Charl91

Then you make an exception. After all, there's not so many triplets that it would add too much to the global population. Again, there would be problems with it (such as people wanting a boy/a girl), though advancement in science could probably help with that. However, look at the alternatives. Our population grows by 50% about every 40 years. At the rate we're growing, in the next 100 years, our population will have doubled to 12 Billion or so. It's not going to be too long before it becomes unsustainable - probably not in our lifetime, but also probably not too far in the future. Without change, the only outcomes I could possibly is most of the human population being wiped out by either disease, war or starvation. Too put it into perspective, in the 1600's, Englands population was about 1 million. It's now over 50 million. At that rate, in the year 2,400, England will have a population of about 2.4 Billion. The only problem is people are much too short sighted too actually think long term.

Sounds silly, but it's just what China are doing at the moment. And while it may sound very extreme (and it is), limiting everyone to two childreh is a much better option than everyone dying of starvation due to over-population, which is the way we are headed.

We have too many humans. The only way it could be managed is by population management of humans. (Which I am all for, to be honest)

Depends whether I wanted to eat them or not. As I am pro death-penalty, I would say yes it is. However, we don't eat other humans so we have no need to kill them - just as I wouldn't kill animals for fun, unless I wanted to eat them. Oh and by the way, the amount of humans living on this planet does not fit into a "well balanced ecological society".

I know. So what you are basically arguing is that it isn't the taking of life which is wrong, but causing pain. So if we kill an animal in a way which doesn't cause pain, then it's fine?

It's not such a base argument though. Why stop at animals then? Plants are living things and you eat plants - what right do you have to end somethings life? On another track, should we be allowed to kill mosquitos, or is it only cute and cuddly animals that are exempt? What about buildings which will take the life of thousands of creatures and destroy their natural habitat - do we stop all construction work? It's so much more complicated than you think it is.

That's because we're not carnivores.....

Bit of a silly argument - vegetables are generally prepared too Whether you mince it or not doesn't really change the content or health benefits, etc.

Stressful. Had a one hour trial for waiting/bar work. Not going to lie, really didn't enjoy it, but if I get it then at least it's a job.

Jesus backwards sounds a little like Sausage

Read that - good book.

Just watched 'The Men Who Stare at Goats'. Awful film, I wouldn't advise anyone to watch it. Not remotely funny and the story is pretty non-existant. I kept wondering when it was going to get good, and it never did. 2/10. Do not watch.

I do that, but I'm always paranoid that I'm somehow going to drop in the pool. Then again, I have killed two kindles already.

Killing headlice is not self preservation though, is it. Headlice don't put our lives in jeopardy, they're an annoyance at best. Surely we'd only be killing them for our comfort? Or does that mean we are allowed to kill any living being which is deemed an annoyance?

So should we stop animals eating other animals then? Should we be trying to make every animal vegetarian? o.O

You're 100% wrong. I don't have enough words in my dictionary to adequately describe quite how wrong you are. Eating meat is natural. If we weren't supposed to then we wouldn't get nutrition from the stuff. It's natural by the bloody dictionary definition of the word. If anything, the conscious decisions to choose to avoid meat is unnatural - I can't think of any other race other then humanity which does this. Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. You're only "argument" (and I use the term loosely) is that we are "killing animals for our pleasure". No, we are killing animals to survive. Like it or not, that's how the world works and how it has always worked. Yes, we could possibly work around not eating other creatures, but humans are animals, so why should we feel any less guilty about eating a duck? The duck certainly doesn't feel guilty about eating fish. You might feel guilty about eating animals (but that's just a psychological problem that you're going to have to live with because it is perfectly natural. You can try and guilt trip as many people you like about it, but there is NOTHING that people should be ashamed of. The animal rights issues I agree should be stopped are the unnecessary cruelty and treatment of animals during their life-time (living conditions, etc.), the UNNATURAL aspects. These are the animal rights issues which should be discussed and taken seriously, not ridiculous suggestions like "No1 shud ever eaat meeeet!!!!!" Edit: Comparing slavery with eating animals is such a straw man argument. The two are not similar at all.

The fact that you are trying to claim that eating meat is unnatural shows me that you're not willing to have a sensible discussion about this. Eating meat is one of the most natural things their is. I'll come up with a list of animals that eat other animals, and you come up with a list of animals who abstain from eating other animals on ethical grounds, and we'll see who wins. If you fought for a realistic alternative then it might be possible to make important steps to change one day, changes that will actually benefit animals, but the radical stance that you take means that you will never make any changes. You might not like killing animals, but it's one thing that is never going to change. I'm all for animals rights, but I have realistic expectations.

I do the same - where I have the choice I buy free range, and that's entirely for ethical reasons (the growth hormones/pesticides doesn't particularly bother me). However trying to force being a vegan down peoples throats is just going to put people off and is counter-productive to the cause.

I don't think we should stop eating meat, and I think it's unrealistic for vegans to expect everyone to stop eating meat altogether. What animal rights protestors should be fighting for is for the animals that are eaten to be treated more humanely in both their living conditions and their slaughter. No matter what vegans say, eating meat is natural and shouldn't be anything to be ashamed of. Battery farm conditions is a different matter however.

I disagree with lots of the things Acooling writes. However, I don't think there was anything particularly wrong with what he posted in this instance, especially not to tool-shop-advertisment proportions. Seems like a bit of an over-reaction to me....

Anything on Netflix that people can recommend to me?

You should just stay away from each other and stop peking at each others threads.

Fixed it for you.

That's pretty shocking. The kind of experimentation that I hate.

Yeah, cats aren't house pets, they're pretty street-wise, as far as animals go.