile. Sometimes I get so depressed trying to 'fight the good fight' that I have to step away for a bit. This Pig Post just got me going for some reason, actually it was Stonan's post that did it. Still no reply from 'it', by the way. I can accept that most people don't know the reality of most animal right's issues and make little remarks here and there, but it really urks me when someone who represents themselves as an activist slips in their 2-cents worth, stirs things up, then departs never to be heard from again, leaving the real activists to clean up the mess.

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, I'm an asshole too:p


OnyxCougar  Friday Aug 22 03:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ


I also addressed this in my earlier post. I said I didn't really have a problem with this "tradition" as long as the pig wasn't abuse while alive and wasn't tortured while being killed and was eaten by the people afterwards.
That was a general question to the populous, Love, not at you personally. Relax, sugar.


LUVBUGZ  Friday Aug 22 04:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OnyxCougar


That was a general question to the populous, Love, not at you personally. Relax, sugar.
I'm calm, I'm calm....I realize you were addressing everybody, I just thought I'd reiterate my position by quoting you rather than refering to my earlier post which was misread by some. Sorry, I'll never let it happen again


xoxoxoBruce  Friday Aug 22 07:06 PM

Quote:
But chickens naturally flock and are territorial. If a side wall is created in a standard chicken house, a few may walk out and take a look. Most will stay in their own territory inside the house.
Quzah, this is absolutely untrue. I know it was a quote and not your statement BUT, believe me it's simply not true, unless you have 50K chickens in a room with a doggie door and most of them never know it's there.
Been there done than, man and virtually all the chickens will go out and scratch/peck the ground for as long as the sun is up. Would I lie to you, my oldest and dearest friend?


xoxoxoBruce  Friday Aug 22 07:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ


I'm sure your grandpa didn't abuse his horses, but I'm just as sure he did consider them "great noble beasts". Most people who work and live w/ animals, using them as 'tools' or for food, as opposed to simply having a pet, have a mutual respect for their animals and treat them with such.
Nope, you lose. Gramps (1888-1983) considered the horses a necessary evil and was only too happy to replace them with Doodlebugs (homemade tractors) and trucks. He treated them with care for the reasons I stated before.
Now I love to see horses racing (unridden) across the open fields. But I understand Gramps point because I had to get up and walk a half mile each way to the barn, take care of the critters, come back and get ready to catch the school bus at 6:45 AM, every stinkin' morning. With animals there is no vacations, no days off. Then at night more chores and on weekends the other stuff like mucking stalls and other distasteful things.
Oh, and don't get me started on milking or hog slopping.:p


xoxoxoBruce  Friday Aug 22 07:39 PM

ndetroit, Not to worry. Any male meat on the market has been neutered at a young age. To promote growth, reduce agression (Injurys) and improve taste. Sorry for the late reply, man.



LUVBUGZ  Friday Aug 22 08:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce

Nope, you lose. Gramps (1888-1983) considered the horses a necessary evil and was only too happy to replace them with Doodlebugs (homemade tractors) and trucks. He treated them with care for the reasons I stated before.
Now I love to see horses racing (unridden) across the open fields. But I understand Gramps point because I had to get up and walk a half mile each way to the barn, take care of the critters, come back and get ready to catch the school bus at 6:45 AM, every stinkin' morning. With animals there is no vacations, no days off. Then at night more chores and on weekends the other stuff like mucking stalls and other distasteful things.
Oh, and don't get me started on milking or hog slopping.:p
All right, all right. You obviously knew grandpa and I didn't. Curious... did he keep *any* horses after the Doodlebugs came on the sceen?

I definately know what you mean about NO vacations w/ animals...they'll also drain your bank account w/ food and vet bills!!

You mean you got to take a bus to school and didn't have to walk five miles in the snow, up hill, w/out boots and a coat:p


xoxoxoBruce  Saturday Aug 23 01:18 AM

The Doodlebugs couldn't be driven on the road legally so they never went more than a couple miles from home. The horses were still used to haul wood into the city for sale.

Later when trucks became affordable, the horses were still used to haul small loads out of tree groves where the bugs couldn't go or caused too much damage. Once the wood was out to the "woodlot" roads, which were just treeless paths, the bugs took over.

One problem was the brush that had to be cut between the trees. It was small stuff, less than an inch in diameter and cut with a brush hook which is a stylized axe. This cut on an angle which left sharp points like pungi (sp) sticks. When these things punctured a tire it was a pain in the ass but when they punctured a horses ankle it could bleed to death pretty quickly without immediate action.

Later my folks bought a saddle horse as did my uncle. Guess who got to take care of them?

Yeah, a school bus. A LONG bus, thank you. It was 17 miles to school, and uphill both ways.



quzah  Saturday Aug 23 03:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
I also addressed this in my earlier post. I said I didn't really have a problem with this "tradition" as long as the pig wasn't abused while alive and wasn't tortured while being killed and was eaten by the people afterwards.
Getting your nuts cut off isn't abuse!?

Quzah.


quzah  Saturday Aug 23 03:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Quzah, this is absolutely untrue. I know it was a quote and not your statement BUT, believe me it's simply not true, unless you have 50K chickens in a room with a doggie door and most of them never know it's there.
Been there done than, man and virtually all the chickens will go out and scratch/peck the ground for as long as the sun is up. Would I lie to you, my oldest and dearest friend?
Well technicly, you could call 50K chickens with a single doggie door "free range". I think that's the point they were trying to illustrate.

bmgb mentioned the smiling chickens. This always amuses the hell out of me. I like the smiling pig adds that is selling pork. What kind of sick son of a bitch is he?!

"Hey kiddies! Throw my brother on the barbie and grill his ass!"

Or those Foster's Farms (that's them right?) chickens that are trying to convince everyone that they're fresh chickens so they'll get eaten. The absurdity.

That's like me walking down to a canabalistic tribe and going "Hey, I'm plump and juicy! Eat me! Take a look at these thighs!" (Which on aside, wouldn't work in my case, because I'm skinny. But the point still stands...)

It is to laugh.

Quzah.


LUVBUGZ  Saturday Aug 23 05:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah

Getting your nuts cut off isn't abuse!?

Quzah.
Fucking A....I just spent two hours (sounds obcessive doesn't it) composing a masterpiece reply to this and my flaming piece of shit computer froze while I was previewing my post. Son of a bitch I'm pissed. I know you don't give a rat's ass, but I gotta vent before I beat the shit out of my crappy computer and hurt myself in the process.

Are you a male or female? Just curious so I'll know how to address you when I try to recreate my work of art?


xoxoxoBruce  Saturday Aug 23 08:09 AM

Quote:
Well technicly, you could call 50K chickens with a single doggie door "free range". I think that's the point they were trying to illustrate.
I certainly wouldn't, that's a commercial operation. But given half a chance chickens would rather be outside during daylight.


elSicomoro  Saturday Aug 23 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
Getting your nuts cut off isn't abuse!?
Not necessarily.

I'm gonna go out and grab some bacon...excuse me.


elSicomoro  Saturday Aug 23 01:00 PM

"Pig baby! I got a pig!
I gotta pig and it's pink and big!
Pig baby! I got a pig!
Come on baby, you and my pig!
Nurture my pig!"
--The Reverend Horton Heat



LUVBUGZ  Sunday Aug 24 04:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah

Getting your nuts cut off isn't abuse!?

Quzah.
Well, in this specific case, I would have to agree w/ you. I'm sure the piggy didn't enjoy the procedure which most likely involved constricting blood flow to the family jewels until they fell off or simply cutting them off w/out anesthesia. I would have to consider this a form of abuse due to the pain involved.

But, if we start talking about the castration of domestic pets, that's a whole new ballgame. Before I go off on that, I'm curious...do you think that's abuse too?


xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Aug 24 10:19 AM

If you love someone, have them spayed or neutered.:p



elSicomoro  Sunday Aug 24 11:31 AM

And one of your ex-wives made sure of this with you, right?



xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Aug 24 12:16 PM

With the help of her lawyer AND my lawyer.



LUVBUGZ  Sunday Aug 24 02:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
If you love someone, have them spayed or neutered.:p
Exactly, pretty much everthing that walks thru my front door gets 'altered'. Guess that explains why I don't get many visitors:p


quzah  Sunday Aug 24 10:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
But, if we start talking about the castration of domestic pets, that's a whole new ballgame. Before I go off on that, I'm curious...do you think that's abuse too?
Of course it is. You're removing body parts and altering their entire behavior.

If you don't agree, answer me this:
Q - Why does your dog no longer leave the yard when you cut his nuts off?
A - Because he's afraid you'll cut something else off the next time!

No, seriously, it's because he no longer has any desire to go out and procreate. If it wasn't such a big deal, why wouldn't humans do the same? Find your average male, ask them if you can cut off their testicles. What answer are you going to get? "Hell no!"

Neutering is nothing at all like a vasectomy. Spaying is the equivelant of a oophorectomy. Fairly similar to asking any woman if she'd like a hysterectomy. Again, you'll get a resounding "NO!", or at least I'd assume so.

Most people wouldn't volunteer for either operation. So why should your pet want it? The fact is, they wouldn't. There is no way in hell that if you could actually talk to them and explain the process, that they'd want it done.

It would be like asking your average male if you want to remove all sources of testosterone in his body. Because that's what it does. The outcome is an altered thought process. Think of it as a form of lobotomy.

Quzah.


LUVBUGZ  Monday Aug 25 02:26 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by quzah

Getting your nuts cut off isn't abuse!?

Quzah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LUVBUGS as a reply to above quote by Quzah

Fucking A....I just spent two hours (sounds obcessive doesn't it) composing a masterpiece reply to this and my flaming piece of shit computer froze while I was previewing my post. Son of a bitch I'm pissed. I know you don't give a rat's ass, but I gotta vent before I beat the shit out of my crappy computer and hurt myself in the process.

Are you a male or female? Just curious so I'll know how to address you when I try to recreate my work of art?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure if you caught this post, but I can see you are forcing me to go there. Keep an eye out for wrath



quzah  Monday Aug 25 03:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
Are you a male or female? Just curious so I'll know how to address you when I try to recreate my work of art?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure if you caught this post, but I can see you are forcing me to go there. Keep an eye out for wrath
I saw it, but a few things occurred to me:

1) I don't answer every question I'm asked.
2) It apparently didn't matter the first time you wrote, so why should it now?

Quzah.


LUVBUGZ  Monday Aug 25 03:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah

I saw it, but a few things occurred to me:

1) I don't answer every question I'm asked.
2) It apparently didn't matter the first time you wrote, so why should it now?

Quzah.
1) Why is that?
2) OK, I'll just address you as "IT", you know the same thing people call their pets after they get their balls cut off.


quzah  Monday Aug 25 05:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ

1) Why is that?
2) OK, I'll just address you as "IT", you know the same thing people call their pets after they get their balls cut off.
1) I don't feel the need. If you do, kindly provide the following:

Social Security Number, full legal name, date of birth, sex, full mailing address, credit card information, not limited to, but including, card name, card number, expiration date, card pin or verification number.

2) I'd call mine 'Unfortunate', 'Poor Bastard', 'Sorry', 'Vengeful', or something appropriate. I would definatley change its name if it had been named 'Lucky' up to that point.

Quzah.


LUVBUGZ  Monday Aug 25 05:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah

1) I don't feel the need. If you do, kindly provide the following:

Social Security Number, full legal name, date of birth, sex, full mailing address, credit card information, not limited to, but including, card name, card number, expiration date, card pin or verification number.

2) I'd call mine 'Unfortunate', 'Poor Bastard', 'Sorry', 'Vengeful', or something appropriate. I would definatley change its name if it had been named 'Lucky' up to that point.

Quzah.
1) I know the Internet can be a scary place, but you're sounding a wee bit paranoid, make sure you take your meds. on a daily basis, it might help. Fuck, I was just curious if you had balls or not so I could taylor my reply a little.

2) Mine have cuter names like Clyde, Oscar, and Melvin:p


quzah  Monday Aug 25 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
I know the Internet can be a scary place, but you're sounding a wee bit paranoid, make sure you take your meds. on a daily basis, it might help. Fuck, I was just curious if you had balls or not so I could taylor my reply a little.
What's wrong with paranoia? You're one of those people aren't you? I know about you guys! That's it, I'm not posting any more. I'm going to go change my legal name now and move.

Quzah.


LUVBUGZ  Tuesday Aug 26 08:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
Getting your nuts cut off isn't abuse!?

Of course it is. You're removing body parts and altering their entire behavior.
"No, seriously, it's because he no longer has any desire to go out and procreate. If it wasn't such a big deal, why wouldn't humans do the same? Find your average male, ask them if you can cut off their testicles. What answer are you going to get? 'Hell no!'"

I think the world might be a better place if some guys did get their nuts cut off.

"Neutering is nothing at all like a vasectomy."

You're correct there, at least. Neutering involves surgically removing both testes through a single incision in the scrotum. And, unlike a human vasectomy, this procedure is not reversible.

Spaying is the equivelant of a oophorectomy. Fairly similar to asking any woman if she'd like a hysterectomy. Again, you'll get a resounding "NO!", or at least I'd assume so.

I've never heard of an oophorectomy, but spaying is an operation, technically known as "ovariohysterectomy", where both the ovaries and uterus are removed permanently. Being a woman I can only address the hysterectomy issue. I venture to say that your assumption that NO woman would willingly want to have one is incorrect. There are millions of women who have had them and millions more who want them.

"Most people wouldn't volunteer for either operation. So why should your pet want it? The fact is, they wouldn't. There is no way in hell that if you could actually talk to them and explain the process, that they'd want it done."

If we had the ability to actually talk to and explain the neuter/spay process to our pets I believe that probably most wouldn't have as big a problem as you apparently do. If we could tell the males that they would be safer, have a much better disposition AND still be able to have all the sex they want, I think they would be OK w/ that. Neutered males are less likely to bite, fight w/ other dogs, wonder, chase cars, bark excessively, display too much aggressiveness, and screw your leg.
If we told the females that would be much healthier and happier AND still be able to have all the sex thay want, I think they'd be OK w/ that too. Spayed females have a much less chance (practically zero if spayed before the age of one year and before having a first litter) of suffering from mammary tumors [I've heard of women actually having their breasts removed as the ultimate form of breast cancer PREVENTION], mastitis (inflammation of the mammary gland), metritis (inflammation of the womb), polyps in the uterus, prolapse, and vaginitis to name a few.


"It would be like asking your average male if you want to remove all sources of testosterone in his body. Because that's what it does. The outcome is an altered thought process. Think of it as a form of lobotomy."

I think the only one here who needs a lobotomy is you, Quzah. :p

I haven't even started on how NOT spaying/neytering your pets is the greatest form of abuse you could impose on them. Watch for that in my next post.


elSicomoro  Tuesday Aug 26 09:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
Being a woman I can only address the hysterectomy issue. I venture to say that your assumption that NO woman would willingly want to have one is incorrect. There are millions of women who have had them and millions more who want them
If Lady Syc could handle the surgery and find a doctor willing to do it at her age (33), she'd get it done in a minute.


LUVBUGZ  Tuesday Aug 26 12:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore


If Lady Syc could handle the surgery and find a doctor willing to do it at her age (33), she'd get it done in a minute.
Precisely my point, thanks Syc. I asked my OBGYN a few years back if I could get one and the reply was NO, end of story. Wouldn't even discuss it w/ me. Said I was too young and even if I was older they still wouldn't do one unless my health was at risk. What a bunch of crap I say.


quzah  Tuesday Aug 26 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
If we had the ability to actually talk to and explain the neuter/spay process to our pets I believe that probably most wouldn't have as big a problem as you apparently do. If we could tell the males that they would be safer, have a much better disposition AND still be able to have all the sex they want, I think they would be OK w/ that. Neutered males are less likely to bite, fight w/ other dogs, wonder, chase cars, bark excessively, display too much aggressiveness, and screw your leg.
If we told the females that would be much healthier and happier AND still be able to have all the sex thay want, I think they'd be OK w/ that too. Spayed females have a much less chance (practically zero if spayed before the age of one year and before having a first litter) of suffering from mammary tumors [I've heard of women actually having their breasts removed as the ultimate form of breast cancer PREVENTION], mastitis (inflammation of the mammary gland), metritis (inflammation of the womb), polyps in the uterus, prolapse, and vaginitis to name a few.
What the hell are you talking about? Why do you think they had eunuchs in the harems? Because they couldn't have sex. Why do you think they give people with prostate cancer / who have had to have their testicles removed hormone (testosterone) shots?

