The problem with travellers ...

It's just a bit extreme is all.

 

In fact it's not just extreme, it's fucking CRAZY!!!
I would only want MY world to end, MY suffering to end. The death of every other lifeform on the planet just to end the suffering of one creature is insane.
Ok, you aren't in a cage, but would you sacrifice say, ten people for the release of one suffering animal?

 

what it basically means is total distruction is the only solution.
so a comet hurtling at us would be welcomed by me, and i like been alive too.
another animal wishing for just its own life to be over doesnt save the millions of others that will take its place.
and of course i wouldnt sacrafice 10 people to save one animal,
but i also wouldnt sacrafice 10 animals to save a person.
is that a extream veiw to have?
seems like basic maths to me.

 

The views you express contradict each other.
You wouldn't sacrifice 10 people to save one animal, but you'd happily sacrifice the entire planet to end one animal's suffering?
If that's basic maths, then I need a new calculator.

 

your a pedantic little fucker aint ya. if were gonna talk realisticly, there is more then one animal suffering including human animals isnt there. theres millions. capitalism isnt gonna go away, the sufferings gonna continue, and i belive the end of the world is better then millions of creatures having to go thru a living hell weve created for them. and if that makes me selfish then i really dont give a fuck. and the world isnt gonna end anytime soon as far as i know so i dont even know why were talking about it in the first place.
and the fact you trawled thru posts i made from an old id and from 12 months ago just to add a quote i find quite baffling. dont u have anything better to do then popping up and making little snide comments about my posts. have i done summin wrong to you or summin? as far as im aware i was plesant and hospitable to you, maybe your jelous of me for some reason, i wonder why that could be ey?
sort it out mate

 

Ohh ho ho! Alrighty then:

Nope, just remember you expressing this view down the pub. It was such a surreal moment that it's stuck with me

I don't think it makes you selfish, but you must realise that it makes you sound like an extremist nutcase. Your original point was that you'd bring down the whole of creation to stop the suffering of ONE animal, which I find unsettling.

Can't argue with that mate, you were, and I apologise if all of this seems like an attack on you, it isn't. It's just that one little viewpoint that I disagree with. Ya know; the one about everybody dying to stop one animal suffering.

Nice try, but no.

I dunno either. Maybe for the same reason we were talking about your virginity?

You might be onto something with that one...

...realistically we both want the same thing; an end to suffering. But this view of your's worries me. I mean, how far would you take it? Violence?

 

i wouldnt put you in George Bush's shoes, Pixified

 

check out the real situation
nation war against nation
where did it all begin, when will it end
well it seems like the total destruction
the only solution
and there ain't no use
no one can stop them now
ain't no use nobody can stop them now

give them an inch they take a yard
give them a yard they take a mile
once a man and twice a child
and everything is just for a while
it seems like total destruction
the only solution
and there ain't no use
no one can stop them now
ain't no use no one can stop them now
ain't no use no one can stop them now
ain't no use no one can stop them now

check in the real situation
check it out, check it out
nation fight against nation
where did it all begin, where will it end
well it seems like the total destruction
the only solution
no use can't stop them
ain't no use can't stop them
ain't no use no one can't stop them now
can't stop them now
ain't no use no one can't stop them now
ain't no use you even try
ain't no use got to say bye bye
ain't no use no one can stop them now
no one can stop them now


i guess bob marley is an extreamist nutcase too then.

 

Artistic license. Charles Manson?

 

i wouldnt wanna be in george bushes shoes thanks.

and i dont see why you both cant grasp what im saying, im not saying i personally wanna nuke the world. im saying nothing existing is better then shit loads of pain and suffering existing.

 

I can't grasp it because it makes no sense! Ok. YOU don't personally want to nuke the world, but you think it's a good idea? That's like saying, I wouldn't murder all muslims to stop terroism, but I think it's a good idea.
Also, we're aren't talking about shit loads of suffering. You originally said, ONE animal suffering. Sorry to keep dragging it up, but, it's kinda bugged me ever since you said it.

 

if a comet came hurtling towards the world and was gonna distroy us all, yeah i think that would be a good thing, im sorry that dosnt make sence to YOU, it does to me. and we ARE talking about shit loads of suffering cus thats the fact of the way it is. you just seem to be picking on summin i said, and missing out on whats actually goin on i reality.

and i did say that. and ill say this just for arguments sake now yeah, even though i dont see the point.
are you saying that if we lived in a perfect world where everything is perfect, no wars no famine no violence all except 1 human or any other animal having agonising pain inflicted on them is ok because everything else is perfect?? to put your perfect world above the life of one other creature???

id still rather nothing existed then that. id call it compassion.

 

Maybe it is just me, but I'm still struggling with this concept.
No, the suffering of one is not acceptable, even in a perfect world. Although we don't live in a perfect world, neither do we live in a world of extremes.
You're view is everybody happy or everybody dead. I don't eat meat, I don't use animaltested products etc, I can't stand seeing any creature suffer. But to be honest, I think that people who hold extremist views such as yours are dangerous.
It's not so much the "everything dead than one suffering" argument itself that bothers me, but the way it can be interpreted.
For example, imagine there is a town, 50 people, and 10 battery hens. Obviously, the hens are suffering (although, suffering is quantitive, not qualitative). Your view suggests that you would kill everything in the town. Or at least sympathise with somebody else doing it.
Make the town a city, make the city a country, make the country a planet, and your view remains: death for everything instead of suffering. Should the whole of spain be destroyed because of their appaling treatment of animals? According to your view, it should.
I respect you for being honest about your belief, but, I think that beliefs such as yours can be very dangerous and on the whole actually quite detrimental to the animal rights movement. I never take violent people seriously, and your answer seems to be one of violence.
When it comes to animal rights activism, there are peaceful, intelligent alternatives to digging up people's Grandmothers etc.

 

i swear your fucking thick or summin, how is a comet distroying the planet a extreamist veiw?? killed by nature?? seems like a good way to die to me.

 

Oh. Ok. (*walks away)

 

and to mention diggin up graves???? you should work for the fuckin bbc mate.
as far as im concernd it was hunt scum did it to make ar look bad. you have to admit the timing was perfect. and it was a stupid thing to do if it was animal rights people. but i dont think no ones that dumb

 

yeah walks away. but it easy to slag stuff off sat in your arm chair isnt it.

 

im sorry if i gettin pissed off, but u had the same attitude down the pub about hunt sabs been in the wrong. you was talkin out your arse mate, no offence.

 

(*come back)

Dude. I was on a demo at the cov greyhound track WITH YOU, and you pointed out one fellow on the demo you said had already been done by the police for digging up some legendary huntsman or something, and had just been questioned about digging up the guinea pig farm woman. So, YOU told me it was an activist who did it!

I am not slagging off animal rights activists in general, just the ones that think two wrongs make a right. The ones that think fire bombings and terrorism are an acceptable way of getting their point across. I didn't realise that was you.

(Can you please defend your opinion without swearing at me and calling me thick and generally making it personal?)

 

Oh shit. I honestly don't remember saying that the Hunt Sab's were in the wrong. If I did say that, then you are indeed correct. I was talking out of my arse through a glutinous layer of alcohol.