French Slut Tries to Prevent Heroic Fisherman from Catching Sharks

[Bono]

The fact that anyone would support using puppies and kittens as shark bait shows the heartlessness of the far right who supports this. Anyone who thinks this, should be used as live shark bait themselves.

I don't support it, I support allowing it.

[Platypus]

wow, bono; you're insane.

[John Dibble]

Um, I was refuting Earl's statement that right wingers support this stuff by pointing out that she was a right winger. I don't know what you're going on about. I personally couldn't care less what she thinks.

Im pointing out that those on the forum who support this are all extreme right wingers. Just pointing out a correlation. You can prove me wrong when BRTD, Opebo or Jfern state that feeding puppies and kittens to sharks are a good thing.

Opebo will probably think it's ok, knowing him. The other two no, but him yes.

[Hatman 🍁]

Um, I was refuting Earl's statement that right wingers support this stuff by pointing out that she was a right winger. I don't know what you're going on about. I personally couldn't care less what she thinks.

Im pointing out that those on the forum who support this are all extreme right wingers. Just pointing out a correlation. You can prove me wrong when BRTD, Opebo or Jfern state that feeding puppies and kittens to sharks are a good thing.

Opebo will probably think it's ok, knowing him. The other two no, but him yes.

I don't think even opebo is that heartless. I don't know how he stands on animal rights though, but this has nothing to do with sex.

[??????????]

Isn't "French Slut" a bit of a redundancy?

Oui

[John Dibble]

Um, I was refuting Earl's statement that right wingers support this stuff by pointing out that she was a right winger. I don't know what you're going on about. I personally couldn't care less what she thinks.

Im pointing out that those on the forum who support this are all extreme right wingers. Just pointing out a correlation. You can prove me wrong when BRTD, Opebo or Jfern state that feeding puppies and kittens to sharks are a good thing.

Opebo will probably think it's ok, knowing him. The other two no, but him yes.

I don't think even opebo is that heartless. I don't know how he stands on animal rights though, but this has nothing to do with sex.

Neither do his economic policies. Opebo would likely state there is nothing wrong with this because he believes there's no such thing as right and wrong, only personal preferences, and he'd have no reason to infringe on the personal preferences of these fishermen in regards to bait.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

This is really horrible.  I'm actually with Bardot on this one.

[??????????]

I suppose you'd use cats to catch catfish, correct?

[Joe Kakistocracy]

Of course, and cows to catch cowfish.

[Alcon]

Why exactly are we attaching the label "slut" to her?  Do you even know anything about her, or are you just doing this to reduce her so you can attack her?

I agree with her on this, actually.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

I'm also a little confused about why the fisherman are "heroic".  A hero is somebody who rescues a kitten from a tree or a burning house, not somebody who sticks a cable in its nose and feeds it to a shark.  It's not like they're even catching anything worthwhile either.  I thought sharks were endangered anyway?

[Protect Trans Hoosiers]

Well, provided this is actually happening, I agree with the animal rights people on this.

Why should the government decide what people can do with their own property?

[Speed of Sound]

Well, provided this is actually happening, I agree with the animal rights people on this.

Why should the government decide what people can do with their own property?

its living, breathing, and thinking. Thats like saying we shouldnt have stopped slavery cause that was thier property.

[John Dibble]

Well, provided this is actually happening, I agree with the animal rights people on this.

Why should the government decide what people can do with their own property?

Property is a little different when it's a living, breathing thing that can feel pain, don't you think?

[Protect Trans Hoosiers]

Well, provided this is actually happening, I agree with the animal rights people on this.

Why should the government decide what people can do with their own property?

its living, breathing, and thinking. Thats like saying we shouldnt have stopped slavery cause that was thier property.

Well, A) I was being rhetorical to expose Dibble's inconsistencies of thought, and

B) IT'S NOTHING AT ALL LIKE SLAVERY!!!  WTF?  Slaves were people with human rights, and should never have been anyone's "property."  Animals are not people, and it's perfectly reasonable and ethical for people to own them.  Feed them to sharks, no way.  Own them, yes.

[??????????]

Well, provided this is actually happening, I agree with the animal rights people on this.

Why should the government decide what people can do with their own property?

Property is a little different when it's a living, breathing thing that can feel pain, don't you think?

So are you against using live fish as bait for deep sea fishing?

[??????????]

B) IT'S NOTHING AT ALL LIKE SLAVERY!!!  WTF?  Slaves were people with human rights, and should never have been anyone's "property."  Animals are not people, and it's perfectly reasonable and ethical for people to own them.  Feed them to sharks, no way.  Own them, yes.

