8/21/2003: Huge pig sacrificed

It's an animal picture, but if it's Thursday it must be sad.

The pig is a winner: it's 2116 pounds (960 kilograms), and has won the "Pigs of God" contest.

Unfortunately for the pig, that means it was the largest pig killed in a sacrificial ceremony. It was the largest of 30 such sacrificed pigs, who are neutered at an early age and then force-fed to get them to reach enormous weights.

All for the purpose of this traditional religious ritual of the Hakka people of Taiwan, a culture that makes up about 15% of the island's population.

Sort of makes the "Have you seen the little piggies?" theme not apply, huh?

So...do they eventually have one hell of a pig roast or what?

I live in Vancouver, BC. Our local talk/news radio had a rep. from WSPA on for about an hour discussing this.

I can understand how these type of things get started (this is my best guess, Google only brought me to protest pages) get the population to grow massive pigs to increase the food supply under the guise of a contest.

Problem is that the food isn't needed anymore but because it's 'tradition', it continues. I bet most of the people involved don't know why the contest exists, only that tradition dictates it continue.

Somewhere in North America there is another 'tradition' involving hurting animals. It's called a suicide run involving men riding horses along a course at full speed and ending with a run down a severely steep sandy slope straight into a river. Men & horses being injured is standard, being killed is a definate possiblity. According to participants this is part of First Nation peoples heritage. I find this very hard to believe because (from what I've read) Indian braves treated their horses like family. The were an integral part of a warrior's 'make-up'. I don't think they'd risk injuring/killing their mounts just to prove their bravery. I believe they had trials that only involved the warrior, most of the time unarmed.

why did they neuter them?

does that make them grow bigger? ...

Sure. I was skinny till my second wifes lawyer cut my........

It also makes them taste better. Hey, I'm serious here.

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce Sure. I was skinny till my second wifes lawyer cut my........

Naw, I'm always on the lookout for my next ex. As women...ah...er...mature the horizontal bop is less important than other traits. Someone to steer them in the right direction.

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce Naw, I'm always on the lookout for my next ex. As women...ah...er...mature the horizontal bop is less important than other traits. Someone to steer them in the right direction.

Didn't pick up on steer? Legally, just twice.

But as far as the pig goes, sacrificing a pig or something to the "gods" is very common everywhere. It's only natural to pick the biggest (best) for that and of course the person that raised it would be honored also. As people become wealthier they can feed the critter better and breed them better until the beast gets grotesque. But the tradition continues because it ties the generations together. It honors not only the gods but ancestors, part of the culture. I really see no harm in that the pig was not a pet, but born and raised to be eaten.
I think you'll find that it's predominately modern well fed cultures that this animal rights/welfare attitude exists. Elsewhere animals were food or tools except the occasional pet.
My grandfather didn't abuse his horses, not because he thought they were great noble beasts but for the same reason I don't take a hammer to my cars. They are valuable and I need them.
Bull fighting......I don't approve, but I understand.

From another POV, hey, nobody mentioned the fan in the above picture. I bet it stinks like nothin' else in that room. Pigs are good eatin', and smart, but they can reek too.

It's the hormones. Testosterone is really foul. If a boar gets over 300 lbs or so without being cut, you wouldn't like the taste. Even if they're cut at that point and grow much bigger and older, they still don't taste good.

Poor piggie, he thought he was in heaven being so pampered and loved for so long, then they did that to him.

Look on the bright side Leah. He could have been treated like any other pig and then eaten. So he made out well.

The suicide race looks pretty hairy but then again steeplechase looks pretty dangerous too.

Re: 8/21/2003: Huge pig sacrificed

Oh oh...whatever Goethean has got, it is spreading like wildfire...

For God's sake... where does it end??

What is the difference between a sacrifice and cooking dinner?

With a sacrifice, the animal's death has religious significance.

Bruce said.....

LUVBUGZ:

Out of curiosity, since when did someone have to be a vegan, or vegetarian, to care about animals?

I care deeply about animals. It's a fairly well-known British stereotype, but there's something inherently worse about - say - shooting a burglar's dog than shooting a burglar.

I don't like the thought of animals suffering at the hands of their keepers, and I don't like the thought of *any* living thing being mistreated.

On the other hand, I don't consider - for example - free range eggs to be "mistreatment".. the little hens run round in the sunshine, with their beaks and claws still attached. They lay their little eggs on the ground, and someone comes and picks them up. Then I boil, fry or poach them, and the hen's just fine and dandy. I don't buy eggs other than those raised in free-range farms.

Likewise, I don't consider the humane (i.e. as fast as possible, with as little interval between "alive and well" and "dead and filleted" as possible) slaughter of animals for food to be mistreatment, or "uncaring".

I happen to like meat. I like the taste of meat, I like the texture of meat, I like the nutritional value of meat, and I accept that in order to eat meat animals have to be slaughtered. I won't accept that they be tortured to death for the purposes of feeding me, and I won't accept that they be shoved in little cages and shipped the length and breadth of the country (which is why I don't eat veal) but I *do* absolutely stand by the fact that we're omnivores. We're at the top of a food chain, and we eat the things below us in it - just like every other carnivore and omnivore on the planet.

If you choose not to eat meat do so that's your prerogative, and I completely support you in it - but don't presume to judge me and label me "someone who doesn't care" just because you happen to have a different point of view about a single theme than I do.

Kev

I second that.

Beef. It's what's for dinner at MY house. (And pork, and chicken and seafood).

I don't want animals TORTURED for my meal, and I buy the tuna that is dolphin-safe (as far as that goes).

