Ps3 said:
pearljammer said:
Ps3 said:
pearljammer said:
1. Hardly any. They're mammals. If you're to base your argument off of that alone, your argument will only fail as much as this one is.
2. "Cause its a fucking seal." - What does that even mean?? I can say "Cause it's a fucking cow!".
I'm nobody to say that it's normal. The fact that I acknowledge that says a lot about the difference between our two ideas.
|
1. How does that fail, if assholes are killing them like they are seals and they only have a few babys in their lives thats fucked up. But since they have no predators, I guess its okay to a certain point.. But moose meat is still weird...
2. But fucking cows are probably the most popular meat. And we dont beat them to death.
|
Again, how does popularity have anything to do with it? That's just shallow?
No, they're not beat to death, but have you even been to a slaughterhouse? To make it look more like the seal situation, picture a white sheet placed over the floor.
|
It's not shallow. Killing things that don't reproduce a lot is just upping that animals chance for extinction.
2. Why the hell would I want to go to a slaughter house. slaughter houses are done indoors. They go to these seals homes and kill them.
|
1. I ask about popularity, and you respond with reproduction. The quota for the amount of seals allowed for a hunt are based on their sustainablity.
2. Would it be better if we grew little seals up in closed quarters, so far away from their natural habitat only to be killed? That's messed...
"Who are you to say my argument is flawed?" - Who are you to say these people are evil? Which of the two assumptions do you think are more potentially hurtful to someone.
I meant flawed as in making presumptions about people you haven't even met, or even likely heard from before.