I'm not going to derail this particular thread with a retort to your comment but if you want to start a thread I'll discuss your point.

[A18]

No libertarian has ever argued someone should be allowed to use property to harm another person. Similarly, some reasonable restrictions on animal cruelty are not incompatible with the philosophy.

[John Dibble]

Well, provided this is actually happening, I agree with the animal rights people on this.

Why should the government decide what people can do with their own property?

Property is a little different when it's a living, breathing thing that can feel pain, don't you think?

So are you against using live fish as bait for deep sea fishing?

Not necessarily. I do factor in intelligence when making animal rights considerations(I believe humans are superior to dogs due to intelligence, and I believe dogs are superior to fish for the same reason). I generally prefer dead bait anyways.

Also, it is disputed whether fish feel pain or not. I've seen articles on studies that indicate they do and those that don't. I can't say for certain they do not, but I am certain it is a wholly different experience for them - fish don't have the brains to have any of the long term psychological effects that pain can bring. Dogs and cats on the other hand do have the brains required to get some of those effects.

[A18]

So are fish superior to opebo due to intelligence?

[John Dibble]

So are fish superior to opebo due to intelligence?

Well, I know it seems like opebo is dumber than a fish, but I think he's actually quite intelligent - problem is he lacks common sense and any shred of wisdom, so his ability to use that intelligence in a decent manner is sorely limited.

[A18]

How about some retard human* versus a really intelligent dolphin?

* - I can specify names if necessary

[angus]

B) IT'S NOTHING AT ALL LIKE SLAVERY!!!  WTF?  Slaves were people with human rights, and should never have been anyone's "property."  Animals are not people, and it's perfectly reasonable and ethical for people to own them.  Feed them to sharks, no way.  Own them, yes.

I'm not going to derail this particular thread with a retort to your comment but if you want to start a thread I'll discuss your point.

I will.  "Slaves are people with human rights" ??!  What's the point of that, beef?  You definitely would not make a good Pharoah.  Seriously, if you're going to assume they have human rights, the whole system falls apart.  So, either don't do slavery, or do it right.  This half-assed BS is what caused such great consternation in the USA.  Wouldn't see Egyptians playing that pansy bleeding heart crap.

As for animals.  They're people too.  You happen to be the self-ordained "most highly evolved" species only by virtue of the fact that you beat all the others to Literature and Laws.  By some small twist millions of years ago, it may very well have been squid, or oysters, running the show, and YOU on sale at a pet store.  As a moralistic matter, which is what you're making all this, we shouldn't own pets.  (unless, of course, they're slave-pets.)

Still, even though I find your reasoning bizarre, I agree that there's a problem here.  We shouldn't be trying to capture endangered species.  And that's what happens when you put a mutt on a hook in the water.  Now, you wanna use a dog on a hook to catch an alligator, solely for the purpose of safely removing the alligator from a Florida swimming pool and safely returning it to the everglades, I have no problems with that.

Glad we got that cleared up.

[Alcon]

How about some retard human* versus a really intelligent dolphin?

* - I can specify names if necessary

I don't know much on the subject, but I'm not sure the parts of the brain affected by mental retardation have anything to do with memory of pain and abuse.

There are plenty of cases of profoundly retarded children who have been abused and clearly show the effects.  I have seen some.

[Protect Trans Hoosiers]

I will.  "Slaves are people with human rights" ??!  What's the point of that, beef?  You definitely would not make a good Pharoah.  Seriously, if you're going to assume they have human rights, the whole system falls apart.  So, either don't do slavery, or do it right.  This half-assed BS is what caused such great consternation in the USA.  Wouldn't see Egyptians playing that pansy bleeding heart crap.

As for animals.  They're people too.  You happen to be the self-ordained "most highly evolved" species only by virtue of the fact that you beat all the others to Literature and Laws.  By some small twist millions of years ago, it may very well have been squid, or oysters, running the show, and YOU on sale at a pet store.  As a moralistic matter, which is what you're making all this, we shouldn't own pets.  (unless, of course, they're slave-pets.)

Still, even though I find your reasoning bizarre, I agree that there's a problem here.  We shouldn't be trying to capture endangered species.  And that's what happens when you put a mutt on a hook in the water.  Now, you wanna use a dog on a hook to catch an alligator, solely for the purpose of safely removing the alligator from a Florida swimming pool and safely returning it to the everglades, I have no problems with that.

Glad we got that cleared up.

LOL.  10 Beef Tips for angus.