What I wanna know is, are they gonna barbie that pig and feed the natives in a ceremonial post-sacrificial feast?

Quote:

Originally posted by LUVBUGZ I'm sure your grandpa didn't abuse his horses, but I'm just as sure he did consider them "great noble beasts". Most people who work and live w/ animals, using them as 'tools' or for food, as opposed to simply having a pet, have a mutual respect for their animals and treat them with such.

ndetroit, Not to worry. Any male meat on the market has been neutered at a young age. To promote growth, reduce agression (Injurys) and improve taste. Sorry for the late reply, man.

The Doodlebugs couldn't be driven on the road legally so they never went more than a couple miles from home. The horses were still used to haul wood into the city for sale.

Later when trucks became affordable, the horses were still used to haul small loads out of tree groves where the bugs couldn't go or caused too much damage. Once the wood was out to the "woodlot" roads, which were just treeless paths, the bugs took over.

One problem was the brush that had to be cut between the trees. It was small stuff, less than an inch in diameter and cut with a brush hook which is a stylized axe. This cut on an angle which left sharp points like pungi (sp) sticks. When these things punctured a tire it was a pain in the ass but when they punctured a horses ankle it could bleed to death pretty quickly without immediate action.

Later my folks bought a saddle horse as did my uncle. Guess who got to take care of them?

Yeah, a school bus. A LONG bus, thank you. It was 17 miles to school, and uphill both ways.

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce Quzah, this is absolutely untrue. I know it was a quote and not your statement BUT, believe me it's simply not true, unless you have 50K chickens in a room with a doggie door and most of them never know it's there. Been there done than, man and virtually all the chickens will go out and scratch/peck the ground for as long as the sun is up. Would I lie to you, my oldest and dearest friend?

"Pig baby! I got a pig!
I gotta pig and it's pink and big!
Pig baby! I got a pig!
Come on baby, you and my pig!
Nurture my pig!"
--The Reverend Horton Heat

If you love someone, have them spayed or neutered.:p

And one of your ex-wives made sure of this with you, right?

With the help of her lawyer AND my lawyer.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by quzah

Getting your nuts cut off isn't abuse!?

Quzah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LUVBUGS as a reply to above quote by Quzah

Fucking A....I just spent two hours (sounds obcessive doesn't it) composing a masterpiece reply to this and my flaming piece of shit computer froze while I was previewing my post. Son of a bitch I'm pissed. I know you don't give a rat's ass, but I gotta vent before I beat the shit out of my crappy computer and hurt myself in the process.

Are you a male or female? Just curious so I'll know how to address you when I try to recreate my work of art?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure if you caught this post, but I can see you are forcing me to go there. Keep an eye out for wrath

Quote:

Originally posted by LUVBUGZ Are you a male or female? Just curious so I'll know how to address you when I try to recreate my work of art? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not sure if you caught this post, but I can see you are forcing me to go there. Keep an eye out for wrath

My bitch interrupts to say, dog humping isn't sexual. It's just how they work out their pack order.

Same with peoples legs.

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce Same with peoples legs.

Quz, I don't agree with your argument because I think you're anthropomorphizing the dog.

To the dog, the choice between castration and vasectomy is like the choice between a coffee mug and a bicycle. It's simply not something he ever ponders.

Nor is the loss of his sexuality a burden. He simply doesn't sit there and ponder all the poon he could have gotten. Did you ever see a dog with three legs? He doesn't care, not one bit. It causes him no angst at all. He doesn't become morose because he's not like all the other dogs. He just looks around, says "oh ok, now i've got three" and from that point is normal. The reactions we think he might have are human emotional reactions -- based on our experience of the world, not the dog's.

We often restrict the free will of dogs both to make them more compatible with our lifestyles, but the reason this all works is because dogs are instinctively pack animals and are roughly oriented to follow orders from top dogs. We are the top dogs. Most dog training classes are actually human training, to train the humans in how to act in ways the dog instinctively understands.

We also restrict the free will of dogs to improve their lives. Given a "choice", a dog will eat week-old roadkill because he does not have the advanced thought processes to understand that his human master is able to guarantee a regular daily meal. (In fact I often stop mine from eating wires and hardware that's fallen on the floor, because domesticated dogs eat things just to see if they can digest it, even if it could possibly kill them.)

Oh, OK.

There's another way of looking at it, which is the evolutionary big picture.

In this picture, it's the job of all species to try to reproduce their DNA. The ones that succeed at doing this "win" -- which means they get to continue on as a species.

Throughout time, species have done this by adapting to their environment. But when man came along, all the rules changed, and species now win by being adaptable to man.

The dog is remarkably good at being adaptable to man. Dogs struck a deal with man to interoperate as a species. They do whatever needs to be done, treat us as one of their pack, and in return we have helped them to reproduce their DNA, better than any other species EVER. We reproduce it in bizarre hairless 1-pound forms and massive Maximuses of 280 pounds, and everything in between.

Normally, all species guard their reproduction carefully so their DNA can carry on. So no species with enough brains to understand the concept would choose to have their gonaddy bits removed; it's instinctively offensive to nature. But it's precisely because dogs let humans do that, that they reproduce in enormous numbers. Their species made the choice for them, and it was definitely the right choice.

UT, I think you're making the mistake of Anthromorphizing quzah.

It is amazing that the start of this thread was over a sacrificed pig with no nuts to a heavy debate over eunichs and dog nuts... lol

Quote:

Originally posted by sixfeet It is amazing that the start of this thread was over a sacrificed pig with no nuts to a heavy debate over eunichs and dog nuts... lol

[quote]Originally posted by quzah

And slavery was practiced for decades also. Does that make it right? It seems that you in your mind equate a vasectomy and castration. They are not even remotely the same.

