I always find animal cruelty horrible but feel a hypocrite for eating meat.
Animal cruelty isn't the same as slaughtering animals for food. I think slashing an animals throat and letting it bleed out is pretty cruel. Anything else seems like double standards. What about killing a dog then eating it? Killing a dog and then eating it, if the killing is isn't cruel ( where do they slash cow throats? Seems like an outdated way of slaughter ) is ok, yes. It is outdated but its an effective method. They kill all cows and chickens etc like this. Usually hang em upside down to bleed out. Cows and Sheep usually get a bolt gun to the head first, chickens don't. There's no bolt guns in Halal meat though, just the straight throat slash. I always find animal cruelty horrible but feel a hypocrite for eating meat.
Animal cruelty isn't the same as slaughtering animals for food. This is spot on! ^^ Don't compare cruel torture and killing of animal for sadistic fun with killing an animal for food. food is a neccesity and you can say veagan all you wan't but the fact is humans need meat. Why do you think you have canine teeth? it's not for tearing a carrot apart it is for tearing flesh. I wonder how many of you animal lovers here are vegans? Yeah, killing puppies for fun isn't nice, and people get really upset about dogs, but hypocritically usually don't mind killing other animals.
Other cultures kill animals such as dogs and cats on a daily basis...do i agree with it? No We kill cows that some people find sacred. Besides killing for food is one thing throwing a puppy into a river serves what purpose? Your comment makes ZERO sense. No, it makes sense. And isn't killing an animal killing an animal regardless of intent? And maybe throwing a puppy in a river is fun and entertainment to some. Many people hunt for fun and entertainment. Sometimes to eat sometimes not. My point only makes no sense if you're close-minded and unable to see from an impartial viewpoint. What if the guy at the slaughterhouse takes pleasure in killing or torturing the animals or just enjoys his job? Is that then wrong? I guess you take pleasure in eating them, is that wrong? I'm sure vegans could argue that you're being sadistic to condone it, but my point was that there's a certain amount of hypocrisy when it comes to what animals we do and don't eat or the way they're killed and my point still stands. I can also eat you with my teeth too, but there's a morality question involved, but vegans hold this morality to animals too. Humans have superior brains and consciences as well, vegans might argue we should use them. Doesnt matter if the guy at the slaughter hose has fun or not...the purpose of killing there is for food. Again throwing puppies into a river serves no purpose and the comparison doesn't stand. You say killing is killing it's not 1 is survival while the other is to satisfy an insane person. That's your own biased opinion. Throwing puppies into a river might be entertaining just as hunting is or swatting flies. We don't need to eat meat for survival either. We're not in the wild any more. In fact, eating most meat is pretty bad for you, and there are far healthier diets available that don't involve meat.
Couldn't have said it better myself, this guy gets it. It's hard fending off these activists, phahaha.
I'm not an activist, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, but it's only hard for morons who can't see past their own bias or see from an alternative viewpoint or make a argument, but I wouldn't expect you to make a constructive post or point anyway. |
|
|
|
I always find animal cruelty horrible but feel a hypocrite for eating meat.
Animal cruelty isn't the same as slaughtering animals for food. I think slashing an animals throat and letting it bleed out is pretty cruel. Anything else seems like double standards. What about killing a dog then eating it? Killing a dog and then eating it, if the killing is isn't cruel ( where do they slash cow throats? Seems like an outdated way of slaughter ) is ok, yes. It is outdated but its an effective method. They kill all cows and chickens etc like this. Usually hang em upside down to bleed out. Cows and Sheep usually get a bolt gun to the head first, chickens don't. There's no bolt guns in Halal meat though, just the straight throat slash. I always find animal cruelty horrible but feel a hypocrite for eating meat.
Animal cruelty isn't the same as slaughtering animals for food. This is spot on! ^^ Don't compare cruel torture and killing of animal for sadistic fun with killing an animal for food. food is a neccesity and you can say veagan all you wan't but the fact is humans need meat. Why do you think you have canine teeth? it's not for tearing a carrot apart it is for tearing flesh. I wonder how many of you animal lovers here are vegans? Yeah, killing puppies for fun isn't nice, and people get really upset about dogs, but hypocritically usually don't mind killing other animals.
