Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
Buy your amazon goods through FJ's link.
Just click this link and search for any product you want. FJ gets a 6% commission on everything you buy.

hide menu

tyraxio    

no avatar Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower
Offline
Send mail to tyraxio Block tyraxio Invite tyraxio to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:7/31/2012
Last Login:4/22/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 1901 total,  2298 ,  397
Comment Thumbs: 2592 total,  3936 ,  1344
Content Level Progress: 99% (99/100)
Level 118 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 119 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 28% (28/100)
Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 226 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:0
Content Views:90716
Times Content Favorited:113 times
Total Comments Made:1501
FJ Points:4386

latest user's comments

#257 - Dude. Irony. He makes a valid point. 12/08/2013 on Black people facts +4
#19 - >middle eastern rebel tricks population into believing he c… 12/08/2013 on don't believe the hype 0
#172 - Just giving my 2 cents. It's not about race. Claiming…  [+] (5 new replies) 12/08/2013 on Black people facts +22
#348 - economic has deleted their comment.
User avatar #242 - plainarcane (12/08/2013) [-]
It astounds me that this doesn't seem to occur to people. I guess they just want to believe whatever justifies their racism.
#236 - thebrownydestroyer has deleted their comment.
#230 - fareastbrainseer (12/08/2013) [-]
Here it is. I found the intelligent comment that people in this thread need to read.
#192 - matoromahri (12/08/2013) [-]
Basically this.
#67 - I'm vegan. I'm not sure they sell it in your area, bu… 12/08/2013 on It was delicious. 0
#66 - Absolutely. I love the vanilla and strawberry bits, but seriou… 12/08/2013 on It was delicious. 0
#23 - Magritte?  [+] (1 new reply) 12/07/2013 on perfect timing +5
#34 - porksammich (12/08/2013) [-]
Yup!
#139 - Actually, they're crystals, not cubes.  [+] (1 new reply) 12/07/2013 on Ehh?Ehh? Get it? +7
#140 - lolchris (12/07/2013) [-]
Indeed. My bad
#787 - Terrorists are not soldiers, no. They do not share definition.… 12/07/2013 on tsk 0
#762 - Sense is not equal to awareness. They can react to stimuli, I … 12/07/2013 on tsk 0
#114 - edward is kill 12/07/2013 on Cactus 0
#658 - I am certainly against fishing too. Because plants, f…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/07/2013 on tsk -1
User avatar #672 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Actually www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-83446,00.html

They do have a form of sense, and you do not need a complex nervous system OR brain to feel pain. Basic animals like worms, planaria, nemotodes, ect can feel pain, and do not have brains or complex nervous systems. In fact, picking mushrooms means you are removing their FRUITING BODY, their only way to reproduce. Didn't know they produce sexually too, did you?

The thing is that every living thing can sense pain or danger, and their still eaten. Living beings kill other living beings for food. It's always been like that, humans are just the first to question a cycle that has gone on forever.
#762 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Sense is not equal to awareness. They can react to stimuli, I am in no way disputing this, but they are not aware of the external world, and even less so, their internal worlds (emotions, desires etc.). Also what do you mean "produce sexually"? Of course I know, every being that does not rely on cloning itself (like strawberries) reproduce sexually.

Plants can react to stimuli which is harmful to their continued existence; they do not feel pain. By saying you feel pain, you are inferring a sense of feeling, which is not present in plants, as they do not have a brain or complex central nervous system. Why is this needed, you might ask. It's simple; without a CNS or a brain, the organism has no centralised understanding of anything. This means that a single vine can move towards sunlight, but there is no decisionmaking taking place; there is only that which the plant is coded to do as a reaction to certain stimuli. You might argue that this is actually what happens with insects as well, but that is a much more complicated argument, which might not have a clear-cut answer.

Indeed, we are the first to question the cycle. Why is this? Because we have a civilised sense of morals, and we have an explicit possibility of making decisions. Animals do not, animals do not evolve technologically. They have to rely on their natural instinct to survive, we do not. The lion needs to kill the gazelle to survive, but we do not need to kill the cow to survive.
#644 - We sell meat because meat tastes good, and we have a lot of cu…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/07/2013 on tsk -1
User avatar #647 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Ok then why kill plants? Or fungi? Those are living things, why should we be eating them? If you say that animals do so, they also eat other animals to survive. Why not just let ourselves starve, because no matter what we do, something living ALWAYS dies. You must be against fishing too.
#658 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I am certainly against fishing too.

Because plants, fungi, algae, bacteria, vira et cetera does not have brains or complex central nervous systems. They do not have a sense of awareness, which animals do. All animals does to some extent have wishes and desires like you and me (yes, even jellyfish and insects, although of course to a lesser extent than mammals), while plants, fungi, algae... do not.