Now you find it necessary to bring slavery into the conversation. Can’t you focus on resolving one issue at a time? Or, is your IQ at rock bottom and you’re incapable of doing so?

I know what castration is, I know what a vasectomy is. You were the fucking idiot that brought up vasectomies so I agreed w/ you and stated that “Yes, it is possible to give a pet a vasectomy rather than castrating them” and added that castration is the more common method of sterilizing pets.

I will not address this comment any further because it has absolutely nothing to do with spaying or neutering domestic pets, but I will say that I think you are confusing the "act of having sex" with the "ability to procreate".
And yet, you just did address the comment. Please make up your mind. Do or do not. Don't half ass it.

You got me there, I did comment. So, sue me asshole!!

Human example for your feeble little mind: An infertile man can have sex (perform the actual sex act), but is unable to procreate (produce children). BTY, you might want to check your spelling again, 'servent' is incorrect.
Here, let me help you, in your limited ability to tell the difference between castration and a vasectomy:

By removing the testicles, there is little if any desire to have sex at all. It alters the way the brain functions because there is now a lack of testosterone. But since you're supposedly a biologist, you should know the obvious basic shit like this, so why in the fuck is it so hard for you to understand?
No nuts = no desire to have sex.

As I mentioned above, I am fully aware of the difference between castration and a vasectomy. Did you find that article all by yourself, I’m impressed. I’m also aware that castrating an animal affects their physiopsycological functions by REDUCING their libido, but not ELIMINATING it. Try rereading the article you posted. Nowhere in it does it state that castration causes a total loss of libido. It only states that “copulatory ability decreases dramatically following castration”.

Let me illustrate another point for you, since you have no grasp of the obvious:
In animals, the common understanding of sexual behavior tells us that the only reason they have sex is to procreate. In humans this is not true in the slightest. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just castrate men instead of doing vasectomies?

This statement is incorrect. Humans are animals too and the reason they have sex is to procreate. The only difference is that for humans sex is also a method self-gratification (pleasure), but if precautionary actions are not taken offspring will ultimately be the end result whether the sex act was intended for procreation or pleasure.

Gee, I guess with my feeble mind I have a much better grasp of this concept than your highly skilled Biologist brain.

I beg to differ w/ this comment. I think your feeble little mind doesn’t have a grasp of much other than its location, which is deeply embedded up your ass.

I'm not sure what a "high health / school sex education class" is, but I do have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Biology and I think I know what the function of the testes is. Just a suggestion, but maybe you should go back and take a high school English class.
I guess even fucking morons can get degrees now days.

True enough, I know of several, and now I know of one more “if” you have a degree.

Well, in keeping with your fucked up logic, why do you feel compelled to consider it "absurd" for an animal to opt for such procedures? There are millions of people (we're animals too) who have opted to sterilize themselves even though "the entire basis of animal life is to procreate" as you would have it. As humans we have the ability to observe and comprehend the results of over-population and many of us simply choose not to procreate for various reasons. In my statement I was stating that "if" pets had this ability that they too might opt NOT to procreate as well.
That's a mighty big "if". As I've already explained, animals are not considered to be "like humans" in that they do not follow the same thought patterns. Hell, people even debate if fish can actually feel pain. So now I'm to understand that dogs actually think about if they should procreate or not?

Your stupidity is mind-boggling. The whole premise of this discussion is based on “what if” animals had the ability to understand the ramifications of being neutered and whether or not they would then opt to have it done or not. You even pointed this fact out to UT in a subsequent post:
Quote originally posted by quzah to UT:
“Perhaps you should read the start of this topic:
Quote originally posted by LUVBUGZ:
Well, in this specific case, I would have to agree w/ you. I'm sure the piggy didn't enjoy the procedure, which most likely involved constricting blood flow to the family jewels until they fell off or simply cutting them off w/out anesthesia. I would have to consider this a form of abuse due to the pain involved.
But, if we start talking about the castration of domestic pets, that's a whole new ballgame. Before I go off on that, I'm curious...do you think that's abuse too?
Quote originally posted by quzah to UT:
The original comment was me saying that cutting the nuts of a pig was abuse. To which this whole big tangent started, because LUVBUGZ doesn't seem to understand that there is a difference between castration and a vasectomy.
They're the one that started anthropomorphizing, when they stated that given the choice, dogs would opt to be castrated. My entire point is, if you could explain the difference to them, there is no way in hell they would choose to be castrated. See my post two back.”

Get fucking real! Put any male dog with a female in heat and he'll be all over her. Cut his nuts of, and he won't. Give him a vasectomy, and he will.

Sterilization is not the same as castration. Please get this through your incredibly thick skull. THAT is why they would not opt for the operation. Because if they actually understood the difference between castration and a vasectomy, there is no fucking way in hell they would opt for castration. Period. No one in their right mind would opt for castration unless it was to do something like spare their life because they had cancer or something else.

One last time, because you're so god damn dense: Castration is nothing at all like a vasectomy. That is my entire point.

Just as I understand the difference between castration and a vasectomy, I am also aware of the definition of sterilization. I never said that sterilization is the same as castration. For your information castration AND a vasectomy are FORMS of sterilization. You’re so quick to point out the definitions of these terms, why don’t you fucking read them yourself before you get so high and might, ass wipe!! I don’t think you’d recognize “your point” if hit you upside the fucking head with a crowbar.