Not to have sex, but rather so they don't loose their "manlyness" (for lack of a better word).

The reason the chop the nuts off of dogs is so they don't go out and have sex. They can't. They're basicly broken from that point on. They can't procreate. They no longer have the desire to, because they don't have any more testosterone. They don't really care about marking their territory, or being king of the block.

That, like I said, is why they don't run away from home any more. They no longer have the desire to.

Quzah.


juju  Tuesday Aug 26 12:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
If we had the ability to actually talk to and explain the neuter/spay process to our pets I believe that probably most wouldn't have as big a problem as you apparently do. If we could tell the males that they would be safer, have a much better disposition AND still be able to have all the sex they want, I think they would be OK w/ that. Neutered males are less likely to bite, fight w/ other dogs, wonder, chase cars, bark excessively, display too much aggressiveness, and screw your leg.
Those are all things <i>you</i> consider bad. Are you sure the animal would agree?

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
I think the world might be a better place if some guys did get their nuts cut off.
How so? (I know you're probably joking, but I wasn't sure. )


LUVBUGZ  Tuesday Aug 26 01:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah

What the hell are you talking about? Why do you think they had eunuchs in the harems? Because they couldn't have sex.
Just because your nuts are cut off doesn't mean you can't have sex, only that you can no longer procreate because you can no longer produce sperm. Granted, your labido is diminished somewhat, but if you really want to you can still get it on. I'm pretty sure the male attendant's to the harem got their balls cut off by the Sheik 1) because it does reduce sex drive and 2) just in case any one did hook up there would be no offspring to deal with. Of course, if the Big Man on Campus found out, getting your balls cut off would be the least of your worries.

Obviously, you have not gone to a dog beach or a dog park and observed NEUTERED male dogs mounting every female that walks by. They're going throught the motions, but just can't impregnate them.

I have also observed SPAYED female dogs trying to get it on with other males too.

Any WOMAN who has had a hysterectomy can tell you that they still have an active sexlife.

So, in a nutshell, what the fuck are YOU talking about? What's the matter, did I use too many big word for you?


Undertoad  Tuesday Aug 26 02:42 PM

My bitch interrupts to say, dog humping isn't sexual. It's just how they work out their pack order.



xoxoxoBruce  Tuesday Aug 26 04:01 PM

Same with peoples legs.



gossard187  Wednesday Aug 27 03:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Same with peoples legs.
MY legs don't do that.


quzah  Wednesday Aug 27 04:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
Just because your nuts are cut off doesn't mean you can't have sex, only that you can no longer procreate because you can no longer produce sperm. Granted, your labido is diminished somewhat, but if you really want to you can still get it on. I'm pretty sure the male attendant's to the harem got their balls cut off by the Sheik 1) because it does reduce sex drive and 2) just in case any one did hook up there would be no offspring to deal with. Of course, if the Big Man on Campus found out, getting your balls cut off would be the least of your worries.
It must be nice to live in a fantasy world. Welcome to reality. Your assessment is 100% false on the above pharagraph. The point of removing the testicles of a dog is not so they don't have offspring. It is so they lose all desire to do so. If it were just making sure they didn't procreate, they'd just do a vasectomy. (And yes, they can do them for pets, they just chose not to.)

The reason they have eunuchs is so that there's enough of a man around to be a servent to do this or that task, but not enough of a man left to do the task.

Please go take a high health / school sex education class again, so you can actually find out what the testicles do. Removal of the testicles is just a tad bit more than "slightly diminishing" your sex drive.

[edit]
Your statement that animals would volunteer for either operation is absurd. The entire basis of animal life is to procreate. Why in the hell would they opt not to do so? They're not like humans, in that they (en-masse) take care of their young indefinately. They simply raise them for a year or so, and they're done with them. The point of a dogs life is to produce as many offspring as they can. That's all they do.

Take wolves or cats, or whatever. All they do is get enough food to live, find some place to sleep, and procreate. Their very nature is to simply produce offspring.

Survival of the fittest is how it plays. That's why they have more than one offspring at a time. Have a bunch, raise the ones that survive.

It, as I've stated, would be a basic lobotomy. It alters their very existance. It isn't natural for said operation to happen. It would never occur in nature, and therefore, they wouldn't even grasp the concept. Let alone ask for it.
[/edit]

Quzah.


xoxoxoBruce  Wednesday Aug 27 05:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gossard187


MY legs don't do that.
Well, move your right leg in clockwise circles. Now at the same time write the number 6 in the air with your right hand. If your leg changes direction, you're one of those leg humpers.


LUVBUGZ  Friday Aug 29 09:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
It must be nice to live in a fantasy world. Welcome to reality.

If I was living in a fantasy world you could be damn sure you wouldn't be in it.

Your assessment is 100% false on the above pharagraph. The point of removing the testicles of a dog is not so they don't have offspring. It is so they lose all desire to do so.

Your assessment is 100% false in the above sentences. The whole fucking point of removing a dog's (or cat's) testicles is so that they don't have offspring, which leads to pet overpopulation which is where the real abuse comes in to play (of which I have yet to expound on due to the unfortunate shift in this conversation). In fact, you yourself are getting caught up in your web of falsehoods, ignorance, and illogical rantings. I quote now from another of your previous posts (including typos which I have noted in italics). Quzah said: "The reason the chop the nuts off of dogs is so they don't go out and have sex. They can't. They're basicly broken from that point on. They can't procreate. They no longer have the desire to, because they don't have any more testosterone. They don't really care about marking their territory, or being king of the block." I do believe that "having sex and procreating" is the exact same thing as "having offspring". You, my friend, have just contradicted the shit out of yourself.

If it were just making sure they didn't procreate, they'd just do a vasectomy. (And yes, they can do them for pets, they just chose not to.)

Yes, for once you're correct. They can perform vasectomies on domestic pets, and some people opt for this procedure for their pets, but it is more evasive and costly so most pet owners go with the standard procedure which has been performed for decades.

The reason they have eunuchs is so that there's enough of a man around to be a servent to do this or that task, but not enough of a man left to do the task.

I will not address this comment any further because it has absolutely nothing to do with spaying or neutering domestic pets, but I will say that I think you are confusing the "act of having sex" with the "ability to procreate". Human example for your feeble little mind: An infertile man can have sex (perform the actual sex act), but is unable to procreate (produce children). BTY, you might want to check your spelling again, 'servent' is incorrect.

Please go take a high health / school sex education class again, so you can actually find out what the testicles do. Removal of the testicles is just a tad bit more than "slightly diminishing" your sex drive.

I'm not sure what a "high health / school sex education class" is, but I do have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Biology and I think I know what the function of the testes is. Just a suggestion, but maybe you should go back and take a high school English class.

Your statement that animals would volunteer for either operation is absurd. The entire basis of animal life is to procreate. Why in the hell would they opt not to do so?

Well, in keeping with your fucked up logic, why do you feel compelled to consider it "absurd" for an animal to opt for such procedures? There are millions of people (we're animals too) who have opted to sterilize themselves even though "the entire basis of animal life is to procreate" as you would have it. As humans we have the ability to observe and comprehend the results of over-population and many of us simply choose not to procreate for various reasons. In my statement I was stating that "if" pets had this ability that they too might opt NOT to procreate as well.

They're not like humans, in that they (en-masse) take care of their young indefinately. They simply raise them for a year or so, and they're done with them. The point of a dogs life is to produce as many offspring as they can. That's all they do.

I don't know of many humans who take care of their young "indefinitely", but I do know of many who raise them for a short time and then they're done with them. Another reason a few more humans should consider castration. BTY, watch the spelling, 'indefinately' is incorrect.

Take wolves or cats, or whatever. All they do is get enough food to live, find some place to sleep, and procreate. Their very nature is to simply produce offspring.

True enough, but in the example I was discussing I said "what if" we could ask animals to "volunteer" for sterilization. I said they would, you said they wouldn't. Don't you think that in this case some animals might say, "Gee, I am kind of tired of spending all my time procreating and raising offspring, I'd much rather spend my day running around, exploring, doing whatever I want to do"?

Survival of the fittest is how it plays. That's why they have more than one offspring at a time. Have a bunch, raise the ones that survive.

I'm quite familiar with the "survival of the fittest" idea and animals that have several offspring at a time is only one method used by animals to ensure that some of their offspring will survive to reproduce. You are absolutely incorrect in your previous statement. Animals that use this form of reproduction don't "have a bunch" and "raise the ones that survive". They, in fact, spend their energy in producing several offspring at one time and offer little to no parenting afterward. It is by chance alone that at least a few survive to maturity and are able to reproduce. Another method of survival involves producing very few, or even just one, offspring then spending your energy "raising" those offspring for a long period of time, teaching them how to survive and hopefully this knowledge will allow them to live long enough to reproduce. Survival of the fittest affects offspring of both methods of reproduction.

It, as I've stated, would be a basic lobotomy. It alters their very existance. It isn't natural for said operation to happen. It would never occur in nature, and therefore, they wouldn't even grasp the concept. Let alone ask for it.

No one said it was "natural", but domestic pets are in a sense not "natural" in that they are not "wild" creatures. Once humans domesticate an animal they take on the responsibility of caring for that animal and providing the safest most humane environment possible. This includes not allowing them to run all over producing offspring that are unwanted and abandoned or put to death at an animal shelter. Millions of stray pets suffer incredibly as a result of being abandoned. There are simply too many pets and not enough homes for them. They wander the streets sick and starving spreading disease. Many get injured in fights or hit by cars. Many are targets of abuse and torture at the hands of idiots who find it amusing to watch an innocent animal suffer. I think if an animal had the ability to realize the fate of many of its offspring that it would choose not to constantly procreate just because it can. But, since they don't have this ability, it is our responsibility to prevent such acts from occurring. Therefore, any responsible and caring pet owner SPAYS OR NEUTERS their pets!!! BTY, learn how to fucking spell before you attempt to make a bigger asshole out of yourself than you already have, 'existance' is incorrect.


quzah  Friday Aug 29 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
Yes, for once you're correct. They can perform vasectomies on domestic pets, and some people opt for this procedure for their pets, but it is more evasive and costly so most pet owners go with the standard procedure which has been performed for decades.
And slavery was practiced for decades also. Does that make it right? It seems that you in your mind equate a vasectomy and castration. They are not even remotely the same.

I will not address this comment any further because it has absolutely nothing to do with spaying or neutering domestic pets, but I will say that I think you are confusing the "act of having sex" with the "ability to procreate".

And yet, you just did address the comment. Please make up your mind. Do or do not. Don't half ass it.

Human example for your feeble little mind: An infertile man can have sex (perform the actual sex act), but is unable to procreate (produce children). BTY, you might want to check your spelling again, 'servent' is incorrect.
Here, let me help you, in your limited ability to tell the difference between castration and a vasectomy:

By removing the testicles, there is little if any desire to have sex at all. It alters the way the brain functions because there is now a lack of testosterone. But since you're supposedly a biologist, you should know the obvious basic shit like this, so why in the fuck is it so hard for you to understand?

No nuts = no desire to have sex.

Let me illustrate another point for you, since you have no grasp of the obvious:

In animals, the common understanding of sexual behavior tells us that the only reason they have sex is to procreate. In humans this is not true in the slightest. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just castrate men instead of doing vasectomies?

Gee, I guess with my feeble mind I have a much better grasp of this concept than your highly skilled Biologist brain.
I'm not sure what a "high health / school sex education class" is, but I do have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Biology and I think I know what the function of the testes is. Just a suggestion, but maybe you should go back and take a high school English class.
I guess even fucking morons can get degrees now days.

Well, in keeping with your fucked up logic, why do you feel compelled to consider it "absurd" for an animal to opt for such procedures? There are millions of people (we're animals too) who have opted to sterilize themselves even though "the entire basis of animal life is to procreate" as you would have it. As humans we have the ability to observe and comprehend the results of over-population and many of us simply choose not to procreate for various reasons. In my statement I was stating that "if" pets had this ability that they too might opt NOT to procreate as well.
That's a mighty big "if". As I've already explained, animals are not considered to be "like humans" in that they do not follow the same thought patterns. Hell, people even debate if fish can actually feel pain. So now I'm to understand that dogs actually think about if they should procreate or not?

Get fucking real! Put any male dog with a female in heat and he'll be all over her. Cut his nuts of, and he won't. Give him a vasectomy, and he will.

What part of this is hard to understand? Are you a complete idiot, or do you just play one on TV?
True enough, but in the example I was discussing I said "what if" we could ask animals to "volunteer" for sterilization. I said they would, you said they wouldn't. Don't you think that in this case some animals might say, "Gee, I am kind of tired of spending all my time procreating and raising offspring, I'd much rather spend my day running around, exploring, doing whatever I want to do"?
Sterilization is not the same as castration. Please get this through your incredibly thick skull. THAT is why they would not opt for the operation. Because if they actually understood the difference between castration and a vasectomy, there is no fucking way in hell they would opt for castration. Period. No one in their right mind would opt for castration unless it was to do something like spare their life because they had cancer or something else.

No male on earth would volunteer for castration unless it was life a threatening situation, or they were wacked out of their gourd.

One last time, because you're so god damn dense: Castration is nothing at all like a vasectomy. That is my entire point. Castration is not "humane" as you put it. There is nothing humane about it. Here, go look it up. There is nothing humane about castration, because by the very definition of the word there is nothing at all positive about, or humanistic about it at all. Humans do not castrate eachother unless it is a form of punishment.

Why do you hear people say "I'd like to castrate the bastard!"? Because they think it's a fucking reward? Get a clue.

BTY, learn how to fucking spell before you attempt to make a bigger asshole out of yourself than you already have, 'existance' is incorrect.

Why bother? I have the spelling Nazi correcting my work for me.

Quzah.


Undertoad  Friday Aug 29 11:12 AM

Quz, I don't agree with your argument because I think you're anthropomorphizing the dog.

To the dog, the choice between castration and vasectomy is like the choice between a coffee mug and a bicycle. It's simply not something he ever ponders.

Nor is the loss of his sexuality a burden. He simply doesn't sit there and ponder all the poon he could have gotten. Did you ever see a dog with three legs? He doesn't care, not one bit. It causes him no angst at all. He doesn't become morose because he's not like all the other dogs. He just looks around, says "oh ok, now i've got three" and from that point is normal. The reactions we think he might have are human emotional reactions -- based on our experience of the world, not the dog's.

We often restrict the free will of dogs both to make them more compatible with our lifestyles, but the reason this all works is because dogs are instinctively pack animals and are roughly oriented to follow orders from top dogs. We are the top dogs. Most dog training classes are actually human training, to train the humans in how to act in ways the dog instinctively understands.

We also restrict the free will of dogs to improve their lives. Given a "choice", a dog will eat week-old roadkill because he does not have the advanced thought processes to understand that his human master is able to guarantee a regular daily meal. (In fact I often stop mine from eating wires and hardware that's fallen on the floor, because domesticated dogs eat things just to see if they can digest it, even if it could possibly kill them.)



quzah  Friday Aug 29 11:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
Quz, I don't agree with your argument because I think you're anthropomorphizing the dog.

To the dog, the choice between castration and vasectomy is like the choice between a coffee mug and a bicycle. It's simply not something he ever ponders.

Nor is the loss of his sexuality a burden. He simply doesn't sit there and ponder all the poon he could have gotten.
Perhaps you should read the start of this topic:

Quote:
Well, in this specific case, I would have to agree w/ you. I'm sure the piggy didn't enjoy the procedure which most likely involved constricting blood flow to the family jewels until they fell off or simply cutting them off w/out anesthesia. I would have to consider this a form of abuse due to the pain involved.

