Zierro

Yeah, and god doesn't ground people. Of course there are going to be differences, that's the point of an analogy.

Does that make me the quintessence of god?

9730

We can have whatever religions we want, but what churches are going to be built on the island can still be up for debate.

9734

Crazy (American/Australian/Canadian/whatever else) hypocrites. It's our right!

You're only mentioning the personal level. I try to look at tragedies such as AID's in a societal or even universal light - I think about the people who are left behind who are looking in from the outside. Think about a couple who struggles to have a baby, but even after a fetus is finally conceived, misfortune strikes and it dies before it's even born. Now think about the same couple having a second child but this time nothing goes wrong. His life is going to be cherished greatly. You might argue that it wasn't necessary in the first place, but to me it makes sense that occurrences like that work on a case to case basis. I'm not trying to say that this is the reason why babies die. For all I know, I could be completely wrong. But I think my main point still stands - good things can always sprout out of bad situations even when it seems extremely unlikely. Maybe god chooses the lesser of two evils for the greater good? As for the positive-negative relation, I don't see what's wrong with that theory. Consider this: Aliens land on earth. They come from a planet where there is no sun - there is no day, only night. Would they think of their planet as "night" or would the thought never occur to them at all? Only when they discover that there is a difference that exists on earth - it gets dark and light - then they will acknowledge the two terms "night" and "day". The differences are essential. Another example: Would blue be considered a color if it was the only existing hue?

Oh that was Wontong's quote. I'm not even Asian. Sorry for the confusion. :P

[hide=New Tipitopian Population]Danqazmlp pureprayer Skull_Emblem Zierro Sworddude198 mmmcannibalism rangeor FlameHawk18 Lenticular_J baalboy5 l0rd Quoi_Tu deathdrow roccodog25 Nick_6464 pryomancer N0M_AN0R Lenin64 dragoonson ultimania92 evil_mumm_ra doomsavenger OldJoe Th3_Crusader istolethepie jemathonical Wongtong Adrenal blackdawn ross_the_knight ShadowFaxPZ riku3220 Racheya LiChef Nadril daniels911 EdgedThesis psvstef run4runes halo2proman Lionheart_0 stevepole chazzycaz aquariusman IGoddessI hawkxs DOOMY jaerkd00d Da_Latios doc_roe3 Happysniff Georgelemmons kcdragon8116 hellbellz Rebdragon Maleficus1055 dizzle229 kenshinjapan runescapeloser22 sa121 daniels911 Serephurus sohkmj1 flodder450 penguingeek3 rushrock Nowayout59 Mage_Man0103 sarge1010 dsavi_x4 snipersas ca2theone Snowi[/hide]

Lol, Dan why did you put me as the Island Asian?

We had debates in my Law Studies and American Government classes. They were okay, but it gets annoying when people just say the same thing over again - back and forth. And when people just toss in big words but show very little application to the topic at hand. It matters what you say! Not how you say it! I try to debate a lot in real life with family members and friends. It's one of those things that requires practice. I find it much easier to debate on the internet though. You have more time to think. Plus you don't risk your social relationships depending on your opinions. :P

That doesn't change anything. It's still sadistic. I'd rather die than be forced to box for the rest of my life, merely for entertainment purposes at the expense of my health. The roosters don't even get that choice though. You're telling me that because they're gonna die anyways, then it's all free game. It's not.

Maybe we should just scratch the labels - except for jobs and government leaders.

I'm saying that just because we use them for food, that doesn't mean we should use them for sadistic entertainment. A comparison Shadow has been bringing up a lot.

Agreed. Why do people keep putting them in the same level? Why do you put entertainment on the same level as survival? I'm getting tired of asking. Yes, entertainment is important but not on the level where we should ignore the health of animals.

Are you getting these occupations from the skills of RS? (woodcut, fishing)

The same place where you get the right to eat slaughtered animals. Unless you're a vegan who wholly defies exploitation of animals, you can't really ask that question. So you think our entertainment needs should be on the same level as our survival needs?

Lol, so because you think it's wrong makes it absolute? Should everything that happens in the world depend on your definition of what is right or wrong? I'm the one trolling you? Dude, seriously, go look up the definition of subjectivity and objectivity. You seem to be getting them confused a lot. Those are my opinions and I am entitled to have them. Besides, someone could say the same exact thing to you. "Just because you think it's right makes it absolute?"

We have the power to prevent them from harming each other. I'm not saying that we should go around breaking up animal fights in the wild, but we definitely shouldn't instigate them. By putting two roosters together, with the knowledge that they do have a pretty good chance of getting severely injured or even killed, that is putting your entertainment needs above the physical health of an animal. I don't like when people instigate fights between two human beings, but I have no problem with two consenting people fighting. The same with cockfights. It's really just the instigation I have beef with. As for the point about submission, pain is usually still a result. For example, if you put a mouse on a tall box and put cheese on the floor, you could argue that you get entertainment from seeing how desperate the mouse is for the cheese (as opposed to getting kicks out of seeing a mouse fall down to the floor and be in pain), but it still has the result of injuring the mouse.

The organization is what I don't like. If two roosters are fighting in the wild then watch it all you like. But if you purposely put two together for the sole intention of watching them fight then I do think it's wrong. It's like instigating.

It does, because you said it was my opinion that chickens for food is more important than chickens for entertainment. Yeah technically it is an opinion, but saying it's an opinion has nothing to do with the argument. Food > Entertainment Yes, that's an "opinion" but it doesn't make it any less reasonable. I can't put it any simpler.

Chicken is a food, but not all food is chicken. We eat chicken because we like it, because it's convenient, not because we have to. Not all entertainment is cockfighting.

What are you talking about? That's been my point the whole time. Fact: Humans need food to live. Opinion: Humans need to live.

If by performing you mean that the monkeys have to endure pain, yes that is bad.

You have the first post so that already makes you dictator. Nothing we can do about it either...