Castration is not "humane" as you put it. There is nothing humane about it. Here, go look it up. There is nothing humane about castration, because by the very definition of the word there is nothing at all positive about, or humanistic about it at all. Humans do not castrate eachother unless it is a form of punishment.

The actual castration procedure in not inhumane in that it is done under anesthetic, the animal is given a painkiller, and antibiotics are provided to prevent secondary infection. The small amount of “pain”, if any, felt by the ”individual” after the procedure is minute compared to the probable amount of inhumanity that would be felt by the unwanted offspring that this individual animal could produce if not sterilized. As I stated before, if our pets are not spayed or neutered the results lead to horrific acts of cruelty, abuse, and inhumanity. Since it is obvious that you have a problem with reading and comprehension I will repost my comment here so that you can maybe get a clue the second time around… No one said it was "natural", but domestic pets are in a sense not "natural" in that they are not "wild" creatures. Once humans domesticate an animal they take on the responsibility of caring for that animal and providing the safest most humane environment possible. This includes not allowing them to run all over producing offspring that are unwanted and abandoned or put to death at an animal shelter. Millions of stray pets suffer incredibly as a result of being abandoned. There are simply too many pets and not enough homes for them. They wander the streets sick and starving spreading disease. Many get injured in fights or hit by cars. Many are targets of abuse and torture at the hands of idiots who find it amusing to watch an innocent animal suffer. I think if an animal had the ability to realize the fate of many of its offspring that it would choose not to constantly procreate just because it can. But, since they don't have this ability, it is our responsibility to prevent such acts from occurring. Therefore, any responsible and caring pet owner SPAYS OR NEUTERS their pets!!!

Post too long, continued in next post.

Post Continued.....

Quote originally posted by quzah
Why do you hear people say "I'd like to castrate the bastard!"? Because they think it's a fucking reward? Get a clue.

I really wish someone would castrate you so I could be sure that you will no longer be able to breed. The last thing this world needs is a bunch of little quzah’s running around with diarrhea of the mouth like mommy/daddy.

This is almost like Radar vs. Cairo.

I think it's time to agree to disagree before someone says something hateful and hurts someones feelings.:p

If you want to talk abuse, how about circumcision ?

Re: Post Continued.....

I said that the only inhumane thing about castrating that pig is that it most likely was done w/out anestesia. Unlike you who thinks it's the end of the world if the pig doesn't feel like fucking all the time, I'm not overly concered with that and don't feel that the pig is now abused because he doesn't feel inclined to do so. The pig doesn't know what he's missing so goes on living none the wiser.

Yes, it is good to castrate domestic pets to prevent pet overpopulation which leads to the suffering, abuse, and death of millions of unwanted animals. From a human stand point, well your's anyway, vasectomies would be a "kinder" method of sterilization so that they still have the desire to procreate, but castration is the preferred method because as I pointed out it is cheaper and easier to perform. As UT pointed out, dogs, since they don't have the human capacity to realize that there is a more "humane" sterilization procedure, simply go with the flow. One day they have balls, the next day they don't. They simply go on with life.

Let me reword my statement about humans and sex:

Humans are animals too and "Nature's" purpose for having sex is to procreate. The only difference is that for humans, sex has also taken on a "Human" purpose to provide self-gratification (pleasure). So, if precautionary actions are not taken offspring will ultimately be the end result whether the sex act was intended for procreation or pleasure. Birth control is used to prevent unwanted pregnancies because humans have the ability to realize the ramifications of producing unwanted offspring. Dogs do not. If they did then we could just give them a condom and say have at it Fido. But, since they don't we have to provide them with a form of birth control. Currently, in our society, the accepted form is castration.

As far as removing women's breasts as a form of preventing breast cancer, I was the one who brought up this point and am aware of women who have done this. If women having big tits wasn't so important to men, maybe more women would do it. I'm not suggesting all women go out and cut off their breasts, but given the choice, some women have. Just like "if"our pets had the ability to choose to be sterilized, I think some would. [Not going into the castration vs. vasectomy thing, just would they choose sterilization.]

Hey, I got a question. I've always been told that dogs (or any animal except us) pursues sex to pass his genes and insure the survival of his kind. OK, how do he know?
I'm having trouble believing that the dog ponders these concepts. More likely it's raging hormones and after the first time, pleasant memory.
THAT'S, better living through chemistry.

Yeah but we can understand the whole concept as explained on PBS. We know that kids result and how to enhance or prevent the chances said same.
I don't think the critters do. I wonder if they even grasp that they are reproducing or that's a coincidence?

As one of my teachers in high school once said: "They don't know what they're doing. And they don't know that they don't know what they're doing."

How true is that? *shrugs* I dunno...I'd say more true for some species than others.

I believe the Christian Coalition procreates too. After all they like to screw everyone else.

Hey, it wasn't so long ago in HUMAN history when we didn't make the connection between screwing and having kids. That was something we had to figure out.

Proof?

Hmmm, I always knew it and according to Syc and Dave, I'm up there with the Bristlecone Pines.