But, if we start talking about the castration of domestic pets, that's a whole new ballgame. Before I go off on that, I'm curious...do you think that's abuse too?
The original comment was me saying that cutting the nuts of a pig was abuse. To which this whole big tangent started, because LUVBUGZ doesn't seem to understand that there is a difference between castration and a vasectomy.

They're the one that started anthropomorphizing, when they stated that given the choice, dogs would opt to be castrated. My entire point is, if you could explain the difference to them, there is no way in hell they would choose to be castrated. See my post two back.

Again, for some reason unbeknownst to me, they still insist that dogs would opt to be castrated. I find this to be an absurd thought process.

But you are correct, we were both applying some human characteristics to the animal, in order to further our arguments. They give dogs the comprehension to understand what the argument does, so I give them the understanding to realize just how absurd the operation is.

Quzah.


Undertoad  Friday Aug 29 12:19 PM

Oh, OK.

There's another way of looking at it, which is the evolutionary big picture.

In this picture, it's the job of all species to try to reproduce their DNA. The ones that succeed at doing this "win" -- which means they get to continue on as a species.

Throughout time, species have done this by adapting to their environment. But when man came along, all the rules changed, and species now win by being adaptable to man.

The dog is remarkably good at being adaptable to man. Dogs struck a deal with man to interoperate as a species. They do whatever needs to be done, treat us as one of their pack, and in return we have helped them to reproduce their DNA, better than any other species EVER. We reproduce it in bizarre hairless 1-pound forms and massive Maximuses of 280 pounds, and everything in between.

Normally, all species guard their reproduction carefully so their DNA can carry on. So no species with enough brains to understand the concept would choose to have their gonaddy bits removed; it's instinctively offensive to nature. But it's precisely because dogs let humans do that, that they reproduce in enormous numbers. Their species made the choice for them, and it was definitely the right choice.



xoxoxoBruce  Friday Aug 29 07:04 PM

UT, I think you're making the mistake of Anthromorphizing quzah.



sixfeet  Saturday Aug 30 07:45 PM

It is amazing that the start of this thread was over a sacrificed pig with no nuts to a heavy debate over eunichs and dog nuts... lol



LUVBUGZ  Saturday Aug 30 07:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sixfeet
It is amazing that the start of this thread was over a sacrificed pig with no nuts to a heavy debate over eunichs and dog nuts... lol
I know, sad isn't it?? If Quzah could just admit that he/she is totally fucking wrong we could move on to something else, but unfortunately for all of us the dumb ass has his/her head so far up his/her ass that nothing is able to sink in, so the debate continues.


LUVBUGZ  Saturday Aug 30 10:29 PM

[quote]Originally posted by quzah

And slavery was practiced for decades also. Does that make it right? It seems that you in your mind equate a vasectomy and castration. They are not even remotely the same.

Now you find it necessary to bring slavery into the conversation. Can’t you focus on resolving one issue at a time? Or, is your IQ at rock bottom and you’re incapable of doing so?

I know what castration is, I know what a vasectomy is. You were the fucking idiot that brought up vasectomies so I agreed w/ you and stated that “Yes, it is possible to give a pet a vasectomy rather than castrating them” and added that castration is the more common method of sterilizing pets.


I will not address this comment any further because it has absolutely nothing to do with spaying or neutering domestic pets, but I will say that I think you are confusing the "act of having sex" with the "ability to procreate".
And yet, you just did address the comment. Please make up your mind. Do or do not. Don't half ass it.

You got me there, I did comment. So, sue me asshole!!

Human example for your feeble little mind: An infertile man can have sex (perform the actual sex act), but is unable to procreate (produce children). BTY, you might want to check your spelling again, 'servent' is incorrect.
Here, let me help you, in your limited ability to tell the difference between castration and a vasectomy:

By removing the testicles, there is little if any desire to have sex at all. It alters the way the brain functions because there is now a lack of testosterone. But since you're supposedly a biologist, you should know the obvious basic shit like this, so why in the fuck is it so hard for you to understand?
No nuts = no desire to have sex.

As I mentioned above, I am fully aware of the difference between castration and a vasectomy. Did you find that article all by yourself, I’m impressed. I’m also aware that castrating an animal affects their physiopsycological functions by REDUCING their libido, but not ELIMINATING it. Try rereading the article you posted. Nowhere in it does it state that castration causes a total loss of libido. It only states that “copulatory ability decreases dramatically following castration”.

Let me illustrate another point for you, since you have no grasp of the obvious:
In animals, the common understanding of sexual behavior tells us that the only reason they have sex is to procreate. In humans this is not true in the slightest. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just castrate men instead of doing vasectomies?

This statement is incorrect. Humans are animals too and the reason they have sex is to procreate. The only difference is that for humans sex is also a method self-gratification (pleasure), but if precautionary actions are not taken offspring will ultimately be the end result whether the sex act was intended for procreation or pleasure.

Gee, I guess with my feeble mind I have a much better grasp of this concept than your highly skilled Biologist brain.

I beg to differ w/ this comment. I think your feeble little mind doesn’t have a grasp of much other than its location, which is deeply embedded up your ass.

I'm not sure what a "high health / school sex education class" is, but I do have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Biology and I think I know what the function of the testes is. Just a suggestion, but maybe you should go back and take a high school English class.
I guess even fucking morons can get degrees now days.

True enough, I know of several, and now I know of one more “if” you have a degree.

Well, in keeping with your fucked up logic, why do you feel compelled to consider it "absurd" for an animal to opt for such procedures? There are millions of people (we're animals too) who have opted to sterilize themselves even though "the entire basis of animal life is to procreate" as you would have it. As humans we have the ability to observe and comprehend the results of over-population and many of us simply choose not to procreate for various reasons. In my statement I was stating that "if" pets had this ability that they too might opt NOT to procreate as well.
That's a mighty big "if". As I've already explained, animals are not considered to be "like humans" in that they do not follow the same thought patterns. Hell, people even debate if fish can actually feel pain. So now I'm to understand that dogs actually think about if they should procreate or not?

Your stupidity is mind-boggling. The whole premise of this discussion is based on “what if” animals had the ability to understand the ramifications of being neutered and whether or not they would then opt to have it done or not. You even pointed this fact out to UT in a subsequent post:
Quote originally posted by quzah to UT:
“Perhaps you should read the start of this topic:
Quote originally posted by LUVBUGZ:
Well, in this specific case, I would have to agree w/ you. I'm sure the piggy didn't enjoy the procedure, which most likely involved constricting blood flow to the family jewels until they fell off or simply cutting them off w/out anesthesia. I would have to consider this a form of abuse due to the pain involved.
But, if we start talking about the castration of domestic pets, that's a whole new ballgame. Before I go off on that, I'm curious...do you think that's abuse too?

Quote originally posted by quzah to UT:
The original comment was me saying that cutting the nuts of a pig was abuse. To which this whole big tangent started, because LUVBUGZ doesn't seem to understand that there is a difference between castration and a vasectomy.
They're the one that started anthropomorphizing, when they stated that given the choice, dogs would opt to be castrated. My entire point is, if you could explain the difference to them, there is no way in hell they would choose to be castrated. See my post two back.”

Get fucking real! Put any male dog with a female in heat and he'll be all over her. Cut his nuts of, and he won't. Give him a vasectomy, and he will.

Sterilization is not the same as castration. Please get this through your incredibly thick skull. THAT is why they would not opt for the operation. Because if they actually understood the difference between castration and a vasectomy, there is no fucking way in hell they would opt for castration. Period. No one in their right mind would opt for castration unless it was to do something like spare their life because they had cancer or something else.

One last time, because you're so god damn dense: Castration is nothing at all like a vasectomy. That is my entire point.

Just as I understand the difference between castration and a vasectomy, I am also aware of the definition of sterilization. I never said that sterilization is the same as castration. For your information castration AND a vasectomy are FORMS of sterilization. You’re so quick to point out the definitions of these terms, why don’t you fucking read them yourself before you get so high and might, ass wipe!! I don’t think you’d recognize “your point” if hit you upside the fucking head with a crowbar.

Castration is not "humane" as you put it. There is nothing humane about it. Here, go look it up. There is nothing humane about castration, because by the very definition of the word there is nothing at all positive about, or humanistic about it at all. Humans do not castrate eachother unless it is a form of punishment.

The actual castration procedure in not inhumane in that it is done under anesthetic, the animal is given a painkiller, and antibiotics are provided to prevent secondary infection. The small amount of “pain”, if any, felt by the ”individual” after the procedure is minute compared to the probable amount of inhumanity that would be felt by the unwanted offspring that this individual animal could produce if not sterilized. As I stated before, if our pets are not spayed or neutered the results lead to horrific acts of cruelty, abuse, and inhumanity. Since it is obvious that you have a problem with reading and comprehension I will repost my comment here so that you can maybe get a clue the second time around… No one said it was "natural", but domestic pets are in a sense not "natural" in that they are not "wild" creatures. Once humans domesticate an animal they take on the responsibility of caring for that animal and providing the safest most humane environment possible. This includes not allowing them to run all over producing offspring that are unwanted and abandoned or put to death at an animal shelter. Millions of stray pets suffer incredibly as a result of being abandoned. There are simply too many pets and not enough homes for them. They wander the streets sick and starving spreading disease. Many get injured in fights or hit by cars. Many are targets of abuse and torture at the hands of idiots who find it amusing to watch an innocent animal suffer. I think if an animal had the ability to realize the fate of many of its offspring that it would choose not to constantly procreate just because it can. But, since they don't have this ability, it is our responsibility to prevent such acts from occurring. Therefore, any responsible and caring pet owner SPAYS OR NEUTERS their pets!!!

Post too long, continued in next post.



LUVBUGZ  Saturday Aug 30 10:33 PM

Post Continued.....

Quote originally posted by quzah
Why do you hear people say "I'd like to castrate the bastard!"? Because they think it's a fucking reward? Get a clue.

I really wish someone would castrate you so I could be sure that you will no longer be able to breed. The last thing this world needs is a bunch of little quzah’s running around with diarrhea of the mouth like mommy/daddy.



elSicomoro  Saturday Aug 30 10:57 PM

This is almost like Radar vs. Cairo.



xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Aug 31 01:50 AM

I think it's time to agree to disagree before someone says something hateful and hurts someones feelings.:p

If you want to talk abuse, how about circumcision ?



quzah  Sunday Aug 31 01:16 PM

Re: Post Continued.....

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
Quote originally posted by quzah
Why do you hear people say "I'd like to castrate the bastard!"? Because they think it's a fucking reward? Get a clue.

I really wish someone would castrate you so I could be sure that you will no longer be able to breed. The last thing this world needs is a bunch of little quzah’s running around with diarrhea of the mouth like mommy/daddy.
I love people who are unable to admit they're wrong. That's ok, everyone here knows you're wrong. One final time, let me show you your hypocrisy.

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
Well, in this specific case, I would have to agree w/ you. I'm sure the piggy didn't enjoy the procedure which most likely involved constricting blood flow to the family jewels until they fell off or simply cutting them off w/out anesthesia. I would have to consider this a form of abuse due to the pain involved.

But, if we start talking about the castration of domestic pets, that's a whole new ballgame. Before I go off on that, I'm curious...do you think that's abuse too?
So it's bad to castrate pigs, but good to castrate dogs. You boggle the mind.

Quote:
The actual castration procedure in not inhumane in that it is done under anesthetic, the animal is given a painkiller, and antibiotics are provided to prevent secondary infection. The small amount of “pain”, if any, felt by the ”individual” after the procedure is minute compared to the probable amount of inhumanity that would be felt by the unwanted offspring that this individual animal could produce if not sterilized. As I stated before, if our pets are not spayed or neutered the results lead to horrific acts of cruelty, abuse, and inhumanity.
So one more time: Because your dog gives you that warm fuzzy feeling, it's ok to castrate them, because you're being kind enough to give them pain killers first. You take the time to raise them and that's nice and fine.

But it's cruel to castrate a pig, because you're not being nice enough to it. I mean, it's just a god damn sandwich anyway, let's all worry about how nice we are to it before we kill it and eat it.

Quote:
This statement is incorrect. Humans are animals too and the reason they have sex is to procreate. The only difference is that for humans sex is also a method self-gratification (pleasure), but if precautionary actions are not taken offspring will ultimately be the end result whether the sex act was intended for procreation or pleasure.
No. You're wrong. The reason, for people as a whole, is not to procreate. One of the reasons. You cannot possibly expect me to believe that every single time humans have sex, they intend to produce offspring. This is just an absurd statement. The porn industry exists because people want to have lots of kids, right?

You are trying to imply more truth than there is. The main reason people have sex, as a whole, is not to procreate. Procreation is a side effect. Yes, people set out to have children, but that is hardly means that "the reason" is simply to procreate. That's just absurd. Seriously, if this were true, and apparently you think it is, why would birth control exist? Why would sterilization exist?

The only reason dogs have sex is to procreate.

Oh, and I like how you just ignore the points you can't argue with. Ignore the fact that no one would choose castration over a vasectomy, and try and make yourself feel better by belittling my "potty mouth".

Here's, let's get a little closer to home for you. Removal of the breast is a good way to prevent breast cancer. So all women should have their breasts removed, since with bottled milk, there is no real actual need for them any more.

Surgery will be done in a humane way. They'll use lots of pain killers, so you can stay out of it until all pain is gone. You don't need them. They don't do anything useful for you. Cut them off to avoid the risk of cancer.

I mean, it's safe! It's humane! Why don't you see women jumping at the chance to have this operation?

Oh, that's right, because a mastectomy is nothing at all like a breast exam.

And here is where I stop wasting board space replying to you, since it's obvious that to you, castration as far as males are concerned has the same exact end result. When, to the rest of the world, it is obviously different. You still ignore the obvious points, intentionally. No male would choose castration. Period. It's inhumane to force it on a dog simply because we can. Why is it inhumane? Well because by definition of the word, go back and find if if you've ignored it, no human would opt for it, so it cannot, by definition, be humane.

We'll leave it at this: You think that males should be castrated, and by comparison, as a preventitive measure, you should have a mastectomy. It's better to be humane, and prevent a possible cancer in your case, than to make you risk the potential suffering it could theoreticly cause.

Since the only thing that makes it inhumane would be the lack of pain killers, we'll make sure you have plenty. Go for it. You have the Cellar backing your wise, humane decision.


Quzah.


LUVBUGZ  Sunday Aug 31 03:47 PM

I said that the only inhumane thing about castrating that pig is that it most likely was done w/out anestesia. Unlike you who thinks it's the end of the world if the pig doesn't feel like fucking all the time, I'm not overly concered with that and don't feel that the pig is now abused because he doesn't feel inclined to do so. The pig doesn't know what he's missing so goes on living none the wiser.

Yes, it is good to castrate domestic pets to prevent pet overpopulation which leads to the suffering, abuse, and death of millions of unwanted animals. From a human stand point, well your's anyway, vasectomies would be a "kinder" method of sterilization so that they still have the desire to procreate, but castration is the preferred method because as I pointed out it is cheaper and easier to perform. As UT pointed out, dogs, since they don't have the human capacity to realize that there is a more "humane" sterilization procedure, simply go with the flow. One day they have balls, the next day they don't. They simply go on with life.

Let me reword my statement about humans and sex:

Humans are animals too and "Nature's" purpose for having sex is to procreate. The only difference is that for humans, sex has also taken on a "Human" purpose to provide self-gratification (pleasure). So, if precautionary actions are not taken offspring will ultimately be the end result whether the sex act was intended for procreation or pleasure. Birth control is used to prevent unwanted pregnancies because humans have the ability to realize the ramifications of producing unwanted offspring. Dogs do not. If they did then we could just give them a condom and say have at it Fido. But, since they don't we have to provide them with a form of birth control. Currently, in our society, the accepted form is castration.