Other cultures kill animals such as dogs and cats on a daily basis...do i agree with it? No We kill cows that some people find sacred. Besides killing for food is one thing throwing a puppy into a river serves what purpose? Your comment makes ZERO sense. No, it makes sense. And isn't killing an animal killing an animal regardless of intent? And maybe throwing a puppy in a river is fun and entertainment to some. Many people hunt for fun and entertainment. Sometimes to eat sometimes not. My point only makes no sense if you're close-minded and unable to see from an impartial viewpoint. What if the guy at the slaughterhouse takes pleasure in killing or torturing the animals or just enjoys his job? Is that then wrong? I guess you take pleasure in eating them, is that wrong? I'm sure vegans could argue that you're being sadistic to condone it, but my point was that there's a certain amount of hypocrisy when it comes to what animals we do and don't eat or the way they're killed and my point still stands. I can also eat you with my teeth too, but there's a morality question involved, but vegans hold this morality to animals too. Humans have superior brains and consciences as well, vegans might argue we should use them. |
|
|
|
:-) I am pretty sure Stunna should change #1 post.
As there are misinformations.
48h it is not > 72h.
I understand that he have a lot of work. Like all of uf has. But I thought that Stunna is working as a pro. Now I am notsure.
In my life when I am telling I will do something in two days it is two not more than 3 days :-)
Or if I have a delay I am informing people how long this delay will take.
This what happened this month is not professional.
Jesus Christ, stop whining. Sometimes I order stuff online and it says please allow up 3-4 days for delivery but I don't start crying after it isn't here on the 5th day. As far as I'm aware payments have always been within 2 days but he's understandably busy with PD3 and now probably busy checking for scammers. Just wait, and if you don't like it other deals are available. |
|
|
|
I always find animal cruelty horrible but feel a hypocrite for eating meat.
Animal cruelty isn't the same as slaughtering animals for food. I think slashing an animals throat and letting it bleed out is pretty cruel. Anything else seems like double standards. What about killing a dog then eating it? |
|
|
|
If I owned a restaurant, I'd add a QR code on the bill. It would be an optional feature.
[/quote] That would be kinda cool. It'd be great to tip the waiters in Bitcoins as well. |
|
|
|
Never heard of her on the band before but I like her voice. |
|
|
|
I wonder how many of you animal lovers here are vegans? Yeah, killing puppies for fun isn't nice, and people get really upset about dogs, but hypocritically usually don't mind killing other animals.
I'm not going to lie. I'm a full-force Omnivore. This is what a vegan is, if people didn't know: A vegan does not eat meat, poultry, fish, eggs or dairy products.If you're eating something, 99% of the time it's dead. We're always going to kill something, that being meat, poultry, or fish. Or taking something from a animal, as in eggs or milk. Vegans eat vegetation, just like vegetarians, no? Something is always going to die. Anybody would be a hypocrite to say that everything they eat was not killed. I agree with some standards of animals being killed. But I rather not them experience animal cruelty, injustice, or anything a long the lines. (For example, the man who tried to kill his dog because he believed it wasn't heterosexual?) I think Veganism is generally a conscious decision about purposely not eating, using or consuming anything that has directly caused harm, distress or death to an animal, but are you trying to make a point that plants etc have been killed or just that somewhere down the line in consuming them an animal will have died inadvertently? The saddest part is that I guess I'm saying both. I wonder how many of you animal lovers here are vegans? Yeah, killing puppies for fun isn't nice, and people get really upset about dogs, but hypocritically usually don't mind killing other animals.
There's a huge difference between killing animals that we've killed for extremely long time for food and killing domesticated animals, that have been known to show emotion and incredible personalities. There definitely exists a hierarchy in the value of animal lives to humans, I'm not gonna be the one to deny that. Also a significant difference is torturing an animal to death and killing it in a procedure, painlessly. And before you tell me that there are poor living conditions for cows and pigs and such on farms all over the world, yes there are, but that also tends to get people upset, just like killing dogs. The hell are you talking about? EVERY animal and EVERY living thing has emotions. That's like saying, "It's okay to kill people of a particular culture, since many of them have died anyway." Pigs have emotions. Cows. By the way, most pigs and cows and other farm animals are domesticated. If the animal isn't, that doesn't give you a lot of right to kill it without proper cause. Plants might be technically 'living', but they're not sentient creatures so you can't compare the two. And Dogs and Cats are domesticated, or do you mean animals that have been selectively bred for the production and supply of food? |
|
|
|
I wonder how many of you animal lovers here are vegans? Yeah, killing puppies for fun isn't nice, and people get really upset about dogs, but hypocritically usually don't mind killing other animals.
I'm not going to lie. I'm a full-force Omnivore. This is what a vegan is, if people didn't know: A vegan does not eat meat, poultry, fish, eggs or dairy products.If you're eating something, 99% of the time it's dead. We're always going to kill something, that being meat, poultry, or fish. Or taking something from a animal, as in eggs or milk. Vegans eat vegetation, just like vegetarians, no? Something is always going to die. Anybody would be a hypocrite to say that everything they eat was not killed. I agree with some standards of animals being killed. But I rather not them experience animal cruelty, injustice, or anything a long the lines. (For example, the man who tried to kill his dog because he believed it wasn't heterosexual?) I think Veganism is generally a conscious decision about purposely not eating, using or consuming anything that has directly caused harm, distress or death to an animal, but are you trying to make a point that plants etc have been killed or just that somewhere down the line in consuming them an animal will have died inadvertently? |
|
|
|
Good films that have Bruce Willis in the cast are very rare... Maybe the last good one was 6th Sense. Lol. Red (#1) was pretty good. Looper was ok too First Die Hard was great and the two that followed were decent. The two films he did with M Knight Shamalamadingdong are among his best in my opinion. I didn't like Looper. Red was shit. Haven't seen Red 2. |
|
|
|
Not sure if this is outdated info now, but: The way activity is calculated:The activity number is determined in this way:
time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration
activity = min(time * 14, posts)
Activity is updated every 30 minutes.
It's still relevant, though it confuses many haha. There's an in depth thread trying to explain it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495948.0Not confusing at all ^^ you need to be familiar with some math signs ^^ : I'll explain the formula for those who didn't get it Time*14 with time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration, so what does this means, if you have posted during a two week period you get a 1 time , so you'll get 1x14 let's imagine someone registered a month ago with active posting (minimum of one post per two week) so a month is 4 weeks, so the guys will get on this side of the equation 2x14=28 if he only posted in one of the two 2 weeks periode of the month periode he'll get only 1x14=14 Now what does Min(time*14,posts) means, it just means that activity will equal the minimum value between the number of posts and time*14, if we take the example we used above with time*14=28, if the guy posted only twice during that months period his post count would be 2 so the minimum between 28 and 2 is of course 2 and thus 2 will be activity, on the other hand if they guy posted lets 1K post during that month, it will be 28 and 1K and the minimum would 28 instead as it is the min It's confusing to some because people assume the two week period starts when they sign up or they don't realise one activity point doesn't necessarily come with each post. |
|
|
|
|
I wonder how many of you animal lovers here are vegans? Yeah, killing puppies for fun isn't nice, and people get really upset about dogs, but hypocritically usually don't mind killing other animals.
|
|
|
|
No, this is actually just FUD spread by Christians to try make some of their claims valid, when it's actually lies. Einstein being a Jew is irrelevant. Where is his work religious in inspiration? "Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_EinsteinCarl Sagan was essentially an agnostic but against religion. Do some research. You might want to read his The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God book. And I have literally no idea what you just said about Hawking, but he's probably the most atheistic of them all, regardless of whether he comes out and point blank says 'There is no God', but clearly you haven't read his book The Grand Design ( I recommend you do): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7979211/Has-Stephen-Hawking-ended-the-God-debate.htmlSo please stop trying to claim prominent scientists as your own to further give any credence to childish myths. FUD ? What are you talking about, I didn't get some opinioned post like you did here, I got facts and clear quotes from the people here 2) Being a Jew is not relevant? this claim is plainly stupid do you even read what are you saying here ? and just another fact since you say that 3) Einstein believes in Spinozas God isn't that God, The God and not many? as in the main 3 religions where non of them says that God is human? and where is his work religious is inspiration? you don't see two of the most well known example in modern science I've mentioned? if you don't understand those just ask for explanation but don't go in denial as if I didn't back up what I said with know facts 4) Carl Sagan against religion? he was during much of his life an Agnostic THEIST, if he wasn't why would he say "Atheism is stupid." and other quotes that you are just plainly ignoring it again obviously because you can't argue against it. My comment on Hawking is clear you can read and reread it, also claiming I didn't read a book is a proof on it self on how you make your own thing and believes it but does that makes a fact NO it does not. 5) And as I said in my previous comment that you did quote if you want me to remove Hawkins from that list, as he did NOT start a clear stance about it I have no problem with that, but on the other hand how come you are just plainly ignoring the dozen of prominent scientist I mentioned, and focusing on one of them only, see where again you self denial kicks in and you just ignore as proven above again what was written So please stop trying to claim prominent scientists as your own to further give any credence to childish myths. for reference lol. You're actually wrong on every single point you've tried to make. 1) I find this very ironic. Your post is both highly opinionated, incorrect and is fud because you claimed those scientists to be religious when in fact they're nothing of the sort and the ones I pointed out are either atheist or agnostic, hence FUD which you continue to try spread. You didn't get any clear quotes and aren’t dealing in any facts at all but just misinformed opinion and assumption. 