Straight Dope entry on mankind figuring out sex=pregnancy

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce Hey, I got a question. I've always been told that dogs (or any animal except us) pursues sex to pass his genes and insure the survival of his kind. OK, how do he know? I'm having trouble believing that the dog ponders these concepts. More likely it's raging hormones and after the first time, pleasant memory. THAT'S, better living through chemistry.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
All animals have sex in order to pass on their genes and insure the survival of their species. They don't ponder this concept, it is simply "hard-wired" in their brains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by juju
That makes no sense. What does it mean for it to be "hard wired" into their brain, if not that they ponder the concept? Unless you are saying that nature or evolution has a goal, which it most definitely does not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hard-wired" is a term almost every biology professor I've ever had used to describe "innate behavior". I would have to go through my biology texts to give you a more precise biological/physiological explaination. The way I understand the rules of Nature is that the basic purpose of a species is to reproduce (pass on its genes in order to insure the survival of the species). Evolution doesn't have a "goal", but rather is the process by which species (and their genes) are able to adapt and survive with everchanging environmental conditions. The ones that have what it takes are able to reproduce, thus passing on the very genes that allowed it to adapt and survive so that its offspring have a greater chance of surviving to continue passing down their genes and so on. This is Natural Selection, which you hear so much about and which is often used by people who don't really understand the concept. They just say "survival of the fittest" which is a correct statement, but many who use it don't know what it is actually describing.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
This is true for humans as well, but humans have developed the additional use of sex as a means for self-gratification (pleasure).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by juju
Is there any evidence that animals do not also do this? What about bonobos?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I seem to recall some mention of this in my mammology class, but once again I'd have to research it before commenting. I think I remember that some primates do display so called "human" behavior regarding sex as well as "human " emotions such as love, saddness, and jealousy to name a few. I just remember someting like this, but again whould have to do some research to give you hard evidence.

Hardwired is the term Profs use for raging hormones.

The dog humping your leg has nothing to do with sex. It's a dominance issue.

In fact I believe intercourse is downright painful for female cats. Although I couldn't find the Straight Dope column where I read that.

Most everything in nature has a symbiotic relationship, with at least one and usually more, other things. to fullfil that role becomes it's "goal"
Male animals have two modes;
1~ I want to do it.
2~ I'm glad I did it and I want to do it again.
Female animals have two modes, also;
1~ I want to do it.
2~ Get away from me.
I don't think either understand why, but they know what & when.
If "Survival of species" is the be-all/ end-all of nature, how do you explain evolution, that eliminates so many species?

Pleasure is a personal thing. Some take great pleasure in green veggies and many of us don't. I've met people who hate chocolate (sick bastards) and sweet things.
Because of physical problems and/or head trips, some don't like sex either.
Eating is driven by hunger pangs as sex is driven by the "fire down below". Nature has provided motivation for the things we need to survive as individuals and a species.

Right, but that doesn't mean that pleasure is learned. Except that the creatures learn that doing a certain thing makes them feel good.

The only thing that's learned is that it feels good. That's just a result of doing it, not the other way around.
I knew you were more than just another pretty face, Juju.

Pleasure isn't learned. It simply is. Pain isn't learned. It simply is. Learning is simply the fact that you encounter it for the first time and are now aware of what is. If you remember that fact, then you have learned what is. If not, you'll encounter it again and realize again that it is.

Oh, here's where I act like I'm holier-than-thou and bitch you out for your potty mouth. Like I said, hypocrite. Have a nice day.

Quzah.

I'm just waiting for her to call Quzah a "mook," then all bets are off...

Quote:

I don't think lack of knowledge really reinforces a hypothesis. But perhaps I misunderstand you. In any case I have to attend to Kathy. I'll be back later.

     What about primates and Dophins that have sex lives that go well beyond reproduction? They're animals too. Juju referenced this but I didn't see a response.

http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask01/0097.html

That link claims dolphins and chimps have incorporated sex into their social behavior. Neither for fun or (intentional) reproduction, as I understand it.

      Right Bruce, as a social thing it's not hardwired, and they are animals. There is some suggestion of pleasure, but it's clearly not the integral point. I'm just stirring the pot. Adding food for thought.

Black = Juju, Purple = LUVBUGZ

Dave is a jerk. I really wouldn't recommend taking on his philosophies. But that's your call, of course.

Dave may very well be a jerk, I don't know him that well, but I kinda like his "I meant what I said" philosophy.

In any case, I wasn't trying to deviously alter what you said in an attempt to undermine you. I just thought that's what you meant by the word.

I realize that Juju. I'm sorry for the tone of my reply. I think I was having Quzah flashbacks at the time.

In truth, I don't think either of us can prove what goes on in an animals' mind. So it's all pretty much speculation.

You are absolutely correct here. It is speculation to some extent, although, science has given us a pretty good idea/theory of what goes on in some species minds which is then extrapolated out to what other species "think/feel".

Because you don't agree with me, my hypothesis is irrelevant? Can't I have more credit than that?

Once again, I'm sorry, Juju. Your hypothesis is just as relevent as mine is.

So, okay, first of all, what is the difference between a goal and a purpose?

I look at a "goal" as something one strives to attain, meaning that once that goal is reached there is an ending. You are done because you have reached your goal. I look at a "purpose" as a reason to do something, it continues on indefinately. I was trying to say that Nature's "purpose" is "species survival", which is continuous (ie.from generation to generation), not a "goal" which would have an ending point.

quzah,

Funny isn't it, two people who have totally different views can feel the exact same towards each other. My sentiments exactly (ref quzah last post). Too bad you didn't follow through on this earlier promise (emphasis is mine),"What's wrong with paranoia? You're one of those people aren't you? I know about you guys! That's it, I'm not posting any more. I'm going to go change my legal name now and move. Quzah."

I've read this thread so many times it's ridiculous. Talking to you is like talking to a piece of shit. You just sit there and make everyone around you nauseous from your stench.

Call me a hypocrite, if you must, as long as you realize that I'm right and you're wrong.

Don't forget to go eat shit and die now you fucking asshole.

Ah, the reminiscences...

This thread makes me feel warm inside. Remembers me early USENET flamewars.

Quzah, you are a very poor communicator. Your insults pushed her into a defensive mode and turned the situation, not into a search for the truth, but a contest as to who's right and who's wrong.

I personally hope that I am right, but I want the truth more than I want to be right. Unfortunately, it's difficult to ease people into this mindset when you're attacking them.

I only say this because I mostly agree with everything you said. But you're not exactly helping the cause of dissemination of truth.

Both of them need to quit flinging shit at each other. It may be too late to save Quzah, but LUVBUGZ seems to have potential.

That wasn't an insult. She was using you as an example of someone who doesn't care about animal rights. She misjudged you, but didn't insult you.

Also, her misjudging you is also your fault, because your first post was all, "Who the fuck cares, blah blah blah, harshness harshness harshness". You gave no indication that you were vegan, and you made it seem like you were a harsh anti-animal rights person.

She's new, and sized you up based on your words. Then instead of just correcting her, you corrected her and were a jerk about it. Then she very nicely apologized.

Now, I don't have time for a play-by-play 'cause I have to go eat. But I think it's pretty obvious that you drove her to her current mindset.

Really, logic is important, and yours is spot-on. But you've got to use a little pschology sometimes.

I think you're missing my point.

Ok, I'll give this another shot.

Speaking from your point of view as a communicator, it doesn't matter whether or not she insulted you. Your goal is to get her to understand you. What you're doing is undermining that goal. That can be evidenced by the fact that she now hates you and probably immediately rejects every point you say. Congratulations.

Quote:

Originally posted by quzah Oh I know what the point is. I'm to be nice and sweet like a new born chicken. All fuzzy and cute. I just don't have it in me.

If you didn't care, then why did you argue with her for over a week?

Hope you had fun over the weekend.

[quote]Originally posted by quzah

You all have the misgiving that I actually care what you think about me. Manners are like appareance. They're both for people who worry what others think of them. You've got me confused with someone else.

I think everyone realizes that you don't care what people think of you and your beliefs, which begs the question, why you do you bother to visit the Cellar, read posts, and make posts yourself?

LUVBUGZ's one major failing is the inability to concede a point. That's the only problem I have with them. They're like those religious zelots who "know" there is only one "right way", and if you believe anything even the slightest bit different, you're wrong, and they cannot grasp, or will not even entertain the idea that you may have a valid point.

You are wrong here. I will admit when I'm wrong when you prove that I am. I am willing to entertain the ideas of others, but am also willing to disagree with them and attempt to justify my reasons for disagreeing. On several occasions I have in fact agreed with you on some points, but you apparently didn't notice, or didn't care.

Case and point, they gloss over any valid point the opposition may have, and you have to ask them repetedly to acknowledge said point. If in doubt, read back a bit and you'll find that Juju also had to ask repetedly about points they had.

I attempt to respond to every question or point that is brought up and I don't think I have glossed over anything, although I still need to respond to a couple of questions Juju asked of me. I'm not glossing over them or ignoring them, but I was embroiled in our debate and left them to be answered at a later time. Sorry to you Juju for not responding in a timely manner, but I will respond.

That is my problem with them. They cannot even entertain the notion that some one else may have a valid point. This is my one real gripe.

I would entertain this notion if I felt you had a valid point. Aside from the times I have agreed with you, I still don't believe you have a valid point, well maybe some valid points, but overall I do not agree with most of what you have said.

Since they've got their crackerjack diploma in Biology, that makes their point of view 100% valid in all understandings of Biology, so don't you dare fucking question them becaue you're wrong!

You know this is an uncalled for comment. My degree is important to me and it took me a long time to get it. I'm not saying my point of view is 100% valid regarding all biological issues, but I feel having it gives me a more informed view than say the general public. If something can be explained or validated through a biologically based answer, I will provide that information to the best of my ability. I am by far an expert in Biology, in fact, a majority of my commentary in this discussion has come from my experience with animal rescue work I have done, not just from Biology. You may correct my biological info. as I said I'm no expert, but you cannot disprove my life experiences. I feel the way I do about animal right's and animal welfare because of my experiences. In fact, most biologists I have met or worked with have very different opinions on these subjects. Most disagree with me, fortunately those discussions didn't sink to level of this one, which I agree is partially my fault.

Another case and point: Them going off on me for swearing, when they do it themselves. So it's bad if I do it, but it's ok if they do. And they tell me to look up the word hyporcite. Give me a break.

As I've said before, I've read this thread several times and still don't see where I "went off" on you for cussing, only for your spewing of rediculous, irrational, and invalid comments. As is obvious, I cuss too, a lot when I'm pissed, while offensive to some I still do it, so cuss away, I don't give a rat's ass.

Quote by Juju:
Those are all things you consider bad. Are you sure the animal would agree?

Juju...I don't know what I know and what I don't know anymore. I guess I figured "if" you could tell your dog that he would be safer (not running around after females in heat getting hit by cars, getting lost in the process, getting into fights with other males, getting injured by the guy whos female he is trying to screw, etc.) by being neutered that this my not sound so bad to some of them. Since we unfortunately don't know what our pets are "thinking" I can't say that I'm 100% "sure" that they would agree. I can only assume that they would prefer to be home, safe, fed, and loved as opposed to running around after females, getting lost, possibly being injured, with no food or shelter. Maybe that's stupid, idiotic, ridiculous, whatever, but that's my opinion.

Quote by Juju:
How so? (I know you're probably joking, but I wasn't sure. )

If some human males where prohibited from breeding whether through castration or vasectomy, the world would be a better place. Rapists and murderers come to mind, along with those low lifes that run around getting several women pregnant and then claim that none of the eight kids in question are his so he doesn't have anything to do with them and doesn't pay to take care of them. This also applies to some women as well, except in this case they would get "spayed" or at least have their tubes tied. Crack hoes come to mind who keep giving birth to addicted babies that have many medical problems and are usually effected for the rest of their lives if they don't die first. I could go on and on, but I think I have sufficiently answered your questions. If there are any others I haven't addressed, I'm sorry. If you bring them to my attention I will answer them for you. Thank you for your time and patience.

Maybe the reason there aren't more people coming on here and saying BUGZ is right, is because we all believe it IS a given. Let's see... would my Dusty (cat) prefer to be living in the wild (or more likely, on the street) having promiscuous sex with tomcats and squeezing out litter after starving litter of unwanted kitties? Or would she prefer to be living in my climate-controlled house, eating to her hearts content and cuddling with me? I think the answer is clear, and she tells me this everyday (in not so many words).

Having her live with me and not be spayed is not really an option. Then she would be rolling around and caterwauling, wondering why she can't get laid. (There is only room for ONE female doing that in my household.)

I respect Quzah's philosophy of non-interference to a certain extent (especially when it comes to "food" animals). The problem is we've already "altered" dogs and cats by breeding them to live with us and be our companions. Whether this was right or wrong in the first place, the reality is they prefer to live as our companions. And the best way to make them healthy and happy is to have them spayed and neutered. Plain and simple.

Thank You B, I knew I couldn't possibly be the only one around here who felt this way. It seems to me that most would rather sit around watching the "fireworks" and complain about my poor communication skills rather than risk their integrity within the Cellar and voice their support regarding this issue.

BUGZ if you look at the thread you'll see that B was not the only one to support your position on spay/neuter pets.

      You're right Bruce, bmgb wasn't the only one to support Bugz's position. However, if you are talking about yourself then you need to double check with someone who knows about these things before you opinion can be considered valid.

True, but once I'm validated, I park for free.

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce BUGZ if you look at the thread you'll see that B was not the only one to support your position on spay/neuter pets.

Don't worry, sweetheart. They'll never break us up.

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce Don't worry, sweetheart. They'll never break us up.

      Gee, sorry Bugz. Seems like evertime I speak you have to tell me I'm wrong to do so. Could you maybe post a list of the things I'm allowed to say?

Don't worry Whit, they'll never break us up.

      Bruce, anyone that pays any attention at all knows you got plenty of love to go round. That's why I like to razz you a little. 'Sides we both get ignored around here plenty enough. Might as well BS with each other.

      Ah Bugz, I'm sorry I didn't realize joking with Bruce was the same as telling somebody they should have died. Oh wait it's not. So it doesn't apply. Anyway, it seems I mispoke again. How's that list coming?

      Okie-doke. Just thought it might save time in the long run as you wouldn't have to bitch at me after every post.

I'm thinking this may be a pretty quiet place if we're not allowed to say anything that may be deemed 'offensive' to anyone who's here, passing by, reading, or possibly even on the same planet as the Cellar.

(edited after some thought as to how what I've said would be taken)

Dagney

Oooh, I feel a lot of love in the room.

NOTICE TO EVERYONE
If I should inadvertently post something that offends your sensibilities, fuck you.
THAT IS ALL

Fuck all of you...I'm gonna go grab another beer.

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce Oooh, I feel a lot of love in the room. NOTICE TO EVERYONE If I should inadvertently post something that offends your sensibilities, fuck you. THAT IS ALL

C'mon BUGZ, this is getting out of hand.

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce C'mon BUGZ, this is getting out of hand. That statement was absolutely true and appropriate. I really don't see how you can take that as an attack on yourself even if it was directed at you. You have as much right as anybody to blast away, but I would suggest you aim more carefully, because I love you and I want you to be happy.

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce But Sweetheart, when Whit goosed me, you jumped in and made it about you, when it really wasn't. Then Dag made a post that, as I said before was IMO true and appropriate, you jumped all over her. In a very nasty and personal way too. The best way not to catch 'em is not to bait 'em. Relax, pet the puppies, think about what you're going to get me for Christmas.

My comment was actually in this thread on 9/5, and then you referred to it in this other thread, where you said:

Isn't it true that <i>no one</i> chewed you out in the Pagan thread?

Juju and Whit

As I was trying to figure out a way to cease the endless bullshit in some of the threads in here I thought to myself, well, if I just delete everything I ever wrote then there would be nothing left to piss people off anymore. So away I went, then on the third post I believe it was I got a message that it was too late to delete anymore. I didn't know you were keeping such close tabs on me. So, if either of you can tell me a way to retrieve deleted posts, I'll gladly repost them for your reading pleasure. No matter what I do in here it's wrong. I try being nice, I try being reasonable, I try saying what I am *really* thinking, I get pissed off, I try apologizing. Nothing seems to work. I don't know what you people want from me. I'm over here trying to have a civil conversation with Juju and he's over in Philosophy talking shit about me, which in turn gets Whit on the band wagon again. Whit, go ahead goose Bruce about something I said, but can you please explain why it is not OK for me to goose you back when I realize that your comment is indirectly goosing me too. Why is it that when I do the same thing I'm the asshole? Great, let Dagney get in on the action too, but why is it that she has free range on giving her opinion about me, but when I do the same I'm the biggest fucking bitch around?

