This AD and the ensuing comments were written by a team of raving 5 year olds. I don't like Palin or McCain but I could field a much more educated discussion (and much less emotional) on why they should not be elected. There are far too many personal attacks on leaders in this country. Don't forget nobody, including you and I are perfect. You have your wolves re-introduced congratulations. I personnaly don't agree with it. Will you not be happy with this?
Murder means killing. Most dictionaries of old say killing a human in particular, but newer definitions aren't so specific. Killing is killing. It is wrong. People aren't the only beings on this planet that deserve to live! We are NOT the "top of the food chain", rather an integral part of it, just like everything down to an ant or cockroach.
If she doesn't see what is ethically wrong with her behavior, she really does not represent decent American women, let alone the American people as a whole. Most folks are extremely and rightly repelled by the slow killing of a defenseless creature, and only reluctantly tolerate killing humanely for food. Many feel no animals should be executed at all. Palin is out of step with general modern decency and culture, and she's correctly called an ultra-right extremist with no visible compassion.
VanadiusRex has made a comment on Sarah Palin Ad.:
Although I agree with your opinion, I think it is really a mistake to use the term "murder." However strongly you may feel that "animals are people too," it is just a fact that the term "murder" properly refers only to the killing of a human being.
the idea of having Nature and it's denizens as the other, that ideology will continue.
People thought once as a fact that slavery was ok, and racism, until those like MLK made the ideology that racism WASN'T ok and now that is considered fact my most circles and those who are moral of mind....
OK, let's consider the slavery case. If someone went out and caught a wild horse and kept it for a work horse, could you rightly accuse him of keeping a slave? No, because the word "slave" is defined to refer only to a human being. And to me it is not fair, reasonable, or appropriate ever to make an accusation that involves a redefinition of the words you are using. Murder is a proper legal term. It only ever properly refers in law to killing a human being. That is the only fact I had in mind.
To me it is, because it is. So in your mind then abuse or torture doesn't happen to animals since it happens to people. Just because something starts out as you call it a legal term doesn't make it right or justified.
And as you don't see the connection, people during the Civil Rights Era thought segregation was ok, and Civil Rights wasn't even a legal term, but it was still wrong. Then the Civil Rights was finally created in the U.S. Before that it was still wrong, and that is my point. You are saying thus an even is justified before it is a 'legal' term. And that my friend is why the destruction of Wolves and Bears in these cases IS murder and why it is wrong. And that is fact.
You don't have to wait for a term to describe atrocitiy or horrors to become wrong. And it is wrong when murder or any atrocity on an animal is committed. And it may seem to those in the norm that my terms are beyond the bounds. Well so were MLK's at the time. People ridiculed the idea of racial harmony, now the idea is more accepted. Until we treat animals the same as we should people and these crimes are recognized as they are, this treatment will continue. And that is a fact too.
Even if it is unpopular among 'activists', I am not a part of mainstream groups for that reason. We don't hide the truth behind euphemistic terms and make it rosy. We show what it is. Whether people choose to accept the truth or a euphemistic term to soften a crime, is up to them.
No, I certainly agree that animals can be victims of abuse and torture. And some ways of killing animals are certainly not right and not justified. I agree with you that the aerial shooting of wolves is atrocious and wrong. But "murder" is defined to mean the killing of human being. So when you accuse someone of "murder" for killing animals, you're only weakening your own argument by making a statement which is false at first glance. It just isn't possible to "murder" any animal except a human.
And again you fail to see the point because before slavery was called slavery was still wrong, I am beating the point to the punch by calling it murder first. And you think it weakens my argument but if you think this is wrong what is going on, you would support my point of view.
Hey heart, agree with your stance on Palin, and I'm a vegetarian, but until the general consensus on the use of the term "murder" shifts (how do you feel when it is used to describe abortion, for example?) I think Vanadius Rex is right.
Its one thing to call for the shift, another to use it in a general argument about something else-where it will weaken your effectiveness.
Well until people as a whole don't wake up doesn't mean you should stop fighting for something. Again I will bring up many examples.
You say you are vegetarian. Most that are vegetarian will say that the slaughter of animals for food is murder. And MLK's ideas
at the time were not accepted readily at first. Think about this. It took after the 1800s' of the Civil War til the 1960's when civil rights was coined and finally accepted.
Just because a term isn't popular doesn't mean you shouldn't support it or promote it. IT means you have to fight even harder for it. And exposing the corruption of his VP is of value BECAUSE if McCain dies in office, guess who takes over. Not Cheney, that's for sure, it will be Palin. And we have to be prepared for that. It's like saying, well vegetarian is a nice cause but since Global Warming exists and is more dangerous....we should focus on that.
Both you and Rex don't see the parallels in history with what is going on now. Just because topics aren't in the same instance doesn't mean the similarities don't exist either. Palin is dangerous and should be revealed as she is.
HeartOfTheWolf..being effective starts with listening carefully. In my first line I say, "agree with your stance on Palin". I think its great that you brought out the facts of her taste for killing animals, and I think its and I think it is an indication of her character. I don't know Rex, but we are not suggesting you should not fight to get people to reject animal killing, we are suggesting that you will be MORE EFFECTIVE, if you start by meeting them where they are conceptually.
Being effective is also knowing what you say before you say it. You say you agree with
my stance on Palin, yet you decry my exposing the truth by calling killing murder. You think it's effective by coloring the term murder as killing. It's not. I will not use the term called euphemism which means coloring terms to weaken it's meaning. I was citing historical circumstances to show my point. Unfortunately that wasn't getting across to you.
IF you really support the message, promote it. Stop fighting it. If you don't support the concept of calling killing murder, then stop saying you support the work that we do and go elsewhere please. Don't say you support our work if you don't do it all the way, you can't have both.
Hunting for sport and enjoying the murder of animals is kind of important. If you don't have values with animals, how do you expect to have those kinds of values with people? Interesting point that Intelligent Design is unconstitutional. Thanks for stopping by.
Not bad, a little melodramatic though. The job loss to Canada was a good point, and wolf culling being illegal as well. However her being an NRA member and a hunter is kinda irrelevant. To you it is a strike against her, but to others is an appealing factor. You could have mentioned that teaching Intelligent Design was ruled unconstitutional.
This AD and the ensuing comments were written by a team of raving 5 year olds. I don't like Palin or McCain but I could field a much more educated discussion (and much less emotional) on why they should not be elected. There are far too many personal attacks on leaders in this country. Don't forget nobody, including you and I are perfect. You have your wolves re-introduced congratulations. I personnaly don't agree with it. Will you not be happy with this?
cbernami 3 years ago
this damned fucking pussy should be stopped and tortured for what she does!!!!!
BlackVictim 3 years ago
Which is sarah palin in her marriage? The man or the woman? It is kind of hard to tell.
Save the wolves!
Ban wolf killer sarah palin!
Larzabeth 3 years ago 2
Murder means killing. Most dictionaries of old say killing a human in particular, but newer definitions aren't so specific. Killing is killing. It is wrong. People aren't the only beings on this planet that deserve to live! We are NOT the "top of the food chain", rather an integral part of it, just like everything down to an ant or cockroach.
4theA 3 years ago
Very Good Mike, don't forget that they want to overturn Roe V. Wade, and that is another main reason NOT to vote for these two.
muskyhusky 3 years ago
If she doesn't see what is ethically wrong with her behavior, she really does not represent decent American women, let alone the American people as a whole. Most folks are extremely and rightly repelled by the slow killing of a defenseless creature, and only reluctantly tolerate killing humanely for food. Many feel no animals should be executed at all. Palin is out of step with general modern decency and culture, and she's correctly called an ultra-right extremist with no visible compassion.
RyMooval 3 years ago
VanadiusRex has made a comment on Sarah Palin Ad.:
Although I agree with your opinion, I think it is really a mistake to use the term "murder." However strongly you may feel that "animals are people too," it is just a fact that the term "murder" properly refers only to the killing of a human being.
HeartOfTheWolf 3 years ago
Just because something is displayed as 'fact'
doesn't mean it's true. Hunting, which is usually the destruction of an animal for profit, sadistic pleasure of triumph, is I
think murder. If someone did that to someone's pet then they I think would be
inclined to think it's murder.
HeartOfTheWolf 3 years ago
The problem
is is that until people realize that animals
need to be respected in the same way that
MLK Jr. wanted people to respect each other,
the idea of having Nature and it's denizens as the other, that ideology will continue.
People thought once as a fact that slavery was ok, and racism, until those like MLK made the ideology that racism WASN'T ok and now that is considered fact my most circles and those who are moral of mind....
HeartOfTheWolf 3 years ago
OK, let's consider the slavery case. If someone went out and caught a wild horse and kept it for a work horse, could you rightly accuse him of keeping a slave? No, because the word "slave" is defined to refer only to a human being. And to me it is not fair, reasonable, or appropriate ever to make an accusation that involves a redefinition of the words you are using. Murder is a proper legal term. It only ever properly refers in law to killing a human being. That is the only fact I had in mind.
VanadiusRex 3 years ago
To me it is, because it is. So in your mind then abuse or torture doesn't happen to animals since it happens to people. Just because something starts out as you call it a legal term doesn't make it right or justified.
