posted
Hmm, there's so much to choose from with Ann Coulter, but here's one: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
'course, she's just being funny here, as Neytari explained once.
From: My place | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's so hard to tell, though, with that perceptive wit of hers.
Especially for an Erudamn dumb Texan like me, who knows less about her own Erudamn dumb state than...well, just about anyone else.
From: Andustar | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, you two remind me of those crazy, militant, anti-abortion zealots who like to show pictures of dead fetuses to get their points across!
From: New Orleans | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Neytari posts a genuine request for some information about HRC, and the first response is another political shot?
So, exactly what in my response to NTB constituted a "political shot?"
quote:I see your point, Bomby, but being governor is a different from being senator. I think Bush had more of a name in his own right than Hillary currently does.
Definitely your opinion -- thanks. I grew up a Southerner and heard of the Clintons frequently, but I'd never heard of George W. Bush until he ran for governor of Texas.
If I'm not mistaken (and I could very well be mistaken -- I'm too tired to google it), hadn't Bush been governor of Texas (the nation's second most populous state) for six years when he ran for president? And hasn't Hillary been a Senator for six years -- eight years by the time we reach the election -- in the nation's third most populous state?
From: Meridian ID | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hey, you two remind me of those crazy, militant, anti-abortion zealots who like to show pictures of dead fetuses to get their points across!
What's crazy about that? I'm not anti-abortion persay, but I still think people should understand exactly what abortion entails before they go ahead with it.
Same with war. Or eating meat.
From: Hades, UK | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why not? They're only slaughtered animals. If you don't like it, don't eat meat. It's exactly the same logic as GNA showing pictures of slaughtered soldiers (which I don't at all disagree with, before you think I'm having a go).
War and the slaughter of animals are both done in your name. I like to know what's being done in my name. That's how I earn the right to comment on it.
(Sorry for the rant, the facing of unpleasant realities is something about which I feel strongly. )
From: Hades, UK | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I strongy suspect that if I saw those pictures I probably would go vegetarian, and I prefer to live in blissful carnivorous ignorance.
Are you a vegetarian, btw? I didn't know that.
E: thread fully derailed now.
E2: and you can take that "in your name" thing too far. I don't support the war, I wish they would pull out immediately, and I didn't vote for Bush. Right now the war is in the name of Neytari, Imbëar and their ilk.
[ 02-16-2007, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Wandering Tuor ]
From: My place | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am mostly veggie, because I don't eat factory-farmed meat and there's not a lot else in this country (although it is getting better). But I love a bit of raw beef...
Choosing to live in blissful ignorance about meat production is no different to someone believing that dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, when the reality of war is terror, filth and agony. If they have to face that reality by someone posting pictures of dead soldiers, why shouldn't you have to face the reality of how animals are kept and killed for you to eat?
From: Hades, UK | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
But fine, when I get time I'll check out a slaughterhouse documentary. You're right; ignorance is almost never a good strategy.
From: My place | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If animals aren't people, why should seeing pictures of their living/dying conditions bother you? Their suffering is meaningless, right?
Everyone is special to themselves. That was kind of my point.
"People should be made to face hard truths! Except me. I don't want to."
E: Anyway, you get the idea.
E2: The picture of the dead solider was aimed at Neytari, not you. So you could say that the war is being done in her name, so therefore she needs to see pictures like that.
[ 02-16-2007, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Athene ]
From: Hades, UK | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your premise seems to be that there are only two choices: treating animals as equivalent to humans in terms of the protections they deserve, and treating their suffering as meaningless. Surely there is a middle ground? I wouldn't saddle up a homeless person and have him schlepp me to work, though I might do so to a horse (if I knew how to ride ) - but I wouldn't harm a horse for no reason, or for a petty reason. (That's probably a terrible example because I don't think a horse is harmed by being ridden, but you know what I mean.) If you're arguing for the PETA position - that animals should be treated as fully co-equal - I don't agree with that, though I don't think it's as silly as some people do. Because it's tough to say where to draw the line in specific cases.
E: (re E2) I know, but I just wanted to use the word ilk.
[ 02-16-2007, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Wandering Tuor ]
From: My place | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but you seemed to indicate that pictures of animal slaughter would upset you, and therefore you didn't want to see them.
It wasn't me that started the "animals are people/not people" thing; I was just trying to demonstrate that you were not prepared to face the reality of meat production, in the same way as some people might not be prepared to face the reality of war.
Your retort to my comparison of those two positions was that animals weren't people, to which I replied asking in that case why pictures of their slaughter would upset you.
So, it is actually your retort that had no bearing on the original question.
E: Don't try your weaselly lawyer tactics on me.
[ 02-16-2007, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Athene ]
From: Hades, UK | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Errr... WT posted the photo of the dead soldier; I posted the link to the amputee care center at BAMC.
The points of the link and the photo are the same, of course, as are the intended targets. BAMC is the example I chose because it's close to home.
From: Andustar | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because, though they're not people - which is why, IMHO, a dead soldier is a sadder reality than a dead monkey - the second one still matters.
As for the meat processing thing - OK, you made your point, as I've already conceded. I was wrong and you were right. You want 5 minutes of silence or something?
E: OK now we're all cross-posted. Yes, as Gna said, I posted the dead soldier picture. It's even from Al Jazeera, so I expected to get blasted by the Keyboard Warriors and, probably, 99% of everyone else.
[ 02-16-2007, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Wandering Tuor ]
From: My place | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe you should post one from Coulter that you like.
I realize you weren't speaking to me...but does a partial sentence qualify?
"There are a lot of bad Republicans..."
quote:Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job. Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, sweetie.
That reminds me of the time I told an MT citizen they were using circular logic, and they thanked me and said "See, everything is circular!" (referring to their religious beliefs).
quote:So, exactly what in my response to NTB constituted a "political shot?"
Erm...the deflective shot seemed obvious to me.
[ 02-16-2007, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Éoric of the Riddermark ]
From: Wilsonville, OR | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |