So...yeah.
0
Waar
FAKKU Moderator
GiantBeardedFace wrote...
Waar wrote...
What does that have to do with me or what I said? I didn't ask for your position, my statement doesn't indicate how you should feel about them, why are you reiterating your point to me, unless you're using my statement to make a general point to the rest of the public, in which case you aren't talking to me. So I ask again: are you just posting for the sake of posting?I answered your question when I said “No.” It’s the first sentence of that post. I just didn't separate it from the rest of my post, which is directed at the general public. Sorry if you didn't pick up on that. How about I reiterate it?
NO!
When I'm quoted it means someone wants to engage in some sort of discussion. You aren't talking to me so why quote me? My original statement wasn't a question, and it certainly wasn't directed at you. If you simply quoted me without putting any thought into it I can understand but you could save us a lot of conversation by simply saying so.
0
Waar wrote...
When I'm quoted it means someone wants to engage in some sort of discussion. You aren't talking to me so why quote me? My original statement wasn't a question, and it certainly wasn't directed at you. If you simply quoted me without putting any thought into it I can understand but you could save us a lot of conversation by simply saying so.What if I am trying to engage in a conversation with you and I'm just wording it wrong?
0
Waar
FAKKU Moderator
GiantBeardedFace wrote...
Waar wrote...
When I'm quoted it means someone wants to engage in some sort of discussion. You aren't talking to me so why quote me? My original statement wasn't a question, and it certainly wasn't directed at you. If you simply quoted me without putting any thought into it I can understand but you could save us a lot of conversation by simply saying so.What if I am trying to engage in a conversation with you and I'm just wording it wrong?
I don't have issue with that but my statement didn't take a position other than this is something to be expected with PETA. So if you want to start a conversation you should start by asking what I think about it.
Ill save us a post and state that I think it's sensationalizing a serious issue, not the issue of children's games being violent or nintendo teaching our children it's alright to hurt animals but the actual problem of animal cruelty. They're soo extreme it hurts their cause and I don't think they understand that. Everyone just thinks "Oh that PETA's at it again" when facts and numbers would do their cause far more service than the extreme methods they use now. Don't misunderstand my position here, I'm no bleeding heart liberal, I do think as the dominant species of this planet we have earned the right to kill and consume all lifeforms below us on the evolutionary chain but I don't think any of that gives us the right to abuse animals. It's a shame the extremists always tend to give moderates a bad name, they really do have a lot of sensibility to offer.
0
Waar wrote...
I don't have issue with that but my statement didn't take a position other than this is something to be expected with PETA. So if you want to start a conversation you should start by asking what I think about it.Ill save us a post and state that I think it's sensationalizing a serious issue, not the issue of children's games being violent or nintendo teaching our children it's alright to hurt animals but the actual problem of animal cruelty. They're soo extreme it hurts their cause and I don't think they understand that. Everyone just thinks "Oh that PETA's at it again" when facts and numbers would do their cause far more service than the extreme methods they use now. Don't misunderstand my position here, I'm no bleeding heart liberal, I do think as the dominant species of this planet we have earned the right to kill and consume all lifeforms below us on the evolutionary chain but I don't think any of that gives us the right to abuse animals. It's a shame the extremists always tend to give moderates a bad name, they really do have a lot of sensibility to offer.
You basically summed up my view of it. Anyways, sorry for having disturbed you with quoting you in the first place. I was just making a smart ass comment, but we continued. I'm glad I got to know you a little better.
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
I was though of the pokemon trainer relationship like that of a Lord and his vassal(I guess it makes sense since this is a Japanese game).
As long as the Lord is strong the vassals will fight and be loyal. If he's weak(poke's are overleveled & you don't have enough badges) they ignore you and do as they see fit. The pokemon also show a desire to be strong and continue to get stronger, by battling other pokemons while being lead by the trainer.
I guess Peta really doesn't care about the game/anime/manga, or the relationship between the poke's and their trainers.
If anything it's a publicity stunt, and I seriously hope Nintendo doesn't attempt to sue because that's probably what Peta wants.
As long as the Lord is strong the vassals will fight and be loyal. If he's weak(poke's are overleveled & you don't have enough badges) they ignore you and do as they see fit. The pokemon also show a desire to be strong and continue to get stronger, by battling other pokemons while being lead by the trainer.
I guess Peta really doesn't care about the game/anime/manga, or the relationship between the poke's and their trainers.
If anything it's a publicity stunt, and I seriously hope Nintendo doesn't attempt to sue because that's probably what Peta wants.
0
cruz737 wrote...
If anything it's a publicity stunt, and I seriously hope Nintendo doesn't attempt to sue because that's probably what Peta wants.That makes sense if they want "funding" for their activities.
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
GiantBeardedFace wrote...
cruz737 wrote...
If anything it's a publicity stunt, and I seriously hope Nintendo doesn't attempt to sue because that's probably what Peta wants.That makes sense if they want "funding" for their activities.
And by that you mean killing sheltered animals right?
0
cruz737 wrote...
GiantBeardedFace wrote...
cruz737 wrote...
If anything it's a publicity stunt, and I seriously hope Nintendo doesn't attempt to sue because that's probably what Peta wants.That makes sense if they want "funding" for their activities.
And by that you mean killing sheltered animals right?
Yeah. Don't they kill off more animals than they treat and save? Not sure exactly the statistics on that, though.
0
GiantBeardedFace wrote...
cruz737 wrote...
If anything it's a publicity stunt, and I seriously hope Nintendo doesn't attempt to sue because that's probably what Peta wants.That makes sense if they want "funding" for their activities.
Peta gets most of their funding from private donations.
also
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106757/PETA-killed-95-adoptable-dogs-cats-care-year.html
0
say what! wrote...
GiantBeardedFace wrote...
cruz737 wrote...
If anything it's a publicity stunt, and I seriously hope Nintendo doesn't attempt to sue because that's probably what Peta wants.That makes sense if they want "funding" for their activities.
Peta gets most of their funding from private donations.
also
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106757/PETA-killed-95-adoptable-dogs-cats-care-year.html
I thought it was around 10 killed for every 1 they saved; I wasn't exactly sure of it though.
0
yurixhentai wrote...
Ryssen wrote...
Your avi may be one of the most annoying things I have seen today. Please change your avi and on your back kill yourself.Your new one is awesome by the way.
Thank you. It felt like I had to change after months with the other one.
0
Waar
FAKKU Moderator
GiantBeardedFace wrote...
It still equals animals being killed.Wasn't referring to the act but the person committing the act. Some animals need to be killed.
0
Waar wrote...
GiantBeardedFace wrote...
It still equals animals being killed.Wasn't referring to the act but the person committing the act. Some animals need to be killed.
And I agree. I was just referring to the act itself, not whoever is behind it.
0
Waar
FAKKU Moderator
GiantBeardedFace wrote...
Waar wrote...
GiantBeardedFace wrote...
It still equals animals being killed.Wasn't referring to the act but the person committing the act. Some animals need to be killed.
And I agree. I was just referring to the act itself, not whoever is behind it.
Why are you explaining it to me, I made the original statement which you misunderstood... You have some weird communication issues.