As far as removing women's breasts as a form of preventing breast cancer, I was the one who brought up this point and am aware of women who have done this. If women having big tits wasn't so important to men, maybe more women would do it. I'm not suggesting all women go out and cut off their breasts, but given the choice, some women have. Just like "if"our pets had the ability to choose to be sterilized, I think some would. [Not going into the castration vs. vasectomy thing, just would they choose sterilization.]

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
No male would choose castration. Period. It's inhumane to force it on a dog simply because we can.
I will agree with you that given a choice a dog would prefer a vasectomy over castration, but as I stated, since this unfortunately isn't the prefered procedure in our society, it is much more humane to castrate "him" rather than let him produce unwanted "offspring", many of which will have to endure many inhumane acts in their lifetimes.

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
We'll leave it at this: You think that males should be castrated, and by comparison, as a preventitive measure, you should have a mastectomy. It's better to be humane, and prevent a possible cancer in your case, than to make you risk the potential suffering it could theoreticly cause.
I would appreciate it if you don't put words into my mouth. As Dave has pointed out to me when I tried to place my meaning onto his words, "What I said is what I meant". Domestic pets should be SPAYED AND NEUTERED to prevent pet-overpopulation.


xoxoxoBruce  Monday Sep 1 12:55 AM

Hey, I got a question. I've always been told that dogs (or any animal except us) pursues sex to pass his genes and insure the survival of his kind. OK, how do he know?
I'm having trouble believing that the dog ponders these concepts. More likely it's raging hormones and after the first time, pleasant memory.
THAT'S, better living through chemistry.



elSicomoro  Monday Sep 1 01:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I've always been told that dogs (or any animal except us) pursues sex to pass his genes and insure the survival of his kind.
Humans too. It's just not the biggest reason anymore necessarily...at least in western culture, IMO.


xoxoxoBruce  Monday Sep 1 01:38 AM

Yeah but we can understand the whole concept as explained on PBS. We know that kids result and how to enhance or prevent the chances said same.
I don't think the critters do. I wonder if they even grasp that they are reproducing or that's a coincidence?



elSicomoro  Monday Sep 1 01:45 AM

As one of my teachers in high school once said: "They don't know what they're doing. And they don't know that they don't know what they're doing."

How true is that? *shrugs* I dunno...I'd say more true for some species than others.



elSicomoro  Monday Sep 1 01:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Yeah but we can understand the whole concept as explained on PBS.
Don't let the Christian Coalition find out.


xoxoxoBruce  Monday Sep 1 05:49 AM

I believe the Christian Coalition procreates too. After all they like to screw everyone else.



Undertoad  Monday Sep 1 09:24 AM

Hey, it wasn't so long ago in HUMAN history when we didn't make the connection between screwing and having kids. That was something we had to figure out.



juju  Monday Sep 1 11:17 AM

Proof?



xoxoxoBruce  Monday Sep 1 11:55 AM

Hmmm, I always knew it and according to Syc and Dave, I'm up there with the Bristlecone Pines.



Undertoad  Monday Sep 1 12:20 PM

Straight Dope entry on mankind figuring out sex=pregnancy

Quote:
The general run of humankind is thought to have tumbled to the concept early in the New Stone Age, which began after 10,000 BC. A couple things may have contributed to the discovery. First, what with the invention of agriculture, looking for food did not occupy every waking moment and people had some time to contemplate the mysteries of their environment.

Second, the domestication of animals gave folks a chance to see the cycle of boink/swelling belly/birth close up. It didn't take a prehistoric Stephen Hawking to figure out if you had only girl sheep, all you wound up with was a bunch of old maid sheep, but if you threw in one or more boy sheep, you soon had baby sheep popping out all over.
But of course it gets weirder:
Quote:
But some cultures--including, allegedly, Australian aborigines-- never got the picture. One writer says that as late as the 1960s "the Tully River Blacks of north Queensland believed that a woman got pregnant because she had been sitting over a fire on which she had roasted a fish given to her by the prospective father."



LUVBUGZ  Monday Sep 1 01:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Hey, I got a question. I've always been told that dogs (or any animal except us) pursues sex to pass his genes and insure the survival of his kind. OK, how do he know?
I'm having trouble believing that the dog ponders these concepts. More likely it's raging hormones and after the first time, pleasant memory.
THAT'S, better living through chemistry.
All animals have sex in order to pass on their genes and insure the survival of their species. They don't ponder this concept, it is simply "hard-wired" in their brains. This is true for humans as well, but humans have developed the additional use of sex as a means for self-gratification (pleasure).


juju  Monday Sep 1 01:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
All animals have sex in order to pass on their genes and insure the survival of their species. They don't ponder this concept, it is simply "hard-wired" in their brains.
That makes no sense. What does it mean for it to be "hard wired" into their brain, if not that they ponder the concept? Unless you are saying that nature or evolution has a goal, which it most definitely does not.

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
This is true for humans as well, but humans have developed the additional use of sex as a means for self-gratification (pleasure).
Is there any evidence that animals do not also do this? What about bonobos?


juju  Monday Sep 1 01:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
Straight Dope entry on mankind figuring out sex=pregnancy
Hmm.. interesting speculation.

I guess the point I wanted to make was that you can't know what pre-agricultural civilizations knew or didn't know about sex. There's just no record of it.


LUVBUGZ  Monday Sep 1 02:26 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
All animals have sex in order to pass on their genes and insure the survival of their species. They don't ponder this concept, it is simply "hard-wired" in their brains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by juju
That makes no sense. What does it mean for it to be "hard wired" into their brain, if not that they ponder the concept? Unless you are saying that nature or evolution has a goal, which it most definitely does not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hard-wired" is a term almost every biology professor I've ever had used to describe "innate behavior". I would have to go through my biology texts to give you a more precise biological/physiological explaination. The way I understand the rules of Nature is that the basic purpose of a species is to reproduce (pass on its genes in order to insure the survival of the species). Evolution doesn't have a "goal", but rather is the process by which species (and their genes) are able to adapt and survive with everchanging environmental conditions. The ones that have what it takes are able to reproduce, thus passing on the very genes that allowed it to adapt and survive so that its offspring have a greater chance of surviving to continue passing down their genes and so on. This is Natural Selection, which you hear so much about and which is often used by people who don't really understand the concept. They just say "survival of the fittest" which is a correct statement, but many who use it don't know what it is actually describing.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
This is true for humans as well, but humans have developed the additional use of sex as a means for self-gratification (pleasure).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by juju
Is there any evidence that animals do not also do this? What about bonobos?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I seem to recall some mention of this in my mammology class, but once again I'd have to research it before commenting. I think I remember that some primates do display so called "human" behavior regarding sex as well as "human " emotions such as love, saddness, and jealousy to name a few. I just remember someting like this, but again whould have to do some research to give you hard evidence.



juju  Monday Sep 1 03:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
"Hard-wired" is a term almost every biology professor I've ever had used to describe "innate behavior". I would have to go through my biology texts to give you a more precise biological/physiological explaination. The way I understand the rules of Nature is that the basic purpose of a species is to reproduce.
I think what you mean by "hard wired" is that when animals have intercourse, it gives them intense pleasure. Don't you think that this reward mechanism is a pretty strong incentive for doing it? If not, why has the pleasure reward even evolved? Surely a species that is hard wired to have sex for the purposes of propogating its DNA would need no pleasure incentive at all. They'd do it just for the reason you say they do it. <i>[edit: and of course, if what you say is true, then they wouldn't hump our legs.]</i>

Also, although I know exactly what you mean, I don't think that species or Nature have a "purpose". I realize it's just a poorly chosen word, though.

You also never responded to my questions from 8/26. How do you know that animals would agree with you that being "less likely to bite, fight with other dogs, wander, chase cars, bark excessively, display too much aggressiveness, and screw your leg" are bad things? And also, could you elaborate on how the world would be a better place if some human males were neutered?


xoxoxoBruce  Monday Sep 1 10:53 PM

Hardwired is the term Profs use for raging hormones.

The dog humping your leg has nothing to do with sex. It's a dominance issue.



elSicomoro  Monday Sep 1 10:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
And also, could you elaborate on how the world would be a better place if some human males were neutered?
I got one for ya...YOU wouldn't be able to populate the earth anymore, which would be a good thing...one baby juju is going to be more than enough.


LUVBUGZ  Tuesday Sep 2 10:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
I think what you mean by "hard wired" is that when animals have intercourse, it gives them intense pleasure. Don't you think that this reward mechanism is a pretty strong incentive for doing it? If not, why has the pleasure reward even evolved? Surely a species that is hard wired to have sex for the purposes of propogating its DNA would need no pleasure incentive at all. They'd do it just for the reason you say they do it. <i>[edit: and of course, if what you say is true, then they wouldn't hump our legs.]</i>
Juju, I'm going to have to revert to my Dave philosophy on this. Don't "think what [ I ] mean", I meant what I said. The term "hard-wired" is refering to "innate behavior", ie. "inborn" behavior, meaning animals don't think about it, they just do it because that's what their brains tell them to do. And, their brains aren't telling them to do it for pleasure, but do it to reproduce and pass on their genes in order to insure the survival of their species. Other than humans, animals don't know why they need to have sex, only that they must do it.

Disregard humans for a moment. I don't believe that sex provides "intense pleasure" for animals and therefore your pleasure reward theory is irrelevant. I agree with your statement, "Surely a species that is hard wired to have sex for the purposes of propogating its DNA would need no pleasure incentive at all. They'd do it just for the reason you say they do it." This is exactly my point. Now as far as humans go, I don't know how sex has gone from being an act of procreation to being an act of self-gratification. This is one for a human behaviorist, which I am not.

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
Also, although I know exactly what you mean, I don't think that species or Nature have a "purpose". I realize it's just a poorly chosen word, though.
Revert to Dave theory. I meant what I said. Nature certainly does have a "purpose", but not a "goal" as you stated in a previous post when once again you were trying to interpret the meaning of my commentary. [Juju said..."That makes no sense. What does it mean for it to be "hard wired" into their brain, if not that they ponder the concept? Unless you are saying that nature or evolution has a goal, which it most definitely does not.] I am agreeing with you right now, Nature has no "goal" in that there is an ultimate ending point for Nature to reach, but its purpose is "survival of species". Survival of species is hinged on them reproducing.




Undertoad  Tuesday Sep 2 10:55 PM

In fact I believe intercourse is downright painful for female cats. Although I couldn't find the Straight Dope column where I read that.



LUVBUGZ  Tuesday Sep 2 11:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
In fact I believe intercourse is downright painful for female cats. Although I couldn't find the Straight Dope column where I read that.
You're right UT. For many species sex is painful. Many females get injured quite badly during the sex act. The males often bite and scratch them resulting in painful wounds which in the wild also can result in death for the females. I can't think of any examples right off the top of my head, but I do know this is true. And for the male perspective, take a look at Black Widows. In this case, the male gets the raw end of the stick. He becomes the females after sex hors d'oeurve. This actually reminds me of salmon too. Juju's "pleasure reward" theory, although I know it is invalid, doesn't explain why many species die after producing off-spring. If in fact they "thought" sex was an intensely pleasurable act, they couldn't pass this info. onto their offspring because they are dead. Therefore, the need to reproduce is once again solely based on instinct and not on pleasure which is a "learned" emotional response to sex based on what humans "think" is pleasurable.


xoxoxoBruce  Tuesday Sep 2 11:27 PM

Most everything in nature has a symbiotic relationship, with at least one and usually more, other things. to fullfil that role becomes it's "goal"
Male animals have two modes;
1~ I want to do it.
2~ I'm glad I did it and I want to do it again.
Female animals have two modes, also;
1~ I want to do it.
2~ Get away from me.
I don't think either understand why, but they know what & when.
If "Survival of species" is the be-all/ end-all of nature, how do you explain evolution, that eliminates so many species?



LUVBUGZ  Wednesday Sep 3 01:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Most everything in nature has a symbiotic relationship, with at least one and usually more, other things. to fullfil that role becomes it's "goal"
Male animals have two modes;
1~ I want to do it.
2~ I'm glad I did it and I want to do it again.
Female animals have two modes, also;
1~ I want to do it.
2~ Get away from me.
I don't think either understand why, but they know what & when.
If "Survival of species" is the be-all/ end-all of nature, how do you explain evolution, that eliminates so many species?
I'm not sure I follow you here Bruce, but to answer your question...I have posted the definitions of Natural Selection and Evolution from the Harper Collins Biology Dictionary. I think that these terms are being misunderstood and use incorrectly by some in this discussion. I hope this helps

Evolution = an explanation of the way in which present-day organisms have been produced, involving changes taking place in the genetic makeup of populations, which have been passed on to successive generations. According to Darwinism, evolutionary mutations have given rise to changes that, through natural selection, either have survived in better adapted organisms or died out.

Natural Selection = the mechanism proposed by Charles Darwin by which gradual evolutionary changes take place. Organisms that are better adapted to the environment in which they live produce more viable young, increasing their proportion in the population and, therefore, being selected. Such a mechanism depends on the variability of individuals within the population. The variability arises through mutation, the beneficial mutants being preserved by natural selection.

So, basically, if a species is unable to adapt to its everchanging environment it will not produce enough viable offspring and will eventually die off. On the other hand, species who are able to adapt produce more viable offspring thus passing on the vary genes that allowed it to adapt, therefore, ensuring the survival of that "better adapted" species.


juju  Wednesday Sep 3 09:53 AM

Quote:
Juju's "pleasure reward" theory, although I know it is invalid, doesn't explain why many species die after producing off-spring. If in fact they "thought" sex was an intensely pleasurable act, they couldn't pass this info. onto their offspring because they are dead. Therefore, the need to reproduce is once again solely based on instinct and not on pleasure which is a "learned" emotional response to sex based on what humans "think" is pleasurable.
You're free to disagree, but you seem to have a misunderstanding of what I really meant.

I don't agree that pleasure is a learned response. You don't have to be taught that sex feels good, for the same reason you don't have to be taught that ice cream or chocolate tastes good.


xoxoxoBruce  Wednesday Sep 3 01:16 PM

Pleasure is a personal thing. Some take great pleasure in green veggies and many of us don't. I've met people who hate chocolate (sick bastards) and sweet things.
Because of physical problems and/or head trips, some don't like sex either.
Eating is driven by hunger pangs as sex is driven by the "fire down below". Nature has provided motivation for the things we need to survive as individuals and a species.



juju  Wednesday Sep 3 02:00 PM

Right, but that doesn't mean that pleasure is learned. Except that the creatures learn that doing a certain thing makes them feel good.



xoxoxoBruce  Wednesday Sep 3 02:05 PM

The only thing that's learned is that it feels good. That's just a result of doing it, not the other way around.
I knew you were more than just another pretty face, Juju.



LUVBUGZ  Wednesday Sep 3 02:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
Right, but that doesn't mean that pleasure is learned. Except that the creatures learn that doing a certain thing makes them feel good.
Juju....are you on crack? You just totally contradicted yourself with these two sentences. First you say that pleasure isn't learned, then you follow with "except that the creatures learn that doing a certain thing makes them feel good." What the fuck do you think learning is? You just described how animals "learn" pleasure it in your second sentence.


quzah  Wednesday Sep 3 02:45 PM

Pleasure isn't learned. It simply is. Pain isn't learned. It simply is. Learning is simply the fact that you encounter it for the first time and are now aware of what is. If you remember that fact, then you have learned what is. If not, you'll encounter it again and realize again that it is.

Oh, here's where I act like I'm holier-than-thou and bitch you out for your potty mouth. Like I said, hypocrite. Have a nice day.

Quzah.



juju  Wednesday Sep 3 03:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
Juju, I'm going to have to revert to my Dave philosophy on this. Don't "think what [ I ] mean", I meant what I said. The term "hard-wired" is refering to "innate behavior", ie. "inborn" behavior, meaning animals don't think about it, they just do it because that's what their brains tell them to do. And, their brains aren't telling them to do it for pleasure, but do it to reproduce and pass on their genes in order to insure the survival of their species. Other than humans, animals don't know why they need to have sex, only that they must do it.
Dave is a jerk. I really wouldn't recommend taking on his philosophies. But that's your call, of course.

