Should we be allowed to eat Humans?

IT'S NOT OUR WORLD YOU FREAKING IMBECILE !
The world belongs to all living creatures.
And please burn that god damned bible of yours.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're back on ignore.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, another stellar example of Enmos's intellectual caliber has come and gone.

Pronatalist knows what I'm talking about. Humans belong here. We have always been connected, and humans are becoming more and more likely to keep animals and nurture them, so we're sharing our prosperity with them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yea you two are the bestest buddies, aren't you ?
You can join him, fuckwit.

 

Word of advice: Work smarter, not harder. I'm not worried that you will actually take that advice. Your so-called philosophy is falling apart. So are you. What you have cannot be done smart.

 

lol My so-called philosophy is falling apart ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's a good one.
It's not even a philosophy, it plain common sense.
Now please shut the fuck up.

 

I can do this all day. Keep proving my point, please.

 

Don't you have anything better to do ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why? Do you want your life back?

 

lol Do you have one ?

 

Those people who reproduce, own the future? Or, the meek shall inherit the earth?​

That argument just doesn't quite work. It's "okay" for humans to "encroach" upon more and more supposedly wildlife areas, just so long as we adopt more pets? They aren't the same animals. Isn't that a bit like saying that it's "okay" for Robin Hood to "steal" from the rich, to give to the poor? So how is the rich person who was robbed, repaid for his loss?

What makes more sense, is that the land territory that humans take, that nature just seems to be laying down and and begging us to use, was never secure to the wildlife anyway. One animal doesn't really ask another species, "Oh, were you using this plot of land? That's okay, I'll find another." No, all the animals try to some extent, to multiply and spread and spread, into most every niche that will accept them. And then a natural wildfire comes through, and quite a lot of animals are suddenly without a home? I read big animals simply walk away from a forest fire, while small ones reproduce so quickly, they soon come back anyway.

Generally, as more humans come in, the wild animals move further out. They rarely contest humans coming in, except for some big problem elephants I hear, that can each steal 400 pounds of food from a human garden, in just 1 night. Making wild elephants to soon perhaps go the way of the mostly extinct dinosaurs, which also didn't get along so well with humans, so the dinosaurs lost out, as humans already had the dominion.

It's nature "inviting" us in to take more land, not some of the displaced wild animals. Nature's not doing anything to stop us, as humans are part of nature too. Why wouldn't nature want us to prosper? Of course, nature has no thoughts nor rights of its own, so if I say nature appears to "want" something, I am speaking of outward appearances or symbolic or effective relationships.

But how can some humans be so anti-human anyway? What could possibly be easier than "controlling" human population growth? How about "not controlling" our growth. Let human populations swell and spread naturally, making no effort at all to curb or limit it. Way too many people are benefitting from the natural proliferation of humans, for humans to have much interest in trying to impose "control" upon such a natural process. Future generations are growing larger and more populous? Let them. They would be glad to be all the more numerous.

If it's supposedly "okay" in the view of some "environmentalists" to let forest fires grow and spread naturally, making no effort to "contain" them, at least in remote places where human intervention doesn't appear essential, and yet many people still think that forest fires are at the very least, mildly "destructive" of forests; then why can't humans, very much a part of nature, be allowed to grow their numbers and spread naturally, making no effort to "contain" naturally-burgeoning human populations? The main benefit we get from letting forest fires spread naturally unchallenged, is saving ourselves the costs and efforts of intervention. But humans hugely benefit from being free to have our children, and collectively letting our numbers naturally rise and accumulate. So if the former is permissable sometimes, then the latter should be allowable all the time. As the latter is far better than the former, to humans at least. Surely this argument should make sense to humans?

 

Why? Are you scared of it?

The world belongs to all living creatures? Okay, you first. Tear down your house, and share your space with whatever vermin and furry creatures? Didn't think so.

As for me, I somehow suspect that around 50 billion squirrels and 30 billion chipmunks and 35 billion birds, scurrying around in our yards, in what is left of the land not fully developed by humans, just might be enough for now? I don't think they are feeling "cheated" out of "their" land, especially since most probably don't live more than a few years, so they couldn't possibly even remember a time when there wasn't already so many humans all around them.

 

But if humans continue to naturally reproduce, when they have become "too crowded," then isn't it just possible, that they simply don't believe they are too crowded? Who are you, or who is anybody, to determine for them, if they are supposedly "too crowded?"

How many people realize, that small homes crowded with people, makes a lot of sense, in homes with no automatic heating systems? How else do you keep warm? A big empty house would only be colder. And without all the material junk that we Americans hoard, why exactly would they really "need" a big home? So how dare we criticize people in developing countries, for having babies in small crowded homes, while we keep running our furnaces, and don't even realize what makes the difference? BTW, just how "crowded" is a bird's nest?

And of course, not everybody place is crowded. There are issues of unfair allocation, distribution, and clear title to land, that it's just easier for people to keep growing their families, than to instantly resolve.

 

What? You put your foot in your mouth again?

I could take my children to see that "beauty of nature" that you speak of, but then you whine about all those people passing by every 5 minutes, bringing their cute baby "shitfactories" with them.

Are you ever happy?

 

Enmos, could you start ignoring them already?

 

I can't believe that people who don't love humans do love animals.

 

I suppose you're right. I'll put that Metakron on ignore as well

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Good point. Humans certainly ought to qualify as at least, "the most amazing, creative, wondrous animals around."

It's so perverse that enviros so seem to love when animal populations start growing again some, and yet they seem to deliberately ignore the huge and massive beauty of the human race naturally growing.

That has got to be like some perverse "double standard" or something, to say the least!

 

Funny how liberals seem to love to ignore or dismiss the side of truth.

But then, liberals aren't so smart to begin with.

"You don't have to think to be a liberal." Rush Limbaugh

"A liberal will give the shirt off of somebody else's back." NRAdittos

"Liberals have an inadequate grasp of reality." I heard somewhere.