I haven't been following the thread, but it's getting ridiculously long. "This thread goes to eleven..." Something about a pig I am led to believe. -oink- I guess the one thing I've seen here is that the posts can seem pretty vitriloic sometimes, but there is a level of respect; there is a thread [pun] of constructive thought and humor. There are some fairly heavy and important things being discussed here, but I get the feeling that there is some kind of huge Monty Python sketch undercurrent to all this. Don't take most of this seriously, and more importantly, don't take yourself too seriously. I should point out by "you" I mean any of the earthlings on this board.

That being said, you are all the biggest bunch of freaks I've ever known, and I feel lucky for the chance to spew alphabet soup at you all once in a while.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Haven't said you're being attacked? Let's backtrack through the last few posts shall we? You say "you're the asshole" calling people foul names is a form of attack, nobody called you that or really treated you like that. Hmm, you say Juju was talking shit about you, he rightly pointed out that you deleted posts, I'll get back to the problem with that. Ah, now you're saying you're the "biggest bitch around," see above. Hey, you never did say who "chewed you out" on the pagan thread, just noticed that and it would qualify as an attack. That brings us back to "it seems like many people are bitching at me at once..." Bitching at someone is generally considered a form of attack. That's just scanning down this page. Oh yeah, then there was when you accused me of not letting you have your own opinion on the 'Bridge' thread. You even suggested I would want kids with you opinion to die. That definitely qualifies as an 'attack' and it was definitely imagined by you. I was just giving my opinion while reading yours. We say attack, you say we've treated you like a bitch, an asshole, chewed you out, bitched you out, and taken away your right to an opinion. We've just used more polite words than you. I'd say that covers the attack issue.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Ooops, I forgot to mention earlier, we weren't keeping tabs on you per se, we had simply read the thread before and the deletions were pretty obvious.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ah yes, I said I'd get back to that. Etiquette note, it's usually considered borderline deceptive to delete posts more than a few minutes after you post them. The reason is that it comes across as trying to deny you said what you said. That's the beauty of a board is that everyone can look back on what you said previously. I thought it was funny, thus made fun of it. Juju, on the other hand, is an old hand at this kind of thing and I suspect that he took it much more seriously. Like you were covering up what you had said rather than trying to get past it by doing better in the future.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As far as Dagney goes, she gives reasons for what she says, or bases them in forum culture that Juju suggested in one thread that you simply weren't familiar with. She also does it with style.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Now, be specific, what is it that everyone is doing that you are not allowed to?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Uryoces, dude, I only wish this melodrama was monty Python stuff. I've had a fair amount of laughs from it though. Just look around the board a bit. Parts of this fiasco are on a variety of forums.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Oh, and we prefer to be called "Terrans", which sounds much cooler than "earthling", which just comes off as condescending.

All right, I give up. Like I said no matter what I do it's wrong. Think what you want, say what you want, misquote, generalize, assume, attack, don't attack, comment, don't comment, do whatever you all want to do. I'm just going to try and stay out of your ways. I'll try to limit my posts to the few people in here who don't seem to have a problem me, my ignorance of forum etiquette, my communication skills, or lack thereof, and generally everything else that is so offensive to the rest of you.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Oh for christ's sake woman, can't you see we're not taking this time out to respond to you to be cruel, but actually to try to help you? Also, it's a freakin' discussion board, no matter where you post we will still read it.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Once more, and with real feeling, we, generally speaking, aren't offended. You just keep going off at bizarre moments and we're trying to figure out why.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Bugz, you aren't an enigma. I think I understand you pretty well. That's the only reason I've not, at any point, gotten pissed off at you myself. Would you please, possibly, maybe, consider actually listening to me on one point? I say me but actually you've been hearing this from all sides, including some of the people you say 'tolerate' you.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Welcome back Quzah. Have a nice weekend?

Yeah, what you said. Thanks, Luv.

I believe the point was, if they could choose, hypothetically, would they? And the answer, of course, is no.

"Boy, you have a choice. You can have your nuts cut off, and live here with us in total comfort for the next fifteen years, with your every need attended to. You'll have a fortune in toys and loving attention, and absolutely the best medical care. Or, you can keep those nuts and take your chances with a week at the pound. You're kinda cute so maybe you have a 10% chance of being adopted before you get gassed. Of course your new owners might not be as nice as we are. We give you free will for a moment, what is your choice?"

Woof, face lick, face lick.

I just saw on the news a woman adopted a Doberman from a rescue site 10 days ago. Tonight it mauled her to death. I wonder if she was offering that same choice?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; So, UT, might I ask about your teenage years? I'm sure you stayed home happy and warm with all the comforts that entails. Certainly you never made any bad decisions like going out and chasing after any stray females, right?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Of course you didn't. Otherwise you're assuming that animals are smarter than you.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Me? I figure the animals would make the same instictive decision most youths I knew did. "Screw the 'wise choice' lets go out fight, get laid and have a great night out." My particular group actually tried to avoid the first part and focused on the second two parts. Also, we knew what we were doing was stupid and involved enormous risks. But our instincs said "do it" and so we did.
[Edit] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; My point is to suggest that animals might go the same route. I know I'd put money on it.

Hey, I bagged several eligible females during my breeding peak, and these were excellent decisions, as was the phenomenal decision never to bag one without birth controls.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I've got two kids and in both cases we were using birth control. Birth control doesn't eliminate the risk, it just reduces it. Read the damn instructions, they even say so.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Regardless, you make my point. The animal, is you could explain the situation to it, would not choose to be spayed/neutered in most cases. I'm not saying it's not an excellent for us human to have our pets fixed. But the arguement was that the animal would choose it. Nope, don't buy it. And from what you say of you own history, neither do you.