In any case, I wasn't trying to deviously alter what you said in an attempt to undermine you. I just thought that's what you meant by the word. In truth, I don't think either of us can prove what goes on in an animals' mind. So it's all pretty much speculation.

Quote:
Disregard humans for a moment. I don't believe that sex provides "intense pleasure" for animals and therefore your pleasure reward theory is irrelevant.
Because you don't agree with me, my hypothesis is irrelevant? Can't I have more credit than that?


Quote:
Nature certainly does have a "purpose", but not a "goal" as you stated in a previous post when once again you were trying to interpret the meaning of my commentary. I am agreeing with you right now, Nature has no "goal" in that there is an ultimate ending point for Nature to reach, but its purpose is "survival of species". Survival of species is hinged on them reproducing.
So, okay, first of all, what is the difference between a goal and a purpose?

Er.. secondly.. of course I'm trying to interpret what you said. I'm trying to understand you. That's communication.


xoxoxoBruce  Wednesday Sep 3 04:10 PM

Quote:
In truth, I don't think either of us can prove what goes on in an animals' mind. So it's all pretty much speculation.
Good point Juju, we really don't know that the other critters feel good having sex. There apparently are some cases, as UT pointed out, where someone figured out that some don't.
This reinforces that it is the hormones that make them scratch the itch and not pleasure because even the ones we are pretty sure don't like it, do it anyway.

aside~ BUGZ, calm the fuck down. It's not a contest, we's jus talkin.


juju  Wednesday Sep 3 04:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Good point Juju, we really don't know that the other critters feel good having sex. There apparently are some cases, as UT pointed out, where someone figured out that some don't.
This reinforces that it is the hormones that make them scratch the itch and not pleasure because even the ones we are pretty sure don't like it, do it anyway.
Perhaps the female cat situation could be analagous to the human practice of rape?

I don't think lack of knowledge really reinforces a hypothesis. But perhaps I misunderstand you. In any case I have to attend to Kathy. I'll be back later.


wolf  Wednesday Sep 3 05:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
This is almost like Radar vs. Cairo.
Except that (so far) we LIKE LUVBUGZ.


elSicomoro  Wednesday Sep 3 06:40 PM

I'm just waiting for her to call Quzah a "mook," then all bets are off...



xoxoxoBruce  Wednesday Sep 3 08:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
[b]Perhaps the female cat situation could be analagous to the human practice of rape?[b]
I don't think so. All the cats I've been around, especially the barn cats, the females were pretty formidable. Considering were up to out butts in cats, in this country at least, it's hard to believe they're that opposed to it.
Quote:

I don't think lack of knowledge really reinforces a hypothesis. But perhaps I misunderstand you. In any case I have to attend to Kathy. I'll be back later.
OK. my bad. What I tried too say was it takes away the basis for the competing hypothesis that they do it for pleasure and reproduction is accidental. The other case against that is so many animals time their births to seasons and other outside influences.


Whit  Wednesday Sep 3 08:25 PM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;What about primates and Dophins that have sex lives that go well beyond reproduction? They're animals too. Juju referenced this but I didn't see a response.

http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask01/0097.html



LUVBUGZ  Wednesday Sep 3 09:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
You don't have to be taught that sex feels good, for the same reason you don't have to be taught that ice cream or chocolate tastes good.
You are correct here, Juju. You don't have to be "taught" these things, but you still "learn" them. There are several ways of "learning" things. Learning is an adaptive change in behavior resulting from experience (Harper Collins Biology Dictionary). As I tried to explain earlier, "learned" behavior is different from "innate" behavior. The need for animals to reproduce is an innate behavior (instinctual), they don't need to learn this, they just know they need to reproduce (ie. hard-wired in their brains from birhth). This is true for humans as well, but some where along the line humans have come to associate sex with pleasure as well as reproduction. I'm not a human behaviorist, but I have a feeling that this phenomenon is a result of "learning" through experience that the sex act produces physical pleasure to "us". So, although we weren't "taught" that sex feels good we still have "learned" this through our sexual experiences.


xoxoxoBruce  Wednesday Sep 3 09:27 PM

That link claims dolphins and chimps have incorporated sex into their social behavior. Neither for fun or (intentional) reproduction, as I understand it.



LUVBUGZ  Wednesday Sep 3 09:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
Oh, here's where I act like I'm holier-than-thou and bitch you out for your potty mouth. Like I said, hypocrite. Have a nice day.

Quzah.
I never bitched you out for your potty mouth, only for the diarrhea that seems to endlessly flow out everytime you open your mouth. Watch who you call a hypocrite, fuck-face. At least I have the intelligence to know what the word means. Go suck on a carrot or something, better yet, just fuck off and die And while you're at it have a nice day, asshole.:p


Whit  Wednesday Sep 3 10:05 PM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Right Bruce, as a social thing it's not hardwired, and they are animals. There is some suggestion of pleasure, but it's clearly not the integral point. I'm just stirring the pot. Adding food for thought.



LUVBUGZ  Wednesday Sep 3 10:05 PM

Black = Juju, Purple = LUVBUGZ

Dave is a jerk. I really wouldn't recommend taking on his philosophies. But that's your call, of course.

Dave may very well be a jerk, I don't know him that well, but I kinda like his "I meant what I said" philosophy.

In any case, I wasn't trying to deviously alter what you said in an attempt to undermine you. I just thought that's what you meant by the word.

I realize that Juju. I'm sorry for the tone of my reply. I think I was having Quzah flashbacks at the time.

In truth, I don't think either of us can prove what goes on in an animals' mind. So it's all pretty much speculation.

You are absolutely correct here. It is speculation to some extent, although, science has given us a pretty good idea/theory of what goes on in some species minds which is then extrapolated out to what other species "think/feel".

Because you don't agree with me, my hypothesis is irrelevant? Can't I have more credit than that?

Once again, I'm sorry, Juju. Your hypothesis is just as relevent as mine is.

So, okay, first of all, what is the difference between a goal and a purpose?

I look at a "goal" as something one strives to attain, meaning that once that goal is reached there is an ending. You are done because you have reached your goal. I look at a "purpose" as a reason to do something, it continues on indefinately. I was trying to say that Nature's "purpose" is "species survival", which is continuous (ie.from generation to generation), not a "goal" which would have an ending point.



LUVBUGZ  Wednesday Sep 3 10:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
I'm just waiting for her to call Quzah a "mook," then all bets are off...
Syc, what's a "mook"? I'd like to know what it means before I use it on Quzah


quzah  Wednesday Sep 3 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
I never bitched you out for your potty mouth, only for the diarrhea that seems to endlessly flow out everytime you open your mouth. Watch who you call a hypocrite, fuck-face.
Jesus christ. Someone has selective memory. You've got to be the stupidest mother fucker I've ever had the displeasure of running across, and believe me, I've talked to quite a number of them.

How about you pull your head out of your ass and read back a few posts if your memory is so short, because have neither the time, nor the energy to explain things in small words so you can understand it.

As for hypocrisy, perhaps you need to look up the meaning. I mean seriously, act holier-than-thou because I "swear", when you're tossing them out left and right. Get a god damn clue.

Quzah.


LUVBUGZ  Wednesday Sep 3 11:36 PM

quzah,

Funny isn't it, two people who have totally different views can feel the exact same towards each other. My sentiments exactly (ref quzah last post). Too bad you didn't follow through on this earlier promise (emphasis is mine),"What's wrong with paranoia? You're one of those people aren't you? I know about you guys! That's it, I'm not posting any more. I'm going to go change my legal name now and move. Quzah."

I've read this thread so many times it's ridiculous. Talking to you is like talking to a piece of shit. You just sit there and make everyone around you nauseous from your stench.

Call me a hypocrite, if you must, as long as you realize that I'm right and you're wrong.

Don't forget to go eat shit and die now you fucking asshole.



Leus  Thursday Sep 4 01:13 PM

Ah, the reminiscences...

This thread makes me feel warm inside. Remembers me early USENET flamewars.




juju  Thursday Sep 4 01:43 PM

Quzah, you are a very poor communicator. Your insults pushed her into a defensive mode and turned the situation, not into a search for the truth, but a contest as to who's right and who's wrong.

I personally hope that I am right, but I want the truth more than I want to be right. Unfortunately, it's difficult to ease people into this mindset when you're attacking them.

I only say this because I mostly agree with everything you said. But you're not exactly helping the cause of dissemination of truth.



elSicomoro  Thursday Sep 4 01:54 PM

Both of them need to quit flinging shit at each other. It may be too late to save Quzah, but LUVBUGZ seems to have potential.



quzah  Thursday Sep 4 02:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
Both of them need to quit flinging shit at each other. It may be too late to save Quzah, but LUVBUGZ seems to have potential.
You all have the misgiving that I actually care what you think about me. Manners are like appareance. They're both for people who worry what others think of them. You've got me confused with someone else.

LUVBUGZ's one major failing is the inability to concede a point. That's the only problem I have with them. They're like those religious zelots who "know" there is only one "right way", and if you believe anything even the slightest bit different, you're wrong, and they cannot grasp, or will not even entertain the idea that you may have a valid point.

Case and point, they gloss over any valid point the opposition may have, and you have to ask them repetedly to acknowledge said point. If in doubt, read back a bit and you'll find that Juju also had to ask repetedly about points they had.

That is my problem with them. They cannot even entertain the notion that some one else may have a valid point. This is my one real gripe.

Since they've got their crackerjack diploma in Biology, that makes their point of view 100% valid in all understandings of Biology, so don't you dare fucking question them becaue you're wrong!

[edit]
Another case and point: Them going off on me for swearing, when they do it themselves. So it's bad if I do it, but it's ok if they do. And they tell me to look up the word hyporcite. Give me a break.

So it's fine if you shoot people once in a while, but if you shoot people all the time it's bad.

Oh, no, I shouldn't have used that. They probably don't know what an analogy is either. And I'm the one that's supposed to retake English 101.
[/edit]

Quzah.


juju  Thursday Sep 4 02:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah

You all have the misgiving that I actually care what you think about me. Manners are like appareance. They're both for people who worry what others think of them. You've got me confused with someone else.

LUVBUGZ's one major failing is the inability to concede a point. That's the only problem I have with them. They're like those religious zelots who "know" there is only one "right way", and if you believe anything even the slightest bit different, you're wrong, and they cannot grasp, or will not even entertain the idea that you may have a valid point.
You know, you're pretty smart... and I respect you for that. But what you've described in the second paragraph is <i>your fault</i>. If you hadn't attacked her, she wouldn't wouldn't feel like you're threatening her worth as a person. She wouldn't have closed her mind to your point of view (a defense mechanism) and would then have been more receptive to what you had to say.

My argument here has nothing to do with your self-worth. I'm just assuming that you cared whether or not she at least considered your viewpoint. If you don't, why bother posting? But if you do, perhaps you could consider my point?


quzah  Thursday Sep 4 02:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
You know, you're pretty smart... and I respect you for that. But what you've described in the second paragraph is <i>your fault</i>. If you hadn't attacked her, she wouldn't wouldn't feel like you're threatening her worth as a person. She wouldn't have closed her mind to your point of view (a defense mechanism) and would then have been more receptive to what you had to say.
Well you're close anyway. Perhaps if you read the the start of the thread, you'll notice that I did not attack her first. Here, let me quote it for you so you don't have to find it:

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
Believe it or not, my reply post was mainly for Stonan. I am a huge animal right's advocate, but I don't appreciate "wanna-be's" who randomly go around sticking their 2-cents in saying everything under the sun is animal abuse and then quietly leaving without defending their position. It makes the rest of 'us' who actually try to do something about animal abuses look like blubbering idiots and then we are left to deal w/ the Quzah's of the world. I was kinda testing Stonan to see if he/she has what it takes to come into the Cellar and make a remark like that. I was trying to find out if Stonan is someone I could make future alliances w/ regarding animal right's stuff or if he/she is just an uninformed trouble-maker. This has yet to be seen and I'm waiting to hear back from Stonan.

Enjoy the ham sammie, Quzah:p
And there you have it. I did not attack her directly. My first post in this entire thread was a general response, quoting UT. But then, it's all how you look at it I suppose. I mean, how do you take the sentence:

" It makes the rest of 'us' who actually try to do something about animal abuses look like blubbering idiots and then we are left to deal w/ the Quzah's of the world."

Attack? No? Yes? You decide. But that was the first. Tootles.

Quzah.


juju  Thursday Sep 4 02:35 PM

That wasn't an insult. She was using you as an example of someone who doesn't care about animal rights. She misjudged you, but didn't insult you.



juju  Thursday Sep 4 02:45 PM

Also, her misjudging you is also your fault, because your first post was all, "Who the fuck cares, blah blah blah, harshness harshness harshness". You gave no indication that you were vegan, and you made it seem like you were a harsh anti-animal rights person.

She's new, and sized you up based on your words. Then instead of just correcting her, you corrected her and were a jerk about it. Then she very nicely apologized.

Now, I don't have time for a play-by-play 'cause I have to go eat. But I think it's pretty obvious that you drove her to her current mindset.

Really, logic is important, and yours is spot-on. But you've got to use a little pschology sometimes.



quzah  Thursday Sep 4 02:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
That wasn't an insult. She was using you as an example of someone who doesn't care about animal rights. She misjudged you, but didn't insult you.
So misjudging isn't insulting? How so?

It's all in the implication and perception there of. You took no offense, because it wasn't about you. The implication here is that I'm an asshole. Thus: "All the Quzahs of the world...". It doesn't matter if it's true or not.

It's implied. You're saying that there cannot be damages just from an implication. This is false. You can imply that a business is shady and doctors the books. People believe it, and as a result, the business suffers. They sue your ass off for the damages you've caused them.

Yes, you can insult someone by implying something. Whether or not you meant it doesn't matter. You cannot simply imply a negative connotation about some one, and expect them to not react negatively to it.

Quzah.


quzah  Thursday Sep 4 02:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
Also, her misjudging you is also your fault, because your first post was all, "Who the fuck cares, blah blah blah, harshness harshness harshness". You gave no indication that you were vegan, and you made it seem like you were a harsh anti-animal rights person.
Then the both of you have no understanding of sarcasm either. There's nothing I can do about that. I don't give lessons, just posts.

Quzah.


juju  Thursday Sep 4 02:53 PM

I think you're missing my point.



quzah  Thursday Sep 4 02:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
I think you're missing my point.
Oh I know what the point is. I'm to be nice and sweet like a new born chicken. All fuzzy and cute.

I just don't have it in me.

Quzah.


juju  Thursday Sep 4 03:01 PM

Ok, I'll give this another shot.

Speaking from your point of view as a communicator, it doesn't matter whether or not she insulted you. Your goal is to get her to understand you. What you're doing is undermining that goal. That can be evidenced by the fact that she now hates you and probably immediately rejects every point you say. Congratulations.



juju  Thursday Sep 4 03:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
Oh I know what the point is. I'm to be nice and sweet like a new born chicken. All fuzzy and cute.

I just don't have it in me.
It has nothing to do with morality. Being rude, even if someone else is rude to you first, is an ineffective communication technique.


quzah  Thursday Sep 4 03:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
It has nothing to do with morality. Being rude, even if someone else is rude to you first, is an ineffective communication technique.
Morality? How'd you make the connection between fuzzy chickens and morality? Now that is an interesting thought process!

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
Ok, I'll give this another shot.

Speaking from your point of view as a communicator, it doesn't matter whether or not she insulted you. Your goal is to get her to understand you. What you're doing is undermining that goal. That can be evidenced by the fact that she now hates you and probably immediately rejects every point you say. Congratulations.
Point taken.

But personally, I really don't care. It's not my goal in life to sway another's opinion. And it definatly isn't to alter their perception of me. I tell you my opinion, you tell me yours. It gives me pause for thought. Hopefully I do the same. If not, not loss.

But I have no desire to change anyone's opinion.

Like being vegan. I am. You're not. I don't care. If you are, we have one more thing in common. If you aren't. We don't. It doesn't effect me either way. It's not my goal or duity to try and convince you that you should be one.

I'm not an evangelist. I don't recruit.


Quzah.