2) Clearly you don't know the difference between an ethnic Jew and the religion. Sagan was a Jew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism3) No. You're getting confused just because it has the word god there. Clearly you're not familiar with Spinoza's 'God'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism God is not literally meant as a god just like in the phrase 'God doesn't play dice with the world'. God in this sense means nature / physical laws, not a person or being. You clearly have trouble dealing with literal and figurative meanings (as do most religious people) and you still haven’t provided me with anything that alludes to Sagan being a theist (which he wasn't). He was actually a non-theist, but maybe you got confused there. I also still don't understand how you just saying Einstein's work on light & general relativity is religious in nature, especially with nothing to back it up but your opinion, so no, it's not clear. Please elaborate. A quote from Sagan on Einstein and Spinoza's god: "Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws." A quote from Einstein: “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.” 4) Again, you are taking the 'atheism is stupid' quote out of context and misunderstanding its true meaning / intent. The full quote: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." He says atheism is stupid because according to him one cannot possibly know whether there is or isn’t a god. Charles Darwin also disliked the term atheist and didn't claim to be one. Are you going to try claim him as a prominent religious scientist now? If you read Sagan's works (clearly you haven't), whilst he never came out publicly and said he was an atheist, he was not a believer in religion or god, but to me he seems to be more of an atheistic agnostic, but if you watch this video from his lifelong friend James Randi he gives you an answer why Sagan never came out and said he was a full blown atheist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hqkxo9gXzA5) You provided a list of allegedly religious people and I knew instantly three of them were not. I've already proved that they were not religious and essentially non-religious, yet you still seem to think they are based on nothing but your own desires and misinformed understanding. My argument wasn't everybody on that list but the three, so the rest are irrelevant to this. You really seem to go on the defensive attack and project your denial on to other people here. I really don't understand what I'm meant to be in denial about as I've backed up my points and you've either failed to provide any proof or continually taken yours out of context or misunderstood them completely, not to mention just making stuff up just to suit your argument. Took you 2-3 days to comes with a reply hmm. sure 1-How my post is opinioned when I've clearly posted, what the scientist said and did, the scientists I listed are not religious? but I don't see you challenging that, the only ones you are talking about of the dozen I mentioned is one or two, how come? this on it own is a prove and an admitting from your side that those relevant scientist that changed the world are indeed religious. 2- there is no such thing as a ethnic Jew, and the prove, is that Jews are from everywhere in the world and that anyone can become a jew like with any other religion, Jewish is a religion, and some Zionists wants to make it or make it look as an ethnicity as it serves their interest. so no you are totally wrong again 3- Both your quote do not contradict in any mean what I said, I clearly said that Sagan is an Agnostic THEIST and you've quoted that, as for Spinoza I've read that before I commented on the matter, it is GOD, I do not believe god is a Person or a Being, as God creats persons and beings You can find this notion clearly said in Islam, Judaism, the only religion that partially assimilated God to human is Christianity and even whiting Christianity and it branches it is a very discussed point. Also stop giving your own explication on other people quote, especially when they are clear, that's opinioning the words (see what I'm talking about here) 4- You didn't prove that 3 of them were not, One of them was disputable, and I removed him, the other two are not, not rather than trying to avoid the matter and derail, how about proving the others were not religious go ahead I want to see you trying. I've got better and more pressing things to do than argue with a blind-sighted fool in continual denial who is impervious to facts or reason and can't construct an intelligible point or argument, so I'll refute your (non-)arguments when I've got time, but the duration it takes me to respond to your nonsense is a petty and puerile matter. Why don't you take a couple of days to comprehend what I'm saying and do some research or, you know, actually make a valid point or argument? You've yet again provided nothing satisfactory or refuted any of my points with any facts at all; just incorrect opinion. Seriously, you're either really no good at comprehending or processing the information and facts I've given you or you're stupidly in denial and doing your best to avoid answering my questions. 1) You haven't clearly done anything and it's opinionated because you haven't provided any evidence of your argument other than your own opinion which has been based on your misunderstanding of quotes that you've not understood the meaning or context of. You said Einstein's work was religious in nature but where is your proof? And listen to what I've got to say now: My argument is not and was never to disprove the entire list of scientists and philosophers you gave, my point was you included three ones that weren’t in any way religious. Do you understand that? You need to drop thinking that you're somehow onto a winning argument here. You're asking me to prove a square is a circle. I never said they were. If you cannot comprehend this then there's no point continuing. Your only argument here seems to be a point I never made. And I proved that not one or two but all three of the people I initially pointed out are not religious, but it's becoming clear nothing will convince you otherwise. 