Web Development

General discussion


Okay, you pet owners

By santeewelding ·
The EPA may even now be drawing up a list and checking it twice:


This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Ok I have had it with this bull, no offence Santee

by Michael Jay In reply to Okay, you pet owners

but there is just the same amount of carbon on the earth as there has been since Dino was the ruler, if these guys don't just go away, I think I am going to puke.

Collapse -

Get rid

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to Okay, you pet owners

of the family dog, put another hole in family security. It was only a matter of time.

Collapse -

They open a door they may wish had stayed closed

by NickNielsen In reply to Okay, you pet owners

The logical next step after the reduction of pet population is the reduction of human population.

Collapse -


by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to They open a door they may ...

and euthanasia have been holding that door ajar for ages. I do mean ages.


Collapse -

Not so

by Tig2 In reply to Abortion

The fact that we have the medical ability to do a thing in a humane manner does not assume that we WILL do a thing in a humane OR inhumane manner.

Last I checked, we don't have an allowance for humane euthanasia or Kevorkian would never have found himself in the legal hot water he did. We don't have a widespread acceptance for abortion or doctors that choose to enable this wouldn't be firebombed.

Generalities are always shaky ground on which to place one's facts solidly. A thing CAN be done. Doesn't mean that it WILL be done or SHOULD be done. Capability is nothing. The secondary moral questions pertain.

Collapse -

Secondary moral questions...

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to Not so

Exactly that to which I refer. Abortion and euthanasia are tools in the hands of one side or the other. And have been for ages. There is nothing particularly recent about either.

Collapse -

No one suggested that they were recent

by Tig2 In reply to Secondary moral questions ...

But you suggest, however coyly, that those tools could be employed- even reasonably- in the **** projected by this asinine article.

The fact that the door has been left ajar does not mean for one second that the idiotic and poorly met "conclusions" of this article could, would, or should be answered via abortion or euthanasia.

Please- let me go slit my wrists this second-- as long as that means you leave my partner THE **** ALONE.

You engage emotionalism that you know fine well has a boiling point in order to make a specious argument.

Collapse -

Knowing me

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to No one suggested that the ...

as you do, you know quite well I do not - even coyly - suggest that. Virtually anyone who is familiar with what I write here knows that I do not suggest that.

You allow your situation to color your perception of me, as most, if not all of us would do in your situation.

I do not engage emotionalism, I engage being.

Collapse -


by Tig2 In reply to Knowing me

What state of "being" do you believe you were purporting?

I do NOT allow my situation to color my perception of you. I allow YOU to do so. Your regret if you see otherwise. I specified at what points my perception was colored by emotionalism.

Your statement here does me dishonor.

Collapse -

There is nothing

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to Knowing me

in either of my initial posts that suggests anyone go through the door. Or not go through the door. In black and white, I purported only that they are and that they hold a door ajar.

There is only being and not-being. I cannot speak to not-being.

Related Discussions

Related Forums