Originally Posted by Zelda
So you would agree that the Chinese should fund preservation of Panda's? Otherwise your argument seems rather redundant. While perhaps Mintcat shouldn't hold the whole of humanity responsible for the near extinction of Pandas, it doesn't really matter who is to blame if you don't think anyone should be paying.
And about the mittens gag, I honestlh find your fashion sense more offensive than you panda based goods fetish. Fur mittens are bad enough on their own without giving animal rights agencies even more to whine about. On a seriouse note, stop saying stuff because either a) it is controversial or b) it will offend/piss off Mintcat. You're allowed to enjoy yourself but I would rather you don't do it by flame baiting vegitarians and panda lovers. If you take this joke any further I will censor that shit.
Thanks.
These "protected" Pandas can't figure out how to have sex on their own. Are we really doing them a favor by keeping them alive?
Hoss.
Hyde if you really want me to answer that: I don't know if Pandas enjoy life but I can't help but assume that they have a will to live (as most creatures do) even if such a survival instinct is wasted on an animal so completely useless at surviving. Nevertheless, we would be fullfiling their desire to live so yeah, I think it counts as a favour. Not that this means we are necessarily obliged to help, just that help would be nice for them.
Good morning sweet princess
Funnily enough if enough people started eating them their population would explode.
So you're still wrong about that.
Who cares if their useful? The fuck have we done for any species apart from our own so who gives a shit if a small fraction of one country want to preserve them?
Looking at it in a money point of view is frankly moronic. Money doesn't expire when used people still have jobs looking after them and earn money for it, the food for them is bought from companies so the money stays in circulation.
P.S who the fuck are we to decide which species are worthy... people want to keep them alive so let them, it will never effect you.
So you're still wrong about that.
Who cares if their useful? The fuck have we done for any species apart from our own so who gives a shit if a small fraction of one country want to preserve them?
Looking at it in a money point of view is frankly moronic. Money doesn't expire when used people still have jobs looking after them and earn money for it, the food for them is bought from companies so the money stays in circulation.
P.S who the fuck are we to decide which species are worthy... people want to keep them alive so let them, it will never effect you.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[4:37 PM] ponf: y'all might think i'm not wild enough to send dick pics over toribash[4:37 PM] ponf: you'd be wrong
uwu i wuv you uwu
Well. They are two ways to take. Obviously, one way is to save them. The more species we have, the better it is. Who knows maybe something good can come out of them. They will evolve. The second way, is much more grim. They shouldn't live because natural selection decided they should die. Humans may have destroyed their habitat but they should've been able to find more. Because none of the pandas could do what they needed to do to survive with the humans, they would die. Saving these animals isn't a bad thing, but it isn't a good thing either. It really all depends on your morals and view on societies and the impact people have on animals.
"Who wouldn't pass up gay sex with Bercat?"
"Day is probably masturbating to Osu"- Hydra 2k15
"Day is probably masturbating to Osu"- Hydra 2k15
WTF am I even talking about?
Viewing natural selection as a moral guideline is a bit problematic since natural selection is in many ways a random process (at least random by our standards, enviroments change and mutations are genuinely pretty random anyway). You would therefore have to agree that all things are equally moral since they are determined by the same sort of random variables. If all things are morally acceptable as the product of natural laws (physics and shit) then morality basically becomes redundant. Natural selection is basically just creatures being unlucky most of the time and holds no real moral authority. And if Pandas where to evolve it would require a considerable amount of selection pressure which you don't really get in breeding and preservation programs.
If we are accepting that the word "should" holds more value than a simple predictive term based on probability (this should happen because of cause and effect says it will) in the question "should they be allowed to die" then we might as well accept generic moral codes as being legitimate as well. But in the end, it's up to you if you take my advice on that. Arguing from different moral perspectives about a question like this can be kinda dull though.
If we are accepting that the word "should" holds more value than a simple predictive term based on probability (this should happen because of cause and effect says it will) in the question "should they be allowed to die" then we might as well accept generic moral codes as being legitimate as well. But in the end, it's up to you if you take my advice on that. Arguing from different moral perspectives about a question like this can be kinda dull though.
Good morning sweet princess