2) Ah, so you're an anti-semite? Again, this is your misinformed opinion. Saying Jews aren’t an ethnicity is absolutely moronic and there's a difference between the people and religion whether you think it or not. Again, your opinion is wrong. Anybody can join the Jewish faith, but it doesn't give you Jewish heritage or ancestry. How can Sagan be Jewish? How can Woody Allen or Sasha Baron Cohen be Jewish and also Atheists? Or are they not to you? Maybe all their work is inspired by god too? Do some reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions. Jews are Hebrews and originated from Israel and surrounding areas, but have since spread throughout the world like most ethnicities. 3) Little of that makes any sense so if you care to rephrase it I'll have a go at deciphering your point, but your opinion of Sagan is wrong, just like everything else. He wasn't a theist. Where have I quoted that? Please read and process the information of what I've said in my previous message. 4) Seriously, is that the only argument you've got here? You are trying to win an argument based on a point I'm not making. I've proved without doubt the three are not religious with quotes from all of them but you disregard these. You have not read any of their works at all. Read them then get back to me. Your insistence on still trying to say that Hawking’s religiosity is debatable or 'disputable' is laughable, but it's clear your denial is not going to let you drop this. If you can't disprove the points I've made above in my previous message and just want me to try prove to you that squares are circles then there's really no point continuing this, but I will continue to answer you points in my own time if you so wish to do so, but answering the same unsourced and unfounded crap is a little boring.
In this day and age such thing should be inadmissible, means of communication are available, technological resources as well all they need to do is work together and set milestones, also I don't understand why china was disregarded in this matter, instead of waving their epeens on geopolitical matters, people should work together to solve this problem especially in the beginning where there was a chance of survivors, it is really outraging that in this day and age we still such attitudes
Yes, but technology is not foolproof and all-knowing and omnipresent; accidents happen and people make mistakes. Human error is a factor in most accidents. |
|
|
|
Would be cool if more charity shops do this. It'll really get the older generation talking about it.
The good thing about charities and charity shops is that I think bitcoin enthusiasts like to spread awareness and adoption this way by donating so it's win win giving/spending money to charity really. |
|
|
|
We don't need a "leading exchange". We need exchanges where all customers can get money and Bitcoins in and out with no delays and no nonsense. All exchanges where assets flow easily in and out will converge on price, because any difference will cause arbitrage transactions to pull them together.
Very good point, in most cases it is very easy to get BTC and $ in, but getting it out easy is a different story. The exchange keeps control over us, which makes it less decentral. A two way ATM would be awesome, it must be easy to buy and sell BTC without a hassle. I have seen a review of an ATM where you need to wait so long in order to get your BTC that was horrible, at first the machine have to scan your ID card, then it wants your fingerprints, then a picture of your face, then you have to wait 10 minits for the machine to process everything, also not so decentral.... But there are also good ATMs, where you just scan the QR code, insert the money, and you have the BTC instantly, no ID card required, no fingerprints.... Perfect ATM  The whole identity scan thing is most likely due to laws It is, but it makes the process very tiresome and confusing for many. ATMs are meant to be quick and simple, not drawn out and complicated. To the new user it's annoying and off-putting. |
|
|
|
|
A blockchain.info account works just like a debit account. You can just send the money after scanning the merchants QR code, but debit style cards have been made by people already based on Paper Wallets / QR codes. I'd prefer just to use blockchain.info though.
|
|
|
|
We don't need a 'leadin' exchange but the market will determine it eventually.
The bigger the exchange gets the more problems it will incur, but I agree the people will decide what the best or leading market is to use based on the service they provide. |
|
|
|
If I were the mods I'd nuke his post history and give him a fresh account. If he wants to change his ways to something that isn't considered horrific spamming then he can do so.
NUKE IT! On the contrary, I've seen repeatedly that the old adage "A leopard cannot change its spots" is very true and eventually everyone gravitates back to their original nature. Having his post history - not just the number of posts but more importantly their content - in the open for everyone to see is far more useful. Meh. Nukem or just bust em down to Newbie again... 6 minutes per post... hmmm? Maybe putting people back / restricting them to the newbie jail for a while could be a good punishment. Persistent trolls or spammers could have their time limit between posts temporarily lengthened as well. |
|
|
|
Haven't received mine yet but I'm in no rush. Stunna:
Are you going to increase payouts?
Are you wanting to know whether to switch or not and scared you might miss out? haha. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