[edit]Quote fix, added final two paragraphs.[/edit]
[edit]And now I'm going out of town for the weekend. Have fun.[/edit]


juju  Thursday Sep 4 05:17 PM

If you didn't care, then why did you argue with her for over a week?

Hope you had fun over the weekend.



xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Sep 4 08:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Whit
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Right Bruce, as a social thing it's not hardwired, and they are animals. There is some suggestion of pleasure, but it's clearly not the integral point. I'm just stirring the pot. Adding food for thought.
I appeciate that. That's why I went to the link and read it over a couple times, seeking answers. I'm always open to suggestion...ask any woman.


LUVBUGZ  Friday Sep 5 01:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
Both of them need to quit flinging shit at each other. It may be too late to save Quzah, but LUVBUGZ seems to have potential.
I try to make it a habit of flinging shit only after it has been flung my way


LUVBUGZ  Friday Sep 5 02:38 AM

[quote]Originally posted by quzah

You all have the misgiving that I actually care what you think about me. Manners are like appareance. They're both for people who worry what others think of them. You've got me confused with someone else.


I think everyone realizes that you don't care what people think of you and your beliefs, which begs the question, why you do you bother to visit the Cellar, read posts, and make posts yourself?

LUVBUGZ's one major failing is the inability to concede a point. That's the only problem I have with them. They're like those religious zelots who "know" there is only one "right way", and if you believe anything even the slightest bit different, you're wrong, and they cannot grasp, or will not even entertain the idea that you may have a valid point.

You are wrong here. I will admit when I'm wrong when you prove that I am. I am willing to entertain the ideas of others, but am also willing to disagree with them and attempt to justify my reasons for disagreeing. On several occasions I have in fact agreed with you on some points, but you apparently didn't notice, or didn't care.

Case and point, they gloss over any valid point the opposition may have, and you have to ask them repetedly to acknowledge said point. If in doubt, read back a bit and you'll find that Juju also had to ask repetedly about points they had.

I attempt to respond to every question or point that is brought up and I don't think I have glossed over anything, although I still need to respond to a couple of questions Juju asked of me. I'm not glossing over them or ignoring them, but I was embroiled in our debate and left them to be answered at a later time. Sorry to you Juju for not responding in a timely manner, but I will respond.

That is my problem with them. They cannot even entertain the notion that some one else may have a valid point. This is my one real gripe.

I would entertain this notion if I felt you had a valid point. Aside from the times I have agreed with you, I still don't believe you have a valid point, well maybe some valid points, but overall I do not agree with most of what you have said.

Since they've got their crackerjack diploma in Biology, that makes their point of view 100% valid in all understandings of Biology, so don't you dare fucking question them becaue you're wrong!

You know this is an uncalled for comment. My degree is important to me and it took me a long time to get it. I'm not saying my point of view is 100% valid regarding all biological issues, but I feel having it gives me a more informed view than say the general public. If something can be explained or validated through a biologically based answer, I will provide that information to the best of my ability. I am by far an expert in Biology, in fact, a majority of my commentary in this discussion has come from my experience with animal rescue work I have done, not just from Biology. You may correct my biological info. as I said I'm no expert, but you cannot disprove my life experiences. I feel the way I do about animal right's and animal welfare because of my experiences. In fact, most biologists I have met or worked with have very different opinions on these subjects. Most disagree with me, fortunately those discussions didn't sink to level of this one, which I agree is partially my fault.

Another case and point: Them going off on me for swearing, when they do it themselves. So it's bad if I do it, but it's ok if they do. And they tell me to look up the word hyporcite. Give me a break.

As I've said before, I've read this thread several times and still don't see where I "went off" on you for cussing, only for your spewing of rediculous, irrational, and invalid comments. As is obvious, I cuss too, a lot when I'm pissed, while offensive to some I still do it, so cuss away, I don't give a rat's ass.



LUVBUGZ  Friday Sep 5 02:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
If you hadn't attacked her, she wouldn't wouldn't feel like you're threatening her worth as a person. She wouldn't have closed her mind to your point of view (a defense mechanism) and would then have been more receptive to what you had to say.
My mind is not yet closed to Quzah's point of view, but I still believe that my point of view is more rational than his/hers.


LUVBUGZ  Friday Sep 5 02:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah

So misjudging isn't insulting? How so?

It's all in the implication and perception there of. You took no offense, because it wasn't about you. The implication here is that I'm an asshole. Thus: "All the Quzahs of the world...". It doesn't matter if it's true or not.
Quzah, I don't know why you are so concerened about my "misjudging" and "insulting" you, remember saying this..."You all have the misgiving that I actually care what you think about me." And you have said yourself that you're an asshole, I was just agreeing with you.


LUVBUGZ  Friday Sep 5 03:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah

Then the both of you have no understanding of sarcasm either. There's nothing I can do about that. I don't give lessons, just posts.

Quzah.
I live and breathe sarcasm, Quzah. I'm quite familiar with it, but by not knowing someone on personal level before using sarcasm I've gotten myself in some deep shit with it. It often comes across as rude, disrespectful, and cruel to other people if they don't know you and don't realize you are being sarcastic. I usually preface my dealings with people I don't know very well by straight out telling them I have a sarcastic and dry sense of humor.


LUVBUGZ  Friday Sep 5 03:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
Ok, I'll give this another shot.

Speaking from your point of view as a communicator, it doesn't matter whether or not she insulted you. Your goal is to get her to understand you. What you're doing is undermining that goal. That can be evidenced by the fact that she now hates you and probably immediately rejects every point you say. Congratulations.
Well, Juju, I think I might "hate" Quzah a little, I definitely think he/she is a big asshole who is impossible to deal with on a rational level, but oddly enough I think we have similar views on some things, for example, in the Fallen Bridge "Tragedy" over in the IotD thread. I can't say that I will automatically reject every point he/she makes, but I definitely cringe when I see the name Quzah. I do think we got off on the wrong foot, but I'm not apologizing for anything I've said because I feel my views on spaying and neutering your pets is reasonable, humane, and valid.


LUVBUGZ  Friday Sep 5 03:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
She's new, and sized you up based on your words. Then instead of just correcting her, you corrected her and were a jerk about it. Then she very nicely apologized.
Yea, Quzah, I apologized when I realized I had misjudged you (in the beginning). But, like I just told Juju, I don't apologize for anything else I've said (ref. last post to Juju). And, as it turns out you are an asshole, you said so yourself. So what, I've readily admitted to being one myself, but that in and of itself does not invalidate my views. There are many kind, caring, non-asshole people who feel the same way I do about spaying and neutering pets.


LUVBUGZ  Saturday Sep 6 04:52 AM

Quote by Juju:
Those are all things you consider bad. Are you sure the animal would agree?

Juju...I don't know what I know and what I don't know anymore. I guess I figured "if" you could tell your dog that he would be safer (not running around after females in heat getting hit by cars, getting lost in the process, getting into fights with other males, getting injured by the guy whos female he is trying to screw, etc.) by being neutered that this my not sound so bad to some of them. Since we unfortunately don't know what our pets are "thinking" I can't say that I'm 100% "sure" that they would agree. I can only assume that they would prefer to be home, safe, fed, and loved as opposed to running around after females, getting lost, possibly being injured, with no food or shelter. Maybe that's stupid, idiotic, ridiculous, whatever, but that's my opinion.

Quote by Juju:
How so? (I know you're probably joking, but I wasn't sure. )

If some human males where prohibited from breeding whether through castration or vasectomy, the world would be a better place. Rapists and murderers come to mind, along with those low lifes that run around getting several women pregnant and then claim that none of the eight kids in question are his so he doesn't have anything to do with them and doesn't pay to take care of them. This also applies to some women as well, except in this case they would get "spayed" or at least have their tubes tied. Crack hoes come to mind who keep giving birth to addicted babies that have many medical problems and are usually effected for the rest of their lives if they don't die first. I could go on and on, but I think I have sufficiently answered your questions. If there are any others I haven't addressed, I'm sorry. If you bring them to my attention I will answer them for you. Thank you for your time and patience.



xoxoxoBruce  Saturday Sep 6 06:07 AM

Quote:
[i]Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
Juju...I don't know what I know and what I don't know anymore. I guess I figured "if" you could tell your dog that he would be safer (not running around after females in heat getting hit by cars, getting lost in the process, getting into fights with other males, getting injured by the guy whos female he is trying to screw, etc.) by being neutered that this my not sound so bad to some of them. Since we unfortunately don't know what our pets are "thinking" I can't say that I'm 100% "sure" that they would agree. I can only assume that they would prefer to be home, safe, fed, and loved as opposed to running around after females, getting lost, possibly being injured, with no food or shelter. Maybe that's stupid, idiotic, ridiculous, whatever, but that's my opinion. [/b]
And your entitled to it. You seem to be taken aback by the resistance to what you thought was a given. Most people will agree in principle, with the merits of spay/neuter, even if they don't practice it. There will always be people, especially on the anonymous internet, that will argue anything, sometimes convincingly.
But the fact remains, that pets are our responsibility to care for. They're not too smart or they wouldn't look up to humans.
The spay/neuter program is not some human whim, but a sound, logical and proven way to improve the health and welfare of our pets. Idealogical arguments be damned, it works.


LUVBUGZ  Saturday Sep 6 03:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
You seem to be taken aback by the resistance to what you thought was a given. Most people will agree in principle, with the merits of spay/neuter, even if they don't practice it. There will always be people, especially on the anonymous internet, that will argue anything, sometimes convincingly.
Yea, Bruce I'm taken aback, but not by the resistance to what I "think" is a given. To me it *is* a given, period. I thought I would attempt to show this to others, but obviously I have failed. I've learned one thing though through all this, that if someone is too fucking stupid to realize the benefits of spaying and neutering their pets, then I can talk until I'm blue in the face and it won't change one damn thing. So from now on unless someone shows that they have the intelligence level to hold a rational conversation I'm not going to waste my time and energy dealing with them. Unfortunate as that sounds, my sanity is more important to me than trying to change the views of irrational people.


bmgb  Saturday Sep 6 03:40 PM

Maybe the reason there aren't more people coming on here and saying BUGZ is right, is because we all believe it IS a given. Let's see... would my Dusty (cat) prefer to be living in the wild (or more likely, on the street) having promiscuous sex with tomcats and squeezing out litter after starving litter of unwanted kitties? Or would she prefer to be living in my climate-controlled house, eating to her hearts content and cuddling with me? I think the answer is clear, and she tells me this everyday (in not so many words).

Having her live with me and not be spayed is not really an option. Then she would be rolling around and caterwauling, wondering why she can't get laid. (There is only room for ONE female doing that in my household.)

I respect Quzah's philosophy of non-interference to a certain extent (especially when it comes to "food" animals). The problem is we've already "altered" dogs and cats by breeding them to live with us and be our companions. Whether this was right or wrong in the first place, the reality is they prefer to live as our companions. And the best way to make them healthy and happy is to have them spayed and neutered. Plain and simple.



LUVBUGZ  Saturday Sep 6 03:54 PM

Thank You B, I knew I couldn't possibly be the only one around here who felt this way. It seems to me that most would rather sit around watching the "fireworks" and complain about my poor communication skills rather than risk their integrity within the Cellar and voice their support regarding this issue.



xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Sep 7 12:16 AM

BUGZ if you look at the thread you'll see that B was not the only one to support your position on spay/neuter pets.



Whit  Sunday Sep 7 03:44 AM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You're right Bruce, bmgb wasn't the only one to support Bugz's position. However, if you are talking about yourself then you need to double check with someone who knows about these things before you opinion can be considered valid.



xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Sep 7 08:34 AM

True, but once I'm validated, I park for free.



LUVBUGZ  Sunday Sep 7 02:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
BUGZ if you look at the thread you'll see that B was not the only one to support your position on spay/neuter pets.
I realize that Bruce, that's why I said "It seems to me that most would..."

Whit, that's quite enough of these comments...."However, if you are talking about yourself [Bruce] then you need to double check with someone who knows about these things before you opinion can be considered valid." AFAIK, Bruce was fully aware that I was joking in the Pagen thread and since the comment was made to him I don't see the need for you to continue dwelling on it. Your point was made and taken, Thank you for contributing


xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Sep 7 02:28 PM

Don't worry, sweetheart. They'll never break us up.



LUVBUGZ  Sunday Sep 7 02:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Don't worry, sweetheart. They'll never break us up.
Good to know Brucey, good to know


Whit  Sunday Sep 7 03:19 PM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Gee, sorry Bugz. Seems like evertime I speak you have to tell me I'm wrong to do so. Could you maybe post a list of the things I'm allowed to say?



xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Sep 7 03:33 PM

Don't worry Whit, they'll never break us up.



LUVBUGZ  Sunday Sep 7 03:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Whit
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Gee, sorry Bugz. Seems like evertime I speak you have to tell me I'm wrong to do so. Could you maybe post a list of the things I'm allowed to say?
I'm just keeping in mind your words of wisdom you offered me in the Bridge thread, remember this?......."Okay, Bugz. Now that we've established that you were going to ask the same thing as Quzah perhaps you'd like to take part in this discussion and respond to something that was said since then. There are, in fact, three posts to choose from.
What's that? No, you'd much rather just attack Quzah, who was having a reasonable conversation with the rest of us? Well gee, thanks for taking the time to add something worthwhile to the thread.
Now that I'm done with the sarcasm, would you please try again without the attack?"

I just thought that maybe you could follow your own advice once in awhile!!
:p


Whit  Sunday Sep 7 03:38 PM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Bruce, anyone that pays any attention at all knows you got plenty of love to go round. That's why I like to razz you a little. 'Sides we both get ignored around here plenty enough. Might as well BS with each other.



Whit  Sunday Sep 7 03:42 PM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Ah Bugz, I'm sorry I didn't realize joking with Bruce was the same as telling somebody they should have died. Oh wait it's not. So it doesn't apply. Anyway, it seems I mispoke again. How's that list coming?



elSicomoro  Sunday Sep 7 03:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Whit
Bruce, anyone that pays any attention at all knows you got plenty of love to go round.
Don't we know it...dirty ol' man.


LUVBUGZ  Sunday Sep 7 03:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Whit
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Ah Bugz, I'm sorry I didn't realize joking with Bruce was the same as telling somebody they should have died. Oh wait it's not. So it doesn't apply. Anyway, it seems I mispoke again. How's that list coming?
No time for lists, Whit. I'll just let you know when you've said someting you're not supposed to as it comes up


Whit  Sunday Sep 7 04:03 PM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Okie-doke. Just thought it might save time in the long run as you wouldn't have to bitch at me after every post.



LUVBUGZ  Sunday Sep 7 04:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Whit
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Okie-doke. Just thought it might save time in the long run as you wouldn't have to bitch at me after every post.
Or, if you'd rather, I could just not reply to any of your posts assuming I wasn't referenced in any of them.


Dagney  Sunday Sep 7 04:51 PM

I'm thinking this may be a pretty quiet place if we're not allowed to say anything that may be deemed 'offensive' to anyone who's here, passing by, reading, or possibly even on the same planet as the Cellar.

(edited after some thought as to how what I've said would be taken)

Dagney



LUVBUGZ  Sunday Sep 7 05:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dagney
I'm thinking this may be a pretty quiet place if we're not allowed to say anything that may be deemed 'offensive' to anyone who's here, passing by, reading, or possibly even on the same planet as the Cellar.

(edited after some thought as to how what I've said would be taken)

Dagney
I was talking directly to Whit, not to you, not to the Cellar in general. Now look who's making it "all about you". (not edited in the least)

LUVBUGZ


xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Sep 7 05:39 PM

Oooh, I feel a lot of love in the room.

NOTICE TO EVERYONE
If I should inadvertently post something that offends your sensibilities, fuck you.
THAT IS ALL



elSicomoro  Sunday Sep 7 05:42 PM

Fuck all of you...I'm gonna go grab another beer.



LUVBUGZ  Sunday Sep 7 06:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Oooh, I feel a lot of love in the room.