HeartOfTheWolf 3 years ago
And as you don't see the connection, people during the Civil Rights Era thought segregation was ok, and Civil Rights wasn't even a legal term, but it was still wrong. Then the Civil Rights was finally created in the U.S. Before that it was still wrong, and that is my point. You are saying thus an even is justified before it is a 'legal' term. And that my friend is why the destruction of Wolves and Bears in these cases IS murder and why it is wrong. And that is fact.
HeartOfTheWolf 3 years ago
You don't have to wait for a term to describe atrocitiy or horrors to become wrong. And it is wrong when murder or any atrocity on an animal is committed. And it may seem to those in the norm that my terms are beyond the bounds. Well so were MLK's at the time. People ridiculed the idea of racial harmony, now the idea is more accepted. Until we treat animals the same as we should people and these crimes are recognized as they are, this treatment will continue. And that is a fact too.
HeartOfTheWolf 3 years ago
Even if it is unpopular among 'activists', I am not a part of mainstream groups for that reason. We don't hide the truth behind euphemistic terms and make it rosy. We show what it is. Whether people choose to accept the truth or a euphemistic term to soften a crime, is up to them.
HeartOfTheWolf 3 years ago
No, I certainly agree that animals can be victims of abuse and torture. And some ways of killing animals are certainly not right and not justified. I agree with you that the aerial shooting of wolves is atrocious and wrong. But "murder" is defined to mean the killing of human being. So when you accuse someone of "murder" for killing animals, you're only weakening your own argument by making a statement which is false at first glance. It just isn't possible to "murder" any animal except a human.
VanadiusRex 3 years ago
And again you fail to see the point because before slavery was called slavery was still wrong, I am beating the point to the punch by calling it murder first. And you think it weakens my argument but if you think this is wrong what is going on, you would support my point of view.
HeartOfTheWolf 3 years ago
And I have many members that support my point of view, and so many activists out there. It's a matter of time until Humanity does too.
HeartOfTheWolf 3 years ago
Hey heart, agree with your stance on Palin, and I'm a vegetarian, but until the general consensus on the use of the term "murder" shifts (how do you feel when it is used to describe abortion, for example?) I think Vanadius Rex is right.
Its one thing to call for the shift, another to use it in a general argument about something else-where it will weaken your effectiveness.
givebirthathome 3 years ago
Well until people as a whole don't wake up doesn't mean you should stop fighting for something. Again I will bring up many examples.
You say you are vegetarian. Most that are vegetarian will say that the slaughter of animals for food is murder. And MLK's ideas
at the time were not accepted readily at first. Think about this. It took after the 1800s' of the Civil War til the 1960's when civil rights was coined and finally accepted.
HeartOfTheWolf 3 years ago
Just because a term isn't popular doesn't mean you shouldn't support it or promote it. IT means you have to fight even harder for it. And exposing the corruption of his VP is of value BECAUSE if McCain dies in office, guess who takes over. Not Cheney, that's for sure, it will be Palin. And we have to be prepared for that. It's like saying, well vegetarian is a nice cause but since Global Warming exists and is more dangerous....we should focus on that.
HeartOfTheWolf 3 years ago
Both you and Rex don't see the parallels in history with what is going on now. Just because topics aren't in the same instance doesn't mean the similarities don't exist either. Palin is dangerous and should be revealed as she is.
HeartOfTheWolf 3 years ago
HeartOfTheWolf..being effective starts with listening carefully. In my first line I say, "agree with your stance on Palin". I think its great that you brought out the facts of her taste for killing animals, and I think its and I think it is an indication of her character. I don't know Rex, but we are not suggesting you should not fight to get people to reject animal killing, we are suggesting that you will be MORE EFFECTIVE, if you start by meeting them where they are conceptually.
givebirthathome 3 years ago
Being effective is also knowing what you say before you say it. You say you agree with
my stance on Palin, yet you decry my exposing the truth by calling killing murder. You think it's effective by coloring the term murder as killing. It's not. I will not use the term called euphemism which means coloring terms to weaken it's meaning. I was citing historical circumstances to show my point. Unfortunately that wasn't getting across to you.
HeartOfTheWolf 3 years ago
IF you really support the message, promote it. Stop fighting it. If you don't support the concept of calling killing murder, then stop saying you support the work that we do and go elsewhere please. Don't say you support our work if you don't do it all the way, you can't have both.
HeartOfTheWolf 3 years ago
Hunting for sport and enjoying the murder of animals is kind of important. If you don't have values with animals, how do you expect to have those kinds of values with people? Interesting point that Intelligent Design is unconstitutional. Thanks for stopping by.
HeartOfTheWolf 3 years ago
Not bad, a little melodramatic though. The job loss to Canada was a good point, and wolf culling being illegal as well. However her being an NRA member and a hunter is kinda irrelevant. To you it is a strike against her, but to others is an appealing factor. You could have mentioned that teaching Intelligent Design was ruled unconstitutional.
Scarabswarm 3 years ago