Also, let me make an important note, I am not saying that if you were on an uninhabited island, where only you and a sheep lived, that you were not allowed to eat the sheep. I don't think I personally could get myself to do it, but that would be self-defense and highly understandable. I would not judge you in any way based on that.
User avatar #672 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Actually www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-83446,00.html

They do have a form of sense, and you do not need a complex nervous system OR brain to feel pain. Basic animals like worms, planaria, nemotodes, ect can feel pain, and do not have brains or complex nervous systems. In fact, picking mushrooms means you are removing their FRUITING BODY, their only way to reproduce. Didn't know they produce sexually too, did you?

The thing is that every living thing can sense pain or danger, and their still eaten. Living beings kill other living beings for food. It's always been like that, humans are just the first to question a cycle that has gone on forever.
#762 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Sense is not equal to awareness. They can react to stimuli, I am in no way disputing this, but they are not aware of the external world, and even less so, their internal worlds (emotions, desires etc.). Also what do you mean "produce sexually"? Of course I know, every being that does not rely on cloning itself (like strawberries) reproduce sexually.

Plants can react to stimuli which is harmful to their continued existence; they do not feel pain. By saying you feel pain, you are inferring a sense of feeling, which is not present in plants, as they do not have a brain or complex central nervous system. Why is this needed, you might ask. It's simple; without a CNS or a brain, the organism has no centralised understanding of anything. This means that a single vine can move towards sunlight, but there is no decisionmaking taking place; there is only that which the plant is coded to do as a reaction to certain stimuli. You might argue that this is actually what happens with insects as well, but that is a much more complicated argument, which might not have a clear-cut answer.

Indeed, we are the first to question the cycle. Why is this? Because we have a civilised sense of morals, and we have an explicit possibility of making decisions. Animals do not, animals do not evolve technologically. They have to rely on their natural instinct to survive, we do not. The lion needs to kill the gazelle to survive, but we do not need to kill the cow to survive.
#569 - I thumbed down all your stupid points too. That being… 12/07/2013 on tsk -1
#568 - You don't have to eat meat to survive at all, so that argument…  [+] (6 new replies) 12/07/2013 on tsk -1
User avatar #571 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
So why do we still sell meat? A LOT of foods aren't necessary but we eat them, plus meat is a great source of protein prepared naturally without all the fatty crap put into it. I

If you listened, I don't agree with sport hunting, I agree with hunting for food. I just listed why THEY call it sport. I don't "justify killing" I say there is no issue getting your own food through other means. Do they torture the animal? No. Do they force feed the animal? NO.
#644 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
We sell meat because meat tastes good, and we have a lot of cultural ties to meat. Also, two things, meat is absolutely full of saturated fat, and while indeed a source of protein, definately not the best source of protein we have access to (broccoli, for example, contains higher amounts of protein pr. gram, with an index of almost no fat at all). Meat has high amounts of cholesterol as well.

I'm certainly more in favour of hunting for food than I am for factory farming, obviously, but I don't think there are many excuses for killing an animal, just as I do not think there are many excuses for killing a human being. Self-defense being one of the only I can think of.
User avatar #647 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Ok then why kill plants? Or fungi? Those are living things, why should we be eating them? If you say that animals do so, they also eat other animals to survive. Why not just let ourselves starve, because no matter what we do, something living ALWAYS dies. You must be against fishing too.
#658 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I am certainly against fishing too.

Because plants, fungi, algae, bacteria, vira et cetera does not have brains or complex central nervous systems. They do not have a sense of awareness, which animals do. All animals does to some extent have wishes and desires like you and me (yes, even jellyfish and insects, although of course to a lesser extent than mammals), while plants, fungi, algae... do not.

Also, let me make an important note, I am not saying that if you were on an uninhabited island, where only you and a sheep lived, that you were not allowed to eat the sheep. I don't think I personally could get myself to do it, but that would be self-defense and highly understandable. I would not judge you in any way based on that.
User avatar #672 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Actually www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-83446,00.html

They do have a form of sense, and you do not need a complex nervous system OR brain to feel pain. Basic animals like worms, planaria, nemotodes, ect can feel pain, and do not have brains or complex nervous systems. In fact, picking mushrooms means you are removing their FRUITING BODY, their only way to reproduce. Didn't know they produce sexually too, did you?

The thing is that every living thing can sense pain or danger, and their still eaten. Living beings kill other living beings for food. It's always been like that, humans are just the first to question a cycle that has gone on forever.
#762 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Sense is not equal to awareness. They can react to stimuli, I am in no way disputing this, but they are not aware of the external world, and even less so, their internal worlds (emotions, desires etc.). Also what do you mean "produce sexually"? Of course I know, every being that does not rely on cloning itself (like strawberries) reproduce sexually.

Plants can react to stimuli which is harmful to their continued existence; they do not feel pain. By saying you feel pain, you are inferring a sense of feeling, which is not present in plants, as they do not have a brain or complex central nervous system. Why is this needed, you might ask. It's simple; without a CNS or a brain, the organism has no centralised understanding of anything. This means that a single vine can move towards sunlight, but there is no decisionmaking taking place; there is only that which the plant is coded to do as a reaction to certain stimuli. You might argue that this is actually what happens with insects as well, but that is a much more complicated argument, which might not have a clear-cut answer.

Indeed, we are the first to question the cycle. Why is this? Because we have a civilised sense of morals, and we have an explicit possibility of making decisions. Animals do not, animals do not evolve technologically. They have to rely on their natural instinct to survive, we do not. The lion needs to kill the gazelle to survive, but we do not need to kill the cow to survive.
#564 - I don't quite catch you, buddy. You started thumbing me down, …  [+] (2 new replies) 12/07/2013 on tsk -1
User avatar #567 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
I thumbed down any stupid points you made, you thumbed down anything I said, even when it wasn't to you
#569 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I thumbed down all your stupid points too.

That being everything you've said <3
#561 - They are hunters though. Also, it feels good to see such anger in you.  [+] (2 new replies) 12/07/2013 on tsk -1
User avatar #565 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Those are game hunters, not real hunters. Ok using your logic, we can call terrorsits soldiers right? Because they're a type of soldiers? Then we can say all soldiers are evil and kill innocents?
#787 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Terrorists are not soldiers, no. They do not share definition. A hunter refers simply to a human being who kills wild animals, regardless of method, weapon and reason. Instead of your soldier example, I can give you one that would've been controversial less than a hundred years ago, that all black people are human beings, and therefore human rights apply to them.

In a way, what you are saying is that only white people are real humans (only food hunters (one specific kind of hunter) are real hunters. I know my example is a bit far fetched, so don't take it too literally.
#547 - Let me just point this out, because apparently people are too …  [+] (4 new replies) 12/07/2013 on tsk 0
User avatar #557 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
No we don't, you just make shitty assumptions to try and cover your ass. Lions aren't hunted because their not a steady source of food, especially if you live anywhere else in the world. Most any animal looks "majestic" and that's why hunters respect them and use the body respectfully. You just bank on those idiotic "game hunters" that play with the carcass and act like idiots. Those aren't hunters.
#561 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
They are hunters though. Also, it feels good to see such anger in you.
User avatar #565 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Those are game hunters, not real hunters. Ok using your logic, we can call terrorsits soldiers right? Because they're a type of soldiers? Then we can say all soldiers are evil and kill innocents?
#787 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Terrorists are not soldiers, no. They do not share definition. A hunter refers simply to a human being who kills wild animals, regardless of method, weapon and reason. Instead of your soldier example, I can give you one that would've been controversial less than a hundred years ago, that all black people are human beings, and therefore human rights apply to them.

In a way, what you are saying is that only white people are real humans (only food hunters (one specific kind of hunter) are real hunters. I know my example is a bit far fetched, so don't take it too literally.
#542 - No problem. 12/07/2013 on tsk 0
#541 - I am talking about hunting-hunting. As in, civilian hunting. P…  [+] (12 new replies) 12/07/2013 on tsk -1
User avatar #552 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
And it looks like you're gettign pretty pissed off by thumbing down everything. Helps you fell better?
#564 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I don't quite catch you, buddy. You started thumbing me down, so I thumbed you down in return.
User avatar #567 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
I thumbed down any stupid points you made, you thumbed down anything I said, even when it wasn't to you
#569 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I thumbed down all your stupid points too.

That being everything you've said <3
User avatar #551 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Ok now you're just spouting bullshit, and I have to stop you there. Killing rabbits for pest control is STILL HUNTING, the rabbits are then cooked or skinned and stuffed.

And yes, large portions of people STILL kill for food. Two of my friends never have to buy meat ever, because one has a full family of hunters and enough deer, elk, and moose meat to supply them. YOU just assume it's all about the murder and ignore a big part of hunting. Hunters are respectful for their kill, it's not "bloodlust".

And hunting for sport is about a test of skill.
You're just so hung up on the killing part you assume every hunter is some psychopath obsessed with murder and bloodshed. Next time don't argue with ignorance.
#568 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
You don't have to eat meat to survive at all, so that argument kind of falls to the ground. That's just a way of justifying your acts.

Hunting is NOT. A. SPORT. Test of skill, indeed, but you have an objective, as you are stating, if you wish to argue you do it for food. I don't call going to work to earn money a test of skill or "sport".
User avatar #571 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
So why do we still sell meat? A LOT of foods aren't necessary but we eat them, plus meat is a great source of protein prepared naturally without all the fatty crap put into it. I

If you listened, I don't agree with sport hunting, I agree with hunting for food. I just listed why THEY call it sport. I don't "justify killing" I say there is no issue getting your own food through other means. Do they torture the animal? No. Do they force feed the animal? NO.
#644 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
We sell meat because meat tastes good, and we have a lot of cultural ties to meat. Also, two things, meat is absolutely full of saturated fat, and while indeed a source of protein, definately not the best source of protein we have access to (broccoli, for example, contains higher amounts of protein pr. gram, with an index of almost no fat at all). Meat has high amounts of cholesterol as well.

I'm certainly more in favour of hunting for food than I am for factory farming, obviously, but I don't think there are many excuses for killing an animal, just as I do not think there are many excuses for killing a human being. Self-defense being one of the only I can think of.
User avatar #647 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Ok then why kill plants? Or fungi? Those are living things, why should we be eating them? If you say that animals do so, they also eat other animals to survive. Why not just let ourselves starve, because no matter what we do, something living ALWAYS dies. You must be against fishing too.
#658 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I am certainly against fishing too.

Because plants, fungi, algae, bacteria, vira et cetera does not have brains or complex central nervous systems. They do not have a sense of awareness, which animals do. All animals does to some extent have wishes and desires like you and me (yes, even jellyfish and insects, although of course to a lesser extent than mammals), while plants, fungi, algae... do not.

Also, let me make an important note, I am not saying that if you were on an uninhabited island, where only you and a sheep lived, that you were not allowed to eat the sheep. I don't think I personally could get myself to do it, but that would be self-defense and highly understandable. I would not judge you in any way based on that.
User avatar #672 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Actually www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-83446,00.html

They do have a form of sense, and you do not need a complex nervous system OR brain to feel pain. Basic animals like worms, planaria, nemotodes, ect can feel pain, and do not have brains or complex nervous systems. In fact, picking mushrooms means you are removing their FRUITING BODY, their only way to reproduce. Didn't know they produce sexually too, did you?

The thing is that every living thing can sense pain or danger, and their still eaten. Living beings kill other living beings for food. It's always been like that, humans are just the first to question a cycle that has gone on forever.
#762 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Sense is not equal to awareness. They can react to stimuli, I am in no way disputing this, but they are not aware of the external world, and even less so, their internal worlds (emotions, desires etc.). Also what do you mean "produce sexually"? Of course I know, every being that does not rely on cloning itself (like strawberries) reproduce sexually.

Plants can react to stimuli which is harmful to their continued existence; they do not feel pain. By saying you feel pain, you are inferring a sense of feeling, which is not present in plants, as they do not have a brain or complex central nervous system. Why is this needed, you might ask. It's simple; without a CNS or a brain, the organism has no centralised understanding of anything. This means that a single vine can move towards sunlight, but there is no decisionmaking taking place; there is only that which the plant is coded to do as a reaction to certain stimuli. You might argue that this is actually what happens with insects as well, but that is a much more complicated argument, which might not have a clear-cut answer.

Indeed, we are the first to question the cycle. Why is this? Because we have a civilised sense of morals, and we have an explicit possibility of making decisions. Animals do not, animals do not evolve technologically. They have to rely on their natural instinct to survive, we do not. The lion needs to kill the gazelle to survive, but we do not need to kill the cow to survive.
#529 - I see. I would like to say my mistake, but you did make that q…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/07/2013 on tsk -1
#539 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Sorry, i read your post but i had kept the ideas of rabbits in my mind instead of lions.
#542 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
No problem.
#521 - Lions are protected from hunting because they taste good and a…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/07/2013 on tsk -2
#522 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Was talking about rabbits.
#529 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I see. I would like to say my mistake, but you did make that quite unclear.

Also, lion may taste quite well, and would be easy to catch, so that should save the trouble.
#539 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Sorry, i read your post but i had kept the ideas of rabbits in my mind instead of lions.
#542 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
No problem.
#514 - Alright, fair enough. Not aware. Let me change my example to r…  [+] (23 new replies) 12/07/2013 on tsk -1
User avatar #524 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Rabbits are killed for pest control in most areas. They're so bad that it's basically become an occupation in countries like Australia.

We started killing animals for food, with basic weapons. We used guns to take out bigger animals that would otherwise kill us. In older days, danger from wolves and coyotes was also present. It WAS self defense and food supply.

Some people still kill for food, because they like natural meat, and they go after animals that aren't going to become extinct anytime soon. Again, food supply. And in where I am, we do have moose and elk wander into the city and attack.

We do NOT kill out of desire, but out of food. Game hunting I don't believe in, but hunting for food I support completely. The lions are apex predators and shouldn't be killed, for what it might do to increase their prey's population. And I never said they were protected, the guy pointed out it's not a fair hunt by any hunter's standards, she killed a motionless target, which is not a sportsman attitude.
#541 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I am talking about hunting-hunting. As in, civilian hunting. Pest-control and food (back when hunting was needed for food) not included.

We do NOT kill for food, but out of desire. Even people who claim to do it for food are lying. Tribals killing for food is something different, because these people rely on it for food. In modern life, people kill because they like a taste, and this too is pleasure, but that's irrelevant, because no one gets into hunting if they don't enjoy pulling the trigger and ending a life.

Also >sportsman attitude
Killing is not a sport, period.
User avatar #552 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
And it looks like you're gettign pretty pissed off by thumbing down everything. Helps you fell better?
#564 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I don't quite catch you, buddy. You started thumbing me down, so I thumbed you down in return.
User avatar #567 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
I thumbed down any stupid points you made, you thumbed down anything I said, even when it wasn't to you
#569 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I thumbed down all your stupid points too.

That being everything you've said <3
User avatar #551 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Ok now you're just spouting bullshit, and I have to stop you there. Killing rabbits for pest control is STILL HUNTING, the rabbits are then cooked or skinned and stuffed.

And yes, large portions of people STILL kill for food. Two of my friends never have to buy meat ever, because one has a full family of hunters and enough deer, elk, and moose meat to supply them. YOU just assume it's all about the murder and ignore a big part of hunting. Hunters are respectful for their kill, it's not "bloodlust".

And hunting for sport is about a test of skill.
You're just so hung up on the killing part you assume every hunter is some psychopath obsessed with murder and bloodshed. Next time don't argue with ignorance.
#568 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
You don't have to eat meat to survive at all, so that argument kind of falls to the ground. That's just a way of justifying your acts.

Hunting is NOT. A. SPORT. Test of skill, indeed, but you have an objective, as you are stating, if you wish to argue you do it for food. I don't call going to work to earn money a test of skill or "sport".
User avatar #571 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
So why do we still sell meat? A LOT of foods aren't necessary but we eat them, plus meat is a great source of protein prepared naturally without all the fatty crap put into it. I

If you listened, I don't agree with sport hunting, I agree with hunting for food. I just listed why THEY call it sport. I don't "justify killing" I say there is no issue getting your own food through other means. Do they torture the animal? No. Do they force feed the animal? NO.
#644 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
We sell meat because meat tastes good, and we have a lot of cultural ties to meat. Also, two things, meat is absolutely full of saturated fat, and while indeed a source of protein, definately not the best source of protein we have access to (broccoli, for example, contains higher amounts of protein pr. gram, with an index of almost no fat at all). Meat has high amounts of cholesterol as well.

I'm certainly more in favour of hunting for food than I am for factory farming, obviously, but I don't think there are many excuses for killing an animal, just as I do not think there are many excuses for killing a human being. Self-defense being one of the only I can think of.
User avatar #647 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Ok then why kill plants? Or fungi? Those are living things, why should we be eating them? If you say that animals do so, they also eat other animals to survive. Why not just let ourselves starve, because no matter what we do, something living ALWAYS dies. You must be against fishing too.
#658 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I am certainly against fishing too.

Because plants, fungi, algae, bacteria, vira et cetera does not have brains or complex central nervous systems. They do not have a sense of awareness, which animals do. All animals does to some extent have wishes and desires like you and me (yes, even jellyfish and insects, although of course to a lesser extent than mammals), while plants, fungi, algae... do not.

Also, let me make an important note, I am not saying that if you were on an uninhabited island, where only you and a sheep lived, that you were not allowed to eat the sheep. I don't think I personally could get myself to do it, but that would be self-defense and highly understandable. I would not judge you in any way based on that.
User avatar #672 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Actually www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-83446,00.html

They do have a form of sense, and you do not need a complex nervous system OR brain to feel pain. Basic animals like worms, planaria, nemotodes, ect can feel pain, and do not have brains or complex nervous systems. In fact, picking mushrooms means you are removing their FRUITING BODY, their only way to reproduce. Didn't know they produce sexually too, did you?

The thing is that every living thing can sense pain or danger, and their still eaten. Living beings kill other living beings for food. It's always been like that, humans are just the first to question a cycle that has gone on forever.
#762 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Sense is not equal to awareness. They can react to stimuli, I am in no way disputing this, but they are not aware of the external world, and even less so, their internal worlds (emotions, desires etc.). Also what do you mean "produce sexually"? Of course I know, every being that does not rely on cloning itself (like strawberries) reproduce sexually.

Plants can react to stimuli which is harmful to their continued existence; they do not feel pain. By saying you feel pain, you are inferring a sense of feeling, which is not present in plants, as they do not have a brain or complex central nervous system. Why is this needed, you might ask. It's simple; without a CNS or a brain, the organism has no centralised understanding of anything. This means that a single vine can move towards sunlight, but there is no decisionmaking taking place; there is only that which the plant is coded to do as a reaction to certain stimuli. You might argue that this is actually what happens with insects as well, but that is a much more complicated argument, which might not have a clear-cut answer.

Indeed, we are the first to question the cycle. Why is this? Because we have a civilised sense of morals, and we have an explicit possibility of making decisions. Animals do not, animals do not evolve technologically. They have to rely on their natural instinct to survive, we do not. The lion needs to kill the gazelle to survive, but we do not need to kill the cow to survive.
#519 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
They taste good and are hard to catch.
User avatar #528 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Dude they're barely hard to catch.
#537 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Rabbits? Depends on your aim tbh, if you miss you can say goodbye to that rabbit. Or i guess you could lay traps, but that takes a few days on its own.
User avatar #538 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Ya I was talking traps. Sorry about confusion.
#521 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Lions are protected from hunting because they taste good and are hard to catch?

That seems like a good argument why it's fair to hunt them.



Read what you reply to, you nigga.
#522 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Was talking about rabbits.
#529 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I see. I would like to say my mistake, but you did make that quite unclear.

Also, lion may taste quite well, and would be easy to catch, so that should save the trouble.
#539 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Sorry, i read your post but i had kept the ideas of rabbits in my mind instead of lions.
#542 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
No problem.
#85 - I thought there was fun moments, but overall it was just a bun…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/07/2013 on Cactus 0
User avatar #103 - fartingnachosuace (12/07/2013) [-]
I'm girl female and hate twilight
#114 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
edward is kill
#506 - "cowardly" No matter how aggressive any ani…  [+] (36 new replies) 12/07/2013 on tsk -4
User avatar #556 - PVTDickStryker (12/07/2013) [-]
Hunting is alright, nothing wrong with it if you dont waste the body, even less when you have to do it to put food on the table. The only thing that's wrong with "modern hunters" is that they feel like such hot shit when they blow the brains out of something that only knows how to eat, shit, sleep, and mate with a long-range rifle that has tech smarter than the user. If you're hunting for sport while using a weapon meant to practically make you a god compared to what you're "hunting," you're a Goddamned coward.
#547 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Let me just point this out, because apparently people are too butthurt about me being anti-hunting so I don't really have anything to lose.


You are all against hunting lions because you have a relationship to the lion. You think the lion is cute, it's like a cat, so it's a bit like that pet of your's too. Also, it looks majestic and such. Now, bring the red thumbs, you know you want to.
User avatar #557 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
No we don't, you just make shitty assumptions to try and cover your ass. Lions aren't hunted because their not a steady source of food, especially if you live anywhere else in the world. Most any animal looks "majestic" and that's why hunters respect them and use the body respectfully. You just bank on those idiotic "game hunters" that play with the carcass and act like idiots. Those aren't hunters.
#561 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
They are hunters though. Also, it feels good to see such anger in you.
User avatar #565 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Those are game hunters, not real hunters. Ok using your logic, we can call terrorsits soldiers right? Because they're a type of soldiers? Then we can say all soldiers are evil and kill innocents?
#787 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Terrorists are not soldiers, no. They do not share definition. A hunter refers simply to a human being who kills wild animals, regardless of method, weapon and reason. Instead of your soldier example, I can give you one that would've been controversial less than a hundred years ago, that all black people are human beings, and therefore human rights apply to them.

In a way, what you are saying is that only white people are real humans (only food hunters (one specific kind of hunter) are real hunters. I know my example is a bit far fetched, so don't take it too literally.
User avatar #510 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Are you an idiot?
gizmodo.com/5883606/fear-the-deernatures-unstoppable-killing-machines
Deer can be incredibly dangerous, especially if they charge you. And for the gun, good look keeping a steady shot before that deer gets too close. Moose, deer, elk, all are capable of killing people easily. Hell, moose can total a car.

We don't have guns for an unfair advantage, we have them to level the playing field.
User avatar #558 - PVTDickStryker (12/07/2013) [-]
Such a level playing field Boar Hunting With MINI GUN
#562 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
That's not a hunter, that's a dipshit with a minigun. If you knew anything about hunting you'd know that using that is ILLEGAL HUNTING PRACTICE. The rifle in this picture is what should be used. It needs to be used carefully, properly, and with intelligence, or you end up on the ground with a pissed off animal coming at you.

The face that you resort to that video lets me know that you have nothing good to say
User avatar #570 - PVTDickStryker (12/07/2013) [-]
Alright, fair enough.
Although, would you please remind me how offing something kilometers away before it can even see you count's as a "level playing field?" Last time I checked, as dangerous as moose, deer, and elk are, none can instantly kill you from a distance you cant do shit about.
User avatar #579 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
There's also requirements of a hunting rifle:
-physical ability
-brain power
-proper stance
-bullets
-working mechanics
Guns are loud, can fail, miss, go through without delivering a killing blow (don't cause as much internal damage as a spear or arrow) and can just fuck up. I'd honestly have an animal shot with a gun too, considering how a proper shot can cause less suffering than a shot with other weapons (some broad heads are just torture)
User avatar #577 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Just called up my buddy. Maximum effective range for a hunting rifle, providing there's no wind: 500 yards. Don't exaggerate it so much, there's no way you'd even SEE the target from kilometers away. At that distance, all it takes is alerting the animal or missing the shot, and they charge. And shooting at a charging animal is bad idea, usually ending in injury.
#514 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Alright, fair enough. Not aware. Let me change my example to rabbits then, which are also common hunting prey.

"level the playing field"

Please explain this example, as I don't quite get it. We don't kill for self-defense, so I don't really see what you mean. We use guns so we can get to kill animals because we like to kill animals. This gives us an unfair advantage as all we have to do is sit in a fucking bush and wait for something to move and we hit it right between the eyes without it even noticing us. This is an unfair advantage.

Also, animals kill out of necessity. We kill out of desire.


But that's cool, if you're pro-hunting, I can do nothing to stop you. I just want you to explain why lions are somehow "protected" from this game.
User avatar #524 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Rabbits are killed for pest control in most areas. They're so bad that it's basically become an occupation in countries like Australia.

We started killing animals for food, with basic weapons. We used guns to take out bigger animals that would otherwise kill us. In older days, danger from wolves and coyotes was also present. It WAS self defense and food supply.

Some people still kill for food, because they like natural meat, and they go after animals that aren't going to become extinct anytime soon. Again, food supply. And in where I am, we do have moose and elk wander into the city and attack.

We do NOT kill out of desire, but out of food. Game hunting I don't believe in, but hunting for food I support completely. The lions are apex predators and shouldn't be killed, for what it might do to increase their prey's population. And I never said they were protected, the guy pointed out it's not a fair hunt by any hunter's standards, she killed a motionless target, which is not a sportsman attitude.
#541 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I am talking about hunting-hunting. As in, civilian hunting. Pest-control and food (back when hunting was needed for food) not included.

We do NOT kill for food, but out of desire. Even people who claim to do it for food are lying. Tribals killing for food is something different, because these people rely on it for food. In modern life, people kill because they like a taste, and this too is pleasure, but that's irrelevant, because no one gets into hunting if they don't enjoy pulling the trigger and ending a life.

Also >sportsman attitude
Killing is not a sport, period.
User avatar #552 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
And it looks like you're gettign pretty pissed off by thumbing down everything. Helps you fell better?
#564 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I don't quite catch you, buddy. You started thumbing me down, so I thumbed you down in return.
User avatar #567 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
I thumbed down any stupid points you made, you thumbed down anything I said, even when it wasn't to you
#569 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I thumbed down all your stupid points too.

That being everything you've said <3
User avatar #551 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Ok now you're just spouting bullshit, and I have to stop you there. Killing rabbits for pest control is STILL HUNTING, the rabbits are then cooked or skinned and stuffed.

And yes, large portions of people STILL kill for food. Two of my friends never have to buy meat ever, because one has a full family of hunters and enough deer, elk, and moose meat to supply them. YOU just assume it's all about the murder and ignore a big part of hunting. Hunters are respectful for their kill, it's not "bloodlust".

And hunting for sport is about a test of skill.
You're just so hung up on the killing part you assume every hunter is some psychopath obsessed with murder and bloodshed. Next time don't argue with ignorance.
#568 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
You don't have to eat meat to survive at all, so that argument kind of falls to the ground. That's just a way of justifying your acts.