NOTICE TO EVERYONE
If I should inadvertently post something that offends your sensibilities, fuck you.
THAT IS ALL
Point well made, Brucey. Can we all move on now


Dagney  Sunday Sep 7 07:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
I was talking directly to Whit, not to you, not to the Cellar in general.
You post it in a public forum, it is open for all to see, think about, and most definitely comment on.

I've seen you twist and turn comments over the past few weeks to make an innocent comment turn into something that someone is using as a 'weapon' against you. And you know what, that's just not fair to those of us who are _trying_ to be nice to you.

I've seen quite a few people offer you some advice on how to take the folks around here...those people have been around for a while, and they know the Cellar folks...a number of them have met personally. I've met a few of them personally myself. And I will guarantee you, if you're being attacked, you'll know it...simply because one of them will hand you your ass and make you thank them for the lesson you've just been taught.

So, do us all a favor, learn how to take a comment with a grain of salt, understand that it's NOT directed at YOU personally, and get a grip on things.

Shall we?

Dagney

The perturbed.

Oh, and in case there were any questions, that WAS directed at YOU personally.


LUVBUGZ  Sunday Sep 7 08:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dagney


You post it in a public forum, it is open for all to see, think about, and most definitely comment on.

I've seen you twist and turn comments over the past few weeks to make an innocent comment turn into something that someone is using as a 'weapon' against you. And you know what, that's just not fair to those of us who are _trying_ to be nice to you.

I've seen quite a few people offer you some advice on how to take the folks around here...those people have been around for a while, and they know the Cellar folks...a number of them have met personally. I've met a few of them personally myself. And I will guarantee you, if you're being attacked, you'll know it...simply because one of them will hand you your ass and make you thank them for the lesson you've just been taught.

So, do us all a favor, learn how to take a comment with a grain of salt, understand that it's NOT directed at YOU personally, and get a grip on things.

Shall we?

Dagney

The perturbed.

Oh, and in case there were any questions, that WAS directed at YOU personally.
I realize this is an open to the public forum, but if I specifically address a particular person by naming that person in my post I would thank you to not turn my comment to a specific person into a broad generalization and assume that that particluar comment is intended for you when it is obvious that I'm not directing it to you. I don't know what your fucking problem is, but unless I'm talking to you or addressing the entire Cellar, BUTT THE FUCK OUT!!! Every time I make a post there is some fuck head making some snide remark to me, which would be perfectly fine except that when I do the same exact thing I'm an asshole who doesn't know how to communicate, blah, blah, blah. Jesus Christ, you're turning me into a fucking Quzah who doesn't give a fuck what it says or how it says it. If that's how you like it than fuck you, that's how I'll do it. I've tried to put an end to this bullshit in a civilized manner, but apparently that doesn't work with you, DAGNEY. Don't you have better things to do with your time here than to give me a blast of shit every time I make a post. Go find someone else to bitch to, I'm getting sick of your crap and I've reached well beyond the point of being "perturbed", I'm fucking pissed now. If I "perturb" you so much than don't waste your time making posts to me or about me, go on about your friendly, nice way bringing your joyful commentary to someone other than me.


xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Sep 7 08:22 PM

C'mon BUGZ, this is getting out of hand.

Quote:
I'm thinking this may be a pretty quiet place if we're not allowed to say anything that may be deemed 'offensive' to anyone who's here, passing by, reading, or possibly even on the same planet as the Cellar.
That statement was absolutely true and appropriate. I really don't see how you can take that as an attack on yourself even if it was directed at you.
You have as much right as anybody to blast away, but I would suggest you aim more carefully, because I love you and I want you to be happy.


LUVBUGZ  Sunday Sep 7 08:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
C'mon BUGZ, this is getting out of hand.
That statement was absolutely true and appropriate. I really don't see how you can take that as an attack on yourself even if it was directed at you.
You have as much right as anybody to blast away, but I would suggest you aim more carefully, because I love you and I want you to be happy.
Posts like this are exactly what I'm talking about. Bruce, I love you and you love me, I know, but why is it that *I'm* getting out of hand, why aren't you telling the people who continue to dwell on this matter that *they* are getting out of hand. If we could kindly move on to other things, that would be great, but as long as someone feels the need to talk shit, I'm going to dish it right back. The fact remains that I was talking specifically to Whit, who in his reply seemed satisfied with my comment (I believe we both were able to sense the sarcasm in the air), and I don't need Dagney's 2-cents worth. She's the one who "twisted and turned" my comment to Whit into a broad generalization and took it upon herself to redirect it towards herself. I can not be held responsible for what people to with my words once I write them down. I don't consider everything people say as a direct "attack" on myself, but when they make a point of directing a smart-ass comment to me then I will respond as I see fit.


Dagney  Sunday Sep 7 09:08 PM

Quote:
Originally whined by LUVBUGZ
I realize this is an open to the public forum, but if I specifically address a particular person by naming that person in my post I would thank you to not turn my comment to a specific person into a broad generalization and assume that that particluar comment is intended for you when it is obvious that I'm not directing it to you.


Then perhaps you should re-examine the concept of a public message board. You post here, and you're open for public comment, disagreement, argument and perhaps even ridicule. If you're not able to hang with the big dogs, as the saying goes, perhaps you should stay on the porch. And as a point of reference, you will notice that I'm able to conduct myself without the use of profanity. (That's also a plus, it tends to not offend those caught in the crossfire)

If you can't handle the fact that someone may disagree with you, and have the 'nerve' to SAY so, then you should either keep your comments to yourself, take your conversations private, or find a forum where you CAN deal with it. (I hear AOL is still taking customers....)

Quote:
I don't know what your fucking problem is, but unless I'm talking to you or addressing the entire Cellar, BUTT THE FUCK OUT!!!
My problem. Well, it's simple. And believe it or not, it's NOT you. It's the way you handle yourself. I've seen you insult quite a few people around here. Some of which I've met personally, some of which I respect because they know a heck of a lot more about things than I do. And because I'd be willing to bet that a lot of them know a heck of a lot more about some things than YOU do. The way I look at it is this, you've come into the family's house, and taken the opportunity to defecate in our living room. And you know what? That's just unexcusable. (I use that reference, because if I remember correctly, you collect different specimens of animal droppings.)

Quote:
Every time I make a post there is some fuck head making some snide remark to me, which would be perfectly fine except that when I do the same exact thing I'm an asshole who doesn't know how to communicate, blah, blah, blah.
You may want to look back over the last few days, but I most definitely was NOT the person who said that you did not know how to communicate. I merely mentioned that it seemed that you were turning every person who may have had an opinion that differed in the slightest from you into a raving stupid lunatic. Well, I'm sorry, but most of us are not stupid, or lunatics, but we do have our moments when we rave. (But that's not the point here.)

Quote:
Jesus Christ, you're turning me into a fucking Quzah who doesn't give a fuck what it says or how it says it.
You can't be made to feel inferior without your permission. Elanor Roosevelt said that. (But she didn't check with someone more knowledgable first, so perhaps she doesn't know what SHE's talking about either). Your talent for turning anything into an attack is particularly troublesome. Those who lash out the most are generally those who are hurting the most. And I hope that at some point in time you are able to find the ability to see that a disagreement is NOT an attack.

Quote:
If that's how you like it than fuck you, that's how I'll do it. I've tried to put an end to this bullshit in a civilized manner, but apparently that doesn't work with you, DAGNEY.
I have not seen much evidence of putting things behind you in any sort of a civilized manner. You jump from thread to thread sniping folks who aren't involved in the conversation at hand, or making accusations of people who've not even participated in a conversation. (I was real impressed with your comment of people who didn't participate in your spaying/nutering thread....)

Quote:
Don't you have better things to do with your time here than to give me a blast of shit every time I make a post.
I've hardly commented or given you a blast of fecal residue every time you've made a post. If you're inviting me to....I'll be more than happy to start. And although I've got plenty of OTHER things to do with my time, I feel that THIS is necessary.

Quote:
Go find someone else to bitch to, I'm getting sick of your crap and I've reached well beyond the point of being "perturbed", I'm fucking pissed now.
Wah. Shall I say this again? WAH. Quit your crying, and get over yourself. I've not yet begun to snipe on YOU dear. Don't push buttons if you don't want to open the box. Okay?

Quote:
If I "perturb" you so much than don't waste your time making posts to me or about me, go on about your friendly, nice way bringing your joyful commentary to someone other than me.
What? And miss the fun of watching that vein in your forehead throb?


Now, if you'd like to know my personal opinion of you, you know where to find me.

(oh, and guess what, you HAVE made it all about you)

Dagney


xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Sep 7 10:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
Posts like this are exactly what I'm talking about. Bruce, I love you and you love me, I know, but why is it that *I'm* getting out of hand, why aren't you telling the people who continue to dwell on this matter that *they* are getting out of hand. If we could kindly move on to other things, that would be great, but as long as someone feels the need to talk shit, I'm going to dish it right back. The fact remains that I was talking specifically to Whit, who in his reply seemed satisfied with my comment (I believe we both were able to sense the sarcasm in the air), and I don't need Dagney's 2-cents worth. She's the one who "twisted and turned" my comment to Whit into a broad generalization and took it upon herself to redirect it towards herself. I can not be held responsible for what people to with my words once I write them down. I don't consider everything people say as a direct "attack" on myself, but when they make a point of directing a smart-ass comment to me then I will respond as I see fit.
But Sweetheart, when Whit goosed me, you jumped in and made it about you, when it really wasn't.
Then Dag made a post that, as I said before was IMO true and appropriate, you jumped all over her. In a very nasty and personal way too.
The best way not to catch 'em is not to bait 'em. Relax, pet the puppies, think about what you're going to get me for Christmas.


LUVBUGZ  Sunday Sep 7 10:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce

But Sweetheart, when Whit goosed me, you jumped in and made it about you, when it really wasn't.
Then Dag made a post that, as I said before was IMO true and appropriate, you jumped all over her. In a very nasty and personal way too.
The best way not to catch 'em is not to bait 'em. Relax, pet the puppies, think about what you're going to get me for Christmas.
Brucey, if you reread those posts, you will realize that Whit was not only goosing you, but me too by subtly refering to a post I made in the lovely and pleasent new Pagen thread where I SARCASTICALLY stated that I wouldn't take your word on the meaning of "graven images" unless Els validated it Come on people read, read thoroughly, then read again if you have to. So much of this bickering crap is due to people taking little bits and pieces out of posts and "twisting and turning" them into something their not. If your gonna bitch about something get your facts (and quotes) together before starting shit about um. So, as long as Whit was goosing me too I have every right to goose him back:p

As far as Dagney's last post, I had a real juicy reply going when I accidentally erased it, then I sat back and said why the fuck am I buying into all her crap for? So she hates me, big fucking deal, she ain't the first and won't be the last. So, in an effort to end this shit, I'm simply not going to reply. If she feels the need to continue I will oblige, but the proverbial ball is in her court now.


Dagney  Sunday Sep 7 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
As far as Dagney's last post, I had a real juicy reply going when I accidentally erased it, then I sat back and said why the fuck am I buying into all her crap for? So she hates me, big fucking deal, she ain't the first and won't be the last. So, in an effort to end this shit, I'm simply not going to reply. If she feels the need to continue I will oblige, but the proverbial ball is in her court now.
Kindly do not put words in my mouth.

If I hate you, I'll tell you. And seeing as though you've officially hit my "let's skip these posts, I don't need the aggravation" list, we've not got anything to worry about, now do we?

Dagney.


LUVBUGZ  Sunday Sep 7 11:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dagney


Kindly do not put words in my mouth.

If I hate you, I'll tell you. And seeing as though you've officially hit my "let's skip these posts, I don't need the aggravation" list, we've not got anything to worry about, now do we?

Dagney.
Nope, it appears we don't.


juju  Monday Sep 8 12:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
I find that people who are new to the internet often have problems interpreting moods and intent behind the written word. Lots of times, one sentence or phrase can be interpreted five or six different ways. It takes practice to work around this, but I'm sure you'll get it in time. But don't worry... we <i>all</i> went through this phase.
Hey, Bugz... I'm sensing that I might have offended you with what I said here. If that's true, I was just wondering what it was here that you took offense to?

I'm not attacking you, I'm just trying to understand why you think I'm attacking you.


LUVBUGZ  Monday Sep 8 01:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju

Hey, Bugz... I'm sensing that I might have offended you with what I said here. If that's true, I was just wondering what it was here that you took offense to?

I'm not attacking you, I'm just trying to understand why you think I'm attacking you.
Juju, this thread is so friggin' long, and my pooter is so slow, I tried to go back to your original post, but it was driving me nuts. Since you seem to know right where it is could you give me a date so I can find it more easily? From what I can recall I didn't take offense to your post though. In fact, somewhere I mentioned that I appreciated your attempts to keep the communication flowing in a positive direction around here. I don't think you are "attacking" me, but sometimes it seems like many people are bitching at me at once so I may have responded defensively to your comment, if so, I apologize.


juju  Monday Sep 8 01:24 AM

My comment was actually in this thread on 9/5, and then you referred to it in this other thread, where you said:

Quote:
Hey Els, I'm back over here where it is safe. I just got my ass chewed over in the new Pagan Thread. It appears I have difficulty communicating w/ others. Funny, I didn't think *we* had any problem communicating. Oh well, goes to show how much I know.
I guess you could have been referring to Dagney, but since I more directly referenced communication, I thought you meant me. Also, in this thread, you sort of refer to it again:

Quote:
Every time I make a post there is some fuck head making some snide remark to me, which would be perfectly fine except that when I do the same exact thing I'm an asshole who doesn't know how to communicate, blah, blah, blah.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but you did mention it twice.


LUVBUGZ  Monday Sep 8 02:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
...I guess you could have been referring to Dagney, but since I more directly referenced communication, I thought you meant me... Also, in this thread, you sort of refer to it again...Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but you did mention it twice.
I see what your saying Juju, although I didn't take your "I find that people who are new to the internet often have problems interpreting moods and intent behind the written word. Lots of times, one sentence or phrase can be interpreted five or six different ways. It takes practice to work around this, but I'm sure you'll get it in time. But don't worry... we all went through this phase" comment offensive, nor did I consider it a direct "attack" on me, I guess the general "poor communication idea" that was swirling around at the time stuck in my head. Another thing I find going on is the "sarcasm" issue. I have many a time warned people of my propensity towards sarcasm and all is good as long as everyone involved is on the same page, but then someone comes in out of the blue and starts taking things out of context and turns sarcastic whips into nasty comments. Which I find interesting because most times they in turn use subtle sarcasm in their comments and when I call them on it or "return fire" they act like they don't know what the hell I'm talking about when it is soooo obvious to me that they do


juju  Monday Sep 8 02:55 AM

Isn't it true that <i>no one</i> chewed you out in the Pagan thread?



Whit  Monday Sep 8 02:58 AM

Quote:
From Bugz:
Or, if you'd rather, I could just not reply to any of your posts assuming I wasn't referenced in any of them.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; One thing I'd like to make perfectly clear right here and right now. I never suggest someone not talk. While you're to new to remember this Bugz I even backed UT's decision to not kick Radar as many people wanted, and Radar and I really didn't get along well. I believe strongly in the idea of free speech. Which is why I've been such a smartass about what I'm allowed to say.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Having said that, I defend both my right to 'goose' Bruce about something you said and Dagney's right to respond to your response directly to me. Discussion boards like this one are free for all's, not private talks. On this play ground everybody gets to play.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; By the by, nobody here is interested in apologies. That's why apologizing doesn't seem to get you where you seem to think it should. We'd rather you not feel bad in the first place which is why you've gotten so many "How did I offend you?" replies. Lighten up, you'll be happier for it.


