who is acky?

RE: Not quite.

Ok, so you wouldn't bring suffering on a fox by shooting it would you? So why bring suffering on the Iraqi people by choosing to start a war that kills them? Or is this the "you have to break eggs to make an omlette" theory? If you are prepared to back an invasion whilst knowing many people were going to lose their lives and suffer greatly then (and this is the important point) on what grounds do you have the right to tell anyone else that they can't test on animals in order to save a human life? This is the point you miss entirely when you tell me that I attempt,

I'm trying to show you the flaws in your bizarre logic, not claim outright that you don't care. I've explained this before to you and you've failed to argue how you rationalise the two. So, how can you be agianst the killing of animals yet be for the killing of humans? For as you said yourself, "Suffering is suffering regardless of species".

I'm not sure which consequences you mean, but since he had no WMD i'll presume you mean the consequences for his people. Yes, they'd have been awful but not as awful as the current situation which many people predicted.

If you want to talk about "human suffering" and taking actions to stop or reduce it then you better make sure that your actions do just that. If the level of suffering goes up as a result of those actions then you have to accept that they have made the situation worse. It is not good enough at that point to retort with, "Yes but Saddam was evil," in an attempt to absolve yourself from blame in regard to your own actions and responsibilities. All the evidence points to the fact that life in Iraq now involves far more "human suffering" than it did under Saddam. Exchanging one form of suffering with a more severe form initiated by your own actions is not something to be proud of.

Would you have invaded the USSR under the dirty scourge of Communism to stop the sufferingof the Russian people? Or would you have realised that it would have only have unstabilised the country and the region and made the situation worse? The latter? Well then you know why, to a different degree, I didn't back the removal of Saddam.

I find it ironic that im accused of being 'idealistic' and 'naive', because in reality I took the pragmatic view that removing Saddam would lead to a far worse situation than already existed. Ironically it was those who backed it who were 'naive' and 'idealistic' in believing that a) this could be done and b) Bush and Blair were the people to do it (ignoring the fact that these weren't there stated reasons for invading in the first place).

 

Really..........

You don't need to dumb it down because it's a already a totally dumb thing to say.

Tell me, are those Animal Rights activists who only direct their concern regarding the lives of animals "fake" because they haven't campaigned about humans dying of AIDS in Africa, or the humans dying in Lebanon? Are in fact you just as guilty of showing "fake concern" because you haven't directed your "concern about suffering" at all other "specific species or races"? What's important is that people do their bit. We don't all have the time to invest ourselves in every issue that comes along.

Blah blah blah C&P'ing Faithless lyrics, blah blah blah.

 

LOL Now you're just being plain silly.

 

RE: Are you capable of conversing with someone without the

Im glad im not the only person to realise (for some genuinely strange reason) that ignorance to Windy is a badge of honour to be worn with pride. As someone once said, "If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise".

 

cool

was really a post to say "wtf is going on? why is everyone arguing about none-footy stuff constantly" but i suppose was just being nosey. obviously a lot of history between you guys i dunno about. wasn't an aggressive post mate, just wanted to use the word "triumvirate" but ya spoilt it by posting ff ff ff

(Y) (Y)

 

Clearly not.

 

You're "not the first person to realise (for some genuinely strange reason)"

Eh?

 

WTF are you gibbering on about now?

It's "a dumb thing to say" that concern about suffering shouldn't be species or race specific? Is that really what you want to say Acky?

Once again you show staggering arrogance in your assumption that anyone who doesn't go along with your dodgy politics has no concern for the suffering of war victims. Sorry to burst your self-obsessed bubble but do you seriously think there isn't one contributor to this board who doesn't feel desperately sorry for the victims of this latest conflict on both sides? Get over yourself man.

I have no idea what the extent of each individual animal rights activist's concern towards war victims is. I do know that your concern, as limited to your own species and trendy causes as it is, is completely fake. While you pose on the internet and write god-awfull songs some people are actually trying to help.

 

I bet you £10 nobody read that.

You tedious lovely person.

 

It is isn't it?

"Been" as clever as you are.

 

One of your shitest attempts at a comeback.

And that's agaisnt stiff opposition.

 

Beings on toast.

 

I did, you owe him a tenner!

 

self-obsessed bubble !

LOL!

ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff

 

agaisnt ?

you even type p*ssed.

And we really don't want to know what else you get up to whilst you are typing this stuff!

ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff

 

So that's a no then.

As if we hadn't already worked that out.