Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - UGetPaid

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 113
Off-Topic / Re: Camping
« on: Today at 07:45:27 am »Message ID: 1276219
Camping is not for me. I'm too afraid of bugs and I don't like the idea of sleeping outside, even if I'm in a tent haha.

Well it isn't like a tent offers a lot of protection against predators.  Human or animals.
Not "a lot" of protection, no, but definitely "a lot" more than just out in the open under the stars. If a bear or a human wants in at any cost - they're going to get in. But I think they are less likely to harm or attack a tented person than an untented person.

Off-Topic / Re: Camping
« on: Today at 07:40:27 am »Message ID: 1276216
I've never been camping. In theory, it sounds like a lot of fun... but I bet in practice I wouldn't care for it. I'd rather go for a hike in the forest and then go to sleep in a comfy bed indoors away from bugs and murderers.

I understand not wanting to sleep around bugs, but where does the "murderers" comment come from?

Haha! Petacon is fine with hiking with bugs and murderers though.
Yeah there's that too! 

Aside from being asleep and by extension less "alert", I think a hiker is far more susceptible to bug bites and crazed axe murderers than a camper.  Of course, when I consider "camping" I envision a group activity in a campground as opposed to solitary isolation in the backwoods and I think of hiking as a more individual activity.  Since there is typically safety in numbers, I would feel safer in the tent at night than out hiking alone.

I used to camp a lot as a child and a young adult, but it's probably been 20 years since I went roughing it. My wife just isn't into it. But she "lets" me ride the rollercoasters which she is even less into - so I can give up the one for the other!

Off-Topic / Re: Verydice Please read the post and help me out please and thank you
« on: Yesterday at 11:33:25 am »Message ID: 1276092
Well I don't know that they would technically be considered contributory posts (and the bonus does explicitly prohibit spam posts in the calculation), but you might still be able to make a claim for 30 posts in the calendar month of May for a $3 bonus!  w00t!

Of course, if you keep up the spamming and get yourself banned from the site - you will lose out on that fantastic ongoing earning opportunity.

Off-Topic / Re: Boredwalk
« on: May 19, 2019, 11:19:53 am »Message ID: 1275994
What part of the rules do you not understand???

Support / Re: Former Member returning after 6 years
« on: May 19, 2019, 03:53:34 am »Message ID: 1275935
You would know Sherlock.
So am i the only one who suspects that Latch0208 might be a reincarnated/multiple account as well?

Off-Topic / Re: Camping
« on: May 18, 2019, 02:58:51 am »Message ID: 1275792
I've never been camping. In theory, it sounds like a lot of fun... but I bet in practice I wouldn't care for it. I'd rather go for a hike in the forest and then go to sleep in a comfy bed indoors away from bugs and murderers.

I understand not wanting to sleep around bugs, but where does the "murderers" comment come from?

Off-Topic / Re: Verydice with PROOF pictures that this is REAL and not a scam!!!!!!!!!!!
« on: May 17, 2019, 08:56:03 am »Message ID: 1275682
Can we share referral links in the forum now?

Not that I am aware of.

Watch yourself, kmcelligott87. As hard as you are promoting this and keep mentioning your referral link, you risk getting yourself banned for violating the no-referral link rules.

Off-Topic / Re: Funny or die
« on: May 16, 2019, 11:20:46 am »Message ID: 1275598
Getting a lot of these in hypermx lately.

What is this "hypermx" of which you speak? It sounds strangely but vaguely familiar to me. Like an ancient tome from ages past, lost to a civilization long ago...

Off-Topic / Re: Vegan?
« on: May 16, 2019, 05:53:17 am »Message ID: 1275533

Maybe the difference is apparent to you, but it isn't to me. Killing another being is causing pain and suffering whether you enjoy doing it or not.

Well you say you aren't trying to be argumentative (and I believe you), but it is impossible for me to try to explain this point any further without becoming argumentative myself, so I will just drop it here. We obviously see things differently on this point. I just view self preservation and nourishment different from psychotic pain infliction.

Humans are not carnivores. We are omnivores. We have teeth for both tearing meat and grinding grains and plants.

You got me there. I admit that I [unintentionally] mischaracterized it. We eat both meat and plants. (As do cats if you really want to split hairs).  The point is that since the beginning of time, by nature, humans have been eating meat. It is still an instinctive and self-preservation driven action for humans to eat meat.  I stand by my comment that it isn't as easy as flipping a switch to change this behavior. As I said, it may happen in 10,000+ years, but not overnight.

There is nothing inherently evil about eating a chicken.

I believe the chicken would disagree.
I try to have intelligent discussions with people about it, but what it always comes down to is: I won't give up meat because it tastes good. That's pretty sad.