Hunting is NOT. A. SPORT. Test of skill, indeed, but you have an objective, as you are stating, if you wish to argue you do it for food. I don't call going to work to earn money a test of skill or "sport".
User avatar #571 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
So why do we still sell meat? A LOT of foods aren't necessary but we eat them, plus meat is a great source of protein prepared naturally without all the fatty crap put into it. I

If you listened, I don't agree with sport hunting, I agree with hunting for food. I just listed why THEY call it sport. I don't "justify killing" I say there is no issue getting your own food through other means. Do they torture the animal? No. Do they force feed the animal? NO.
#644 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
We sell meat because meat tastes good, and we have a lot of cultural ties to meat. Also, two things, meat is absolutely full of saturated fat, and while indeed a source of protein, definately not the best source of protein we have access to (broccoli, for example, contains higher amounts of protein pr. gram, with an index of almost no fat at all). Meat has high amounts of cholesterol as well.

I'm certainly more in favour of hunting for food than I am for factory farming, obviously, but I don't think there are many excuses for killing an animal, just as I do not think there are many excuses for killing a human being. Self-defense being one of the only I can think of.
User avatar #647 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Ok then why kill plants? Or fungi? Those are living things, why should we be eating them? If you say that animals do so, they also eat other animals to survive. Why not just let ourselves starve, because no matter what we do, something living ALWAYS dies. You must be against fishing too.
#658 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I am certainly against fishing too.

Because plants, fungi, algae, bacteria, vira et cetera does not have brains or complex central nervous systems. They do not have a sense of awareness, which animals do. All animals does to some extent have wishes and desires like you and me (yes, even jellyfish and insects, although of course to a lesser extent than mammals), while plants, fungi, algae... do not.

Also, let me make an important note, I am not saying that if you were on an uninhabited island, where only you and a sheep lived, that you were not allowed to eat the sheep. I don't think I personally could get myself to do it, but that would be self-defense and highly understandable. I would not judge you in any way based on that.
User avatar #672 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Actually www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-83446,00.html

They do have a form of sense, and you do not need a complex nervous system OR brain to feel pain. Basic animals like worms, planaria, nemotodes, ect can feel pain, and do not have brains or complex nervous systems. In fact, picking mushrooms means you are removing their FRUITING BODY, their only way to reproduce. Didn't know they produce sexually too, did you?

The thing is that every living thing can sense pain or danger, and their still eaten. Living beings kill other living beings for food. It's always been like that, humans are just the first to question a cycle that has gone on forever.
#762 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Sense is not equal to awareness. They can react to stimuli, I am in no way disputing this, but they are not aware of the external world, and even less so, their internal worlds (emotions, desires etc.). Also what do you mean "produce sexually"? Of course I know, every being that does not rely on cloning itself (like strawberries) reproduce sexually.

Plants can react to stimuli which is harmful to their continued existence; they do not feel pain. By saying you feel pain, you are inferring a sense of feeling, which is not present in plants, as they do not have a brain or complex central nervous system. Why is this needed, you might ask. It's simple; without a CNS or a brain, the organism has no centralised understanding of anything. This means that a single vine can move towards sunlight, but there is no decisionmaking taking place; there is only that which the plant is coded to do as a reaction to certain stimuli. You might argue that this is actually what happens with insects as well, but that is a much more complicated argument, which might not have a clear-cut answer.

Indeed, we are the first to question the cycle. Why is this? Because we have a civilised sense of morals, and we have an explicit possibility of making decisions. Animals do not, animals do not evolve technologically. They have to rely on their natural instinct to survive, we do not. The lion needs to kill the gazelle to survive, but we do not need to kill the cow to survive.
#519 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
They taste good and are hard to catch.
User avatar #528 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Dude they're barely hard to catch.
#537 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Rabbits? Depends on your aim tbh, if you miss you can say goodbye to that rabbit. Or i guess you could lay traps, but that takes a few days on its own.
User avatar #538 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Ya I was talking traps. Sorry about confusion.
#521 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Lions are protected from hunting because they taste good and are hard to catch?

That seems like a good argument why it's fair to hunt them.



Read what you reply to, you nigga.
#522 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Was talking about rabbits.
#529 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I see. I would like to say my mistake, but you did make that quite unclear.

Also, lion may taste quite well, and would be easy to catch, so that should save the trouble.
#539 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Sorry, i read your post but i had kept the ideas of rabbits in my mind instead of lions.
#542 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
No problem.
#502 - Except she doesn't. 12/07/2013 on tsk 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 3985 / Total items point value: 5760

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)