Whit  Monday Sep 8 03:30 AM

Quote:
From Bruce:
If I should inadvertently post something that offends your sensibilities, fuck you.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Bruce, I just want you to know that this upset me so much that I cried like a little girl for over an hour.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Dagney, having read your recent posts I think Brian is a lucky man. If he ever pisses you off then come on by, I've got a fair collection of Ayn Rand we could discuss.:p (Brian j/k about the "come by" thing, no need to kick my ass or anything)


LUVBUGZ  Monday Sep 8 04:20 AM

Juju and Whit

As I was trying to figure out a way to cease the endless bullshit in some of the threads in here I thought to myself, well, if I just delete everything I ever wrote then there would be nothing left to piss people off anymore. So away I went, then on the third post I believe it was I got a message that it was too late to delete anymore. I didn't know you were keeping such close tabs on me. So, if either of you can tell me a way to retrieve deleted posts, I'll gladly repost them for your reading pleasure. No matter what I do in here it's wrong. I try being nice, I try being reasonable, I try saying what I am *really* thinking, I get pissed off, I try apologizing. Nothing seems to work. I don't know what you people want from me. I'm over here trying to have a civil conversation with Juju and he's over in Philosophy talking shit about me, which in turn gets Whit on the band wagon again. Whit, go ahead goose Bruce about something I said, but can you please explain why it is not OK for me to goose you back when I realize that your comment is indirectly goosing me too. Why is it that when I do the same thing I'm the asshole? Great, let Dagney get in on the action too, but why is it that she has free range on giving her opinion about me, but when I do the same I'm the biggest fucking bitch around?



Whit  Monday Sep 8 04:47 AM

Quote:
From Bugz:
Whit, go ahead goose Bruce about something I said, but can you please explain why it is not OK for me to goose you back when I realize that your comment is indirectly goosing me too.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; What are you talking about? You didn't 'goose' me, you told me to stop talking about it. There was really no humor involved. For the record I did drop it at that point. As near as I can tell you have decided to try and paint me as a hypocrite, only I'm not one and no (accurate) quote you can come up with will show that I am. I never said it wasn't okay for you to say anything. I've even been nice while you made false accusations and deliberately misquoted me repeatedly. I have pointed out some of the misquotes and just about everyone on the board has told you that you're not being attacked, calm down.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Now, to reiterate on the point of if you can 'goose' me.
Quote:
Posted by me awhile ago:
One thing I'd like to make perfectly clear right here and right now. I never suggest someone not talk.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You've not been attacked, nobody hates you and I'm afraid you're just going to have to deal with it.


Uryoces  Monday Sep 8 04:57 AM

I haven't been following the thread, but it's getting ridiculously long. "This thread goes to eleven..." Something about a pig I am led to believe. -oink- I guess the one thing I've seen here is that the posts can seem pretty vitriloic sometimes, but there is a level of respect; there is a thread [pun] of constructive thought and humor. There are some fairly heavy and important things being discussed here, but I get the feeling that there is some kind of huge Monty Python sketch undercurrent to all this. Don't take most of this seriously, and more importantly, don't take yourself too seriously. I should point out by "you" I mean any of the earthlings on this board.

That being said, you are all the biggest bunch of freaks I've ever known, and I feel lucky for the chance to spew alphabet soup at you all once in a while.



LUVBUGZ  Monday Sep 8 04:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Whit
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You've not been attacked, nobody hates you and I'm afraid you're just going to have to deal with it.
For the last time, I AM NOT SAYING I'M BEING ATTACKED. You guys are the one making this comment. Where exactly in my above post did I say YOU'RE ATTACKING ME? My God, talk about making "false accusations" and "repeatedly misquoting deliberately". I just want to know why it is OK for everyone else to do the same thing I'm doing, but I'm the asshole????? Please answer this for me.


Whit  Monday Sep 8 05:22 AM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Haven't said you're being attacked? Let's backtrack through the last few posts shall we? You say "you're the asshole" calling people foul names is a form of attack, nobody called you that or really treated you like that. Hmm, you say Juju was talking shit about you, he rightly pointed out that you deleted posts, I'll get back to the problem with that. Ah, now you're saying you're the "biggest bitch around," see above. Hey, you never did say who "chewed you out" on the pagan thread, just noticed that and it would qualify as an attack. That brings us back to "it seems like many people are bitching at me at once..." Bitching at someone is generally considered a form of attack. That's just scanning down this page. Oh yeah, then there was when you accused me of not letting you have your own opinion on the 'Bridge' thread. You even suggested I would want kids with you opinion to die. That definitely qualifies as an 'attack' and it was definitely imagined by you. I was just giving my opinion while reading yours. We say attack, you say we've treated you like a bitch, an asshole, chewed you out, bitched you out, and taken away your right to an opinion. We've just used more polite words than you. I'd say that covers the attack issue.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Ooops, I forgot to mention earlier, we weren't keeping tabs on you per se, we had simply read the thread before and the deletions were pretty obvious.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ah yes, I said I'd get back to that. Etiquette note, it's usually considered borderline deceptive to delete posts more than a few minutes after you post them. The reason is that it comes across as trying to deny you said what you said. That's the beauty of a board is that everyone can look back on what you said previously. I thought it was funny, thus made fun of it. Juju, on the other hand, is an old hand at this kind of thing and I suspect that he took it much more seriously. Like you were covering up what you had said rather than trying to get past it by doing better in the future.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As far as Dagney goes, she gives reasons for what she says, or bases them in forum culture that Juju suggested in one thread that you simply weren't familiar with. She also does it with style.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Now, be specific, what is it that everyone is doing that you are not allowed to?



Whit  Monday Sep 8 05:30 AM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Uryoces, dude, I only wish this melodrama was monty Python stuff. I've had a fair amount of laughs from it though. Just look around the board a bit. Parts of this fiasco are on a variety of forums.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Oh, and we prefer to be called "Terrans", which sounds much cooler than "earthling", which just comes off as condescending.



LUVBUGZ  Monday Sep 8 05:41 AM

All right, I give up. Like I said no matter what I do it's wrong. Think what you want, say what you want, misquote, generalize, assume, attack, don't attack, comment, don't comment, do whatever you all want to do. I'm just going to try and stay out of your ways. I'll try to limit my posts to the few people in here who don't seem to have a problem me, my ignorance of forum etiquette, my communication skills, or lack thereof, and generally everything else that is so offensive to the rest of you.



Whit  Monday Sep 8 05:51 AM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Oh for christ's sake woman, can't you see we're not taking this time out to respond to you to be cruel, but actually to try to help you? Also, it's a freakin' discussion board, no matter where you post we will still read it.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Once more, and with real feeling, we, generally speaking, aren't offended. You just keep going off at bizarre moments and we're trying to figure out why.



LUVBUGZ  Monday Sep 8 06:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Whit
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Oh for christ's sake woman, can't you see we're not taking this time out to respond to you to be cruel, but actually to try to help you? Also, it's a freakin' discussion board, no matter where you post we will still read it.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Once more, and with real feeling, we, generally speaking, aren't offended. You just keep going off at bizarre moments and we're trying to figure out why.
OK Whit, thank you and all involved for trying to help me. I realize no matter where I post you'll still read it, but there are some people in here who actually tolerate me the way I am and I would like to continue conversing with them. I can only hope to move on from here and try not to piss off any of those who have offered such kind advice in the past. If I may make a suggestion, don't waste your time trying to figure me out, I think I'm an enigma, albeit a rather distasteful one at that.


Whit  Monday Sep 8 09:47 AM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Bugz, you aren't an enigma. I think I understand you pretty well. That's the only reason I've not, at any point, gotten pissed off at you myself. Would you please, possibly, maybe, consider actually listening to me on one point? I say me but actually you've been hearing this from all sides, including some of the people you say 'tolerate' you.

Quote:
From Bugz:
...and try not to piss off any of those who...
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You see this? This clearly shows that you refuse to consider the outside chance that you've been the one that's gotten pissed first. Please reread some of the pre-problem posts as if we weren't talking to you. Maybe then you'll see we were talking to you like we would anyone else and it upset you. Even going back to your first big problem, Quazah, he posted a generaly pissy comment and you took it personal. Dozens of people on the board and you were the only one that was bothered by it.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't see any reason for you to have to curb your posting back to only a select few. Just friggin' relax, being that sensitive to what people say can't be good for your ego. Simply put, you are seeing anger, directed at you, where there is none. To fix the problem don't stop talking, recognize your tendancy to do that and double check yourself. Actively try to be more objective about what others say instead of jumping to the defense.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Best of luck.


quzah  Monday Sep 8 06:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ

Quzah, I don't know why you are so concerened about my "misjudging" and "insulting" you, remember saying this..."You all have the misgiving that I actually care what you think about me." And you have said yourself that you're an asshole, I was just agreeing with you.
There was no concern. I was illustrating a point using you as an example. It should have been quite clear. I was expalining that the comment could have been taken as an insult, and that it is quite possible to insult someone by misjudging them.

That was the entire point of the quote / message. It has nothing to do with how I actually took the message. I was pointing out that it could be taken a given way.

Quzah.


quzah  Monday Sep 8 06:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
Yea, Bruce I'm taken aback, but not by the resistance to what I "think" is a given. To me it *is* a given, period. I thought I would attempt to show this to others, but obviously I have failed. I've learned one thing though through all this, that if someone is too fucking stupid to realize the benefits of spaying and neutering their pets, then I can talk until I'm blue in the face and it won't change one damn thing. So from now on unless someone shows that they have the intelligence level to hold a rational conversation I'm not going to waste my time and energy dealing with them. Unfortunate as that sounds, my sanity is more important to me than trying to change the views of irrational people.
But you weren't trumpeting the values of the sterilization. You were saying that they would choose castration if you could explain it to them, and I was calling you on it. No male dog would opt for castration unless he knew he had testicular cancer. Period.

Quzah.


quzah  Monday Sep 8 06:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bmgb
Let's see... would my Dusty (cat) prefer to be living in the wild (or more likely, on the street) having promiscuous sex with tomcats and squeezing out litter after starving litter of unwanted kitties? Or would she prefer to be living in my climate-controlled house, eating to her hearts content and cuddling with me? I think the answer is clear, and she tells me this everyday (in not so many words).

Having her live with me and not be spayed is not really an option. Then she would be rolling around and caterwauling, wondering why she can't get laid. (There is only room for ONE female doing that in my household.)
There you go. You've just contradicted yourself. You have obsoleted your argument.

You say: "Would my cat choose..." when you've already made the choice for them. You can say they'd want it, but that's just to make you feel better about yourself for having done it.

Second off, from the sound of it, your cat is housed. Meaning, it is kept indoors. Thus, you are not giving it the choice. You are again making it for them.

If you really believe that they would choose to be spayed with you, do this:

1) Get a new born kitten.
2) Install a cat door.
3) Do not sterilize your cat.
4) Be amazed when your cat comes and goes as it pleases, running around the neighborhood mating at every oportunity.

You see, you are flat out wrong. Your animal would not choose to be sterilized. Period. No animal would choose sterlization. Since LB is so big on biology, this should be crystal clear. Remember "hard wired"? Well no animal on earth would choose sterilization, especially since the sterilization done commonly would alter their normal behavior.

You can pretend all you want that they'd like it, but the fact is, you're wrong. No animal would opt for this. It goes against their "hard wiring".

No animal would choose to be spayed or nutering. Period. You're kidding yourself if you say you believe otherwise.

That being said, I have never said it was a bad thing to keep the "pet population" under control. I simply stated that no animal would choose the operation. It is asanine to believe so.

Quzah.


Whit  Monday Sep 8 06:41 PM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Welcome back Quzah. Have a nice weekend?



quzah  Monday Sep 8 08:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Whit
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Welcome back Quzah. Have a nice weekend?
Yeah, not too bad. Went over to Seattle, visited my sister. Hung out for a bit, had a good time.

Quzah.


OnyxCougar  Monday Sep 8 08:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
If you really believe that they would choose to be spayed with you, do this:

1) Get a new born kitten.
2) Install a cat door.
3) Do not sterilize your cat.
4) Be amazed when your cat comes and goes as it pleases, running around the neighborhood mating at every oportunity.

You see, you are flat out wrong. Your animal would not choose to be sterilized. Period. No animal would choose sterlization. Since LB is so big on biology, this should be crystal clear. Remember "hard wired"? Well no animal on earth would choose sterilization, especially since the sterilization done commonly would alter their normal behavior.

You can pretend all you want that they'd like it, but the fact is, you're wrong. No animal would opt for this. It goes against their "hard wiring".

No animal would choose to be spayed or nutering. Period. You're kidding yourself if you say you believe otherwise.

That being said, I have never said it was a bad thing to keep the "pet population" under control. I simply stated that no animal would choose the operation. It is asanine to believe so.

Quzah.
I agree with Quzah here, up to a point, which is:

The animal can't choose. It can't tell us whether or not it opts for it. I believe before the bitchfest started and points were being made, someone made a post about (...anthro....humano... that word where we make animals seem human....morpha sumfin...)-ing them, but the fact is they don't have a choice.

As their caretakers, we choose for them. I choose to spay and neuter my pets because I believe it's the humane and responsible thing to do.



LUVBUGZ  Monday Sep 8 08:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
...someone made a post about (...anthro....humano... that word where we make animals seem human....morpha sumfin...)-ing them...
Onyx, I'm trying with all my might to only observe this conversation so as NOT to ensue another "bitchfest", but for edification purposes only, the word your looking for is anthropomorphism which in the context of this discussion means attributing human characteristics to animals


OnyxCougar  Monday Sep 8 08:55 PM

Yeah, what you said. Thanks, Luv.



juju  Monday Sep 8 09:17 PM

I believe the point was, if they could choose, hypothetically, would they? And the answer, of course, is no.



Undertoad  Monday Sep 8 11:14 PM

"Boy, you have a choice. You can have your nuts cut off, and live here with us in total comfort for the next fifteen years, with your every need attended to. You'll have a fortune in toys and loving attention, and absolutely the best medical care. Or, you can keep those nuts and take your chances with a week at the pound. You're kinda cute so maybe you have a 10% chance of being adopted before you get gassed. Of course your new owners might not be as nice as we are. We give you free will for a moment, what is your choice?"



xoxoxoBruce  Tuesday Sep 9 12:20 AM

Woof, face lick, face lick.



quzah  Tuesday Sep 9 12:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
"Boy, you have a choice. You can have your nuts cut off, and live here with us in total comfort for the next fifteen years, with your every need attended to. You'll have a fortune in toys and loving attention, and absolutely the best medical care. Or, you can keep those nuts and take your chances with a week at the pound. You're kinda cute so maybe you have a 10% chance of being adopted before you get gassed. Of course your new owners might not be as nice as we are. We give you free will for a moment, what is your choice?"
Ah, there you see, this would be considered "under duress", and as such, wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

Quzah.


xoxoxoBruce  Tuesday Sep 9 12:49 AM

I just saw on the news a woman adopted a Doberman from a rescue site 10 days ago. Tonight it mauled her to death. I wonder if she was offering that same choice?



Whit  Tuesday Sep 9 01:00 AM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; So, UT, might I ask about your teenage years? I'm sure you stayed home happy and warm with all the comforts that entails. Certainly you never made any bad decisions like going out and chasing after any stray females, right?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Of course you didn't. Otherwise you're assuming that animals are smarter than you.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Me? I figure the animals would make the same instictive decision most youths I knew did. "Screw the 'wise choice' lets go out fight, get laid and have a great night out." My particular group actually tried to avoid the first part and focused on the second two parts. Also, we knew what we were doing was stupid and involved enormous risks. But our instincs said "do it" and so we did.
[Edit] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; My point is to suggest that animals might go the same route. I know I'd put money on it.



Undertoad  Tuesday Sep 9 08:04 AM

Hey, I bagged several eligible females during my breeding peak, and these were excellent decisions, as was the phenomenal decision never to bag one without birth controls.



Whit  Tuesday Sep 9 11:54 AM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I've got two kids and in both cases we were using birth control. Birth control doesn't eliminate the risk, it just reduces it. Read the damn instructions, they even say so.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Regardless, you make my point. The animal, is you could explain the situation to it, would not choose to be spayed/neutered in most cases. I'm not saying it's not an excellent for us human to have our pets fixed. But the arguement was that the animal would choose it. Nope, don't buy it. And from what you say of you own history, neither do you.



Your reply here?

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: a bunch of interesting folks talking about everything. Add your two cents to IotD by joining the Cellar.