If you cannot understand (I'm not saying agree with but just understand) my first point about the difference between a malicious motive and a nourishment motive in killing an animal - then I wouldn't expect you to say anything different about killing chickens. So I am not conceding to you on this point - but I am realistic enough to know that I am not going to get you to see my perspective - or to be able to fully express it clearly in this forum.

I hope that we are having an intelligent conversation about this. There is more to it than just tasting good, although that is a big part of it. It does not make anyone less of a person to make the choice to eat a pig and it does not make someone a bigger person to make the choice to only eat vegetables. Intentional or not, this is the opinion I usually feel is projected upon meat eaters by vegan/vegetarians. If the vegan lifestyle is right for you, have at it. But it is not right for me and I do not see any moral dilemma in the lifestyle that I live.

Off-Topic / Re: Vegan?
« on: May 15, 2019, 12:35:42 pm »Message ID: 1275430

The definition of "humane" is characterized by tenderness and compassion. You cannot kill something with tenderness and compassion, except in the case of euthanasia, and in such case the animal cannot be used for consumption.

If you want to argue semantics, that's fine, but in doing so you are ignoring my point entirely.
There is a difference between (a) killing for pleasure and taking some sort of sick high out of causing pain and suffering; versus (b) killing for food and self preservation. 

I chose to make that distinction by using the term "humane". If you want to dissect a specific definition of that word and use that as your argument against my position, then there is no point in my attempt at clarification.

This can be considered an outdated and anthropocentric view. There are thousands of scientific studies on non-human animal sentience, intelligence, etc. The animal world is much more complex than we give it credit for, mostly because we do not yet understand it. Yes, I believe humans and animals are equal. Is each species unique? Absolutely. But uniqueness doesn't mean superiority. But let's suppose humans are superior in intelligence, ethics, sophistication. Why are we still slaughtering "lesser" beings? It doesn't sound very ethical or moral to me. We are not primitive men anymore, hunting and foraging for food in order to survive. Just because we did something a hundred or a thousand years ago doesn't mean it's right to continue it. We also used to burn "witches" and marry our cousins and keep slaves. Now we have the ability to not only grow our own vegetation, but even create food in a science lab.

I respect your opinion, but still disagree. Humans and animals are not equal, but if you believe otherwise, then there is no way I am going to change your mind. I'd do just as well to try changing the instinctive carnivorous nature of a lion or tiger or bear, OH MY! Not going to happen. Which ties in to my main point about carnivorous humans.

You make it sound like we can just flip an internal switch and turn off the instinctual craving for meat protein and completely replace that with chemically processed fake laboratory food. Good luck with that effort. It sounds remarkably similar to the ideas of a certain bartender turned congresswoman with a 12 year ticking doomsday clock who thinks we can eliminate all car and air travel and stop all the world's cows from farting and destroying our atmosphere. But it is not that simple.  (And if we stop eating all the cows, there will be even more cow farts to deal with!)

I'll give you this much. If we are eventually able to develop synthetic lab meat that acts and tastes and cooks exactly the same as the real thing... maybe we have a chance to wean ourselves off of real meat over the span of 20,000+ years (maybe even 10,000 if we really put our minds to it). But it is a bit shortsighted to suggest that from Monday to Tuesday we can overpower instinct with intellect simply because some people believe eating natural protein is offensive.  I mean no disrespect in saying this - it is hard to express that idea in written format without sounding like a condescending pompous *bleep*.  That it not where I am trying to come from but I fear it might be what I am projecting.

I think the incest, witch burning, and slavery analogies are comparing apples to oranges.  Do we have skeletons in our historical closets? Absolutely. Do we grow and evolve? You bet! But you can't just lump in all historically wrongful actions and blindly equate those to eating meat.  Slavery is wrong, plain and simple. Incest is both immoral and a bad genetic idea. Witch burning was close minded fanaticism and bigotry. There is nothing inherently evil about eating a chicken. 

This video will probably open up more cans of worms than it solves, but it is an interesting take nonetheless...

There is no reason to continue to cause suffering and harm when we have the knowledge and technology to eliminate it. That is where our "superiority" falls short.

So let's analyze this a bit. The entire planet stops eating meat 100%. In the span of just a few years, the population explosion from the unfettered reproduction of the pigs, cows, and chickens alone would be devastating.  Alternatively, look at deer hunting... (something that I do not do and have never done, but fully support the right of those who do) - what would happen to the deer population if left unchecked? Aside from those who would starve to death or get mangled on highways during mating season - deer would completely overrun the gardens where people are growing all of those much-more-worthwhile-to-eat vegetables. Then where would we be? All the vegans would starve from the food shortage (or more likely they would cease to be such self-righteous vegans).  Of course, I am exaggerating to make a point...

Point is = if someone is vegan and chooses to live that lifestyle - God Bless you and good luck and have at it. But to heck with anybody who tries to self-righteously force that philosophy on me or to find fault with me because I say I will kill and eat a chicken but I will not kill and eat my cat.  That conscious choice does not make any steak loving pet owner a hypocrite.

Off-Topic / Re: Vegan?
« on: May 14, 2019, 06:11:44 pm »Message ID: 1275332

What is "humane" slaughter? That's an oxymoron.

Not at all. There are humane ways to kill animals meant for consumption and there are acts of violence when someone kills a dog only for the purpose of inflicting pain while killing the dog. Those are two completely different actions. One is perfectly moral and the other is sinfully immoral.

Purposely inflicting pain and suffering and taking delight in such depraved action is not the same thing as a quick and (hopefully) painless death prior to being processed in a meat packing plant.

Humans ARE animals. We are all in the animal kingdom. There is only a difference between a pet and an animal raised for food because humans decided there is. But that argument doesn't work.

Sure it does. Let's start with your premise that humans ARE animals. Yes - in the qualification you make afterward - humans technically are part of the animal kingdom; therefore, biologically they are animals. But you basically imply that humans are no different than or no more important than other animals. This is spiritually and scientifically untrue. There is a higher level of sentience, intelligence, awareness, reason, morals, ethics, sophistication (and on and on) in humans. By definition and nature, they are not equal. 

The rest of the animals are here to serve different purposes. Some are companions, some are beasts of burden, some are protein sources. We are obligated to take care of the other animals and to not kill or hurt them for violent or immoral motives (see my point above).  But we are also wired for self preservation (as many of the other members of the animal kingdom are). Many animals (including humans) can be both predator and prey depending on the situation. We all need to eat and to keep from being eaten. If it comes down to a choice between me and a cute fuzzy little bear - I choose to preserve me - sorry about your luck little bear.  (Certainly it is more than just my choice depending on the circumstances - cute little bear would likely make the alternate choice if given the option).

Humans and their evolutionary predecessors were carnivores by nature. We still are carnivores. Some may choose to go vegetarian or vegan, but that is still a choice. That does not all of a sudden render it immoral for the rest of us to decide to continue our tens of thousands of years nature to eat other animals to survive.

The choice to kill and eat pigs and cows and chickens rather than cats and dogs is also a longstanding societal construct tied in with our carnivore nature and the relationships we have developed for centuries and millennia with dogs and cats and the roles played by other farm and wild animals. This isn't someone in 2019 deciding: "hmmmm should I eat Fluffy or should I eat that piggy or should I just skip it and have a peanut butter sandwich?"

Like Countrygirl said, other countries eat dogs, but it's illegal to eat a dog in the US. There are still parts of the world that eat humans. Can I raise human babies for consumption?

I understand sarcasm, so I will not take this last question seriously.

Off-Topic / Re: Vegan?
« on: May 14, 2019, 01:31:48 pm »Message ID: 1275284

I don't know what's confusing about this. My point is that everything that has eyes had a mother and is a sentient being - a cow, a pig, your cat, my dog, your child. We all feel the same feelings, love, attachment, pleasure, excitement, grief, pain, suffering. If you slit the throat of a dog, it's a felony. If you slit the throat of a pig, it's dinner. Why is it acceptable to take one animal's life and not another's? Why does that pig's right to live mean nothing?

It's not so much that it's "confusing" as it just isn't a valid argument in my 'eyes'.

There is a difference between a human and an animal; there is a difference between a pet and something that is raised for the purpose of being someone else's food.  There is a difference between the evil that causes someone to torture another living thing or to violently kill and dismember it with no intention of consuming it and the humane slaughter of livestock for consumption.

FusionCash / Re: Too cool
« on: May 14, 2019, 08:56:29 am »Message ID: 1275243
...I was SO mad and ready to cancel my account but REFUSED to let the $10+ I still had go to waste, I promised myself I would get to the $25 minimum,..THEN cancel my account.
But, it was so easy to get back up to $25!! So I realized it was my fault for not reading the terms of service and instead of canceling I decided to stay put and now I realize this is the best site I ever joined!!!
(Emphasis added)
A quote from somebody who gets it!  Thank you! (And congratulations for not throwing away the opportunity).

Off-Topic / Quick Poll
« on: May 14, 2019, 08:23:15 am »Message ID: 1275239
Show of hands. How many people here: (1) know what a garbage disposal is/does; or (2) if they flipped an electrical switch and heard the disposal in the sink running would recognize it as such?

 :thumbsup: if you know how to use it
 :bad: if the sound of it would scare you


Debate & Discuss / Re: Ignorance
« on: May 14, 2019, 08:18:52 am »Message ID: 1275236
Even the "fact checkers" have ways to slant the facts so that someone they are in political disagreement with comes across looking like a liar and someone they are in agreement with has the honesty of a young George Washington - even if the exact reverse was the objective reality.

EDIT: (for instance)

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 113