god is picky about capitalization, huh?

When I buy a book that I intend to keep I choose a copy that has a cover that is not dilapidated or bulging at the seams.

Concerning content of various books: When ANY person relies upon cliches and platitudes, criticizes others for what they have NOT said, resorts to name-calling, makes foolish ASSumptions and assertions, etc, I conclude that they are probably not very mature mentally or emotionally and are likely to be incapable of reasoned discussion.



Weight control is simple (not necessarily easy) -- eat what the body needs in the amount it needs to maintain appropriate body composition. Self-control is involved. Excuses don't control adipose tissue (body fat).

Right, so me reading every word that you have said about how you feel about pets and pet owners and about women with weight problems and concluding that you sound like an ignorant snob when you refuse to see anyone else's point of view when they don't agree with you is me being incapable of engaging in reasoned discussion is it?

Calling women "dilapidated" or "bulging at the seams" is kind of rude and saying that people care more about animals because they don't treat their animals how people that they care less about than their animals want is just ignorant. Here's an analogy for you: I find it offensive when people say things on a public forum that are going to upset certain people. I think that they should restrain themselves and not keep spouting their fatheaded opinions. You just think that weight is more important than people and you make excuses about it being a simple matter of them having to starve themselves.

If I say that you sound like a snob and an ignoramus I'm not just resorting to ad hominum attacks because I've told you for eleven pages now why I disagree with you. You are the one failing to engage and you are just making speaches and looking for followers to agree with you. But if you want to say that someone cares more about their pets than they do about people because they don't care what some people say that they should do with their pets, fine. If you said that every dog should have to wear a muzzle because it's the only way to ensure that dogs never bite I would tell you to f**k off. It doesn't mean that I don't care about people. It just means that I don't care for people telling me how to treat my dog or bring up my children. If you cared so much about people you wouldn't make offensive remarks about them being dilapidated and bulging at the seams. If you cared more about people than you care about animals you would not object to people enjoying their pets in ways that you don't aprove of.

this be a mile too far?

I met a woman a few years ago that was an animal lover and she particularly loved horses. She was one of those crystal healers and she gave up a lot of her time to try to help people that came to her with their problems. She didn't charge for her time but she said that if people wanted to give her money she would donate it to a charity to help horses. I don't know if she cared more about the horses than she cared about the people and frankly, I don't care because she cared about both and wasn't just a selfish person.

I don't really believe in charity myself but I think that if I was inclined to do charity work or donate money it would be to help animals. Somebody has to care about them and if we all cared more about people nobody would do anything to help animals.

A few years ago I saw something on TV about how orangutans are going extinct because their habitat is being destroyed by people that want to produce palm oil that goes into cheap brands of chocolate. I told some people on the internet about it and they said that they didn't really care because they liked stuffing their faces with that chocolate more than they like orangutans. They tried to say that I was some sort of nutcase because I didn't like it and they also said that I was trolling by trying to talk about it when they were all talking about how much they like chocolate.

It isn't caring more about animals than people. It's about caring about animals and not just going along with what some people want. American pit bull terriers were banned in this country because they kept attacking people. That, I agree with. Those were dangerous dogs. I will hold to John Stewart Mill's harm principle when it comes to this and saying that a dog is just friendly is no excuse. My dog wouldn't harm anybody and there is no law in this country that says that you have to restrain a dog that is only being friendly. If it does some harm to people or property that is a seperate matter and that is where dog owners can be held acountable.

It is not rude to say that a book has a dilapidated cover or is bulging. Notice that my comment was in response to YOUR cliche about BOOKS.



Is that your demonstration of a reasoned argument? Why so emotional?

Oh, I didn't realise that we were just talking about books. I thought that you were trying to draw some sort of analogy and not just saying something completely irrelevant. Silly me.

Who's emotional? You accuse me of resorting to ad hominum attacks because I read some words that you type that I think sound snobby and ignorant and here you are cherrypicking a few words that I typed and calling me emotional. I'm no more emotional about it than I am about what I'm going to have for my dinner. I would still tell you to f**k off though if you tried to tell me to put a muzzle on my dog and I call a spade a spade. Whether I am someone that is capable of having feelings and emotions and you are just a heartless person may be relevant, or maybe I just like using certain words to make my point and you like to be annoying by refusing to respond to actual arguments and calling people emotional. I've said what I have to say about this topic anyway and you obviously aren't interested in debating anything, so I will just say in conclusion that I posted in your lame thread because I was bored and didn't really have anything better to waste my time on but I'm bored with this now and I'll leave you to it.

Yes.

A man who doesn't is a questionable person..

loves dogs... he's sensitive
loves kids... caring
loves god... he has faith and " usually" will be faithful

teebee79, I'm all that, except that I am a Melmacian.
So, when can I expect you to move to be with me?

I do not disagree with the self-analysis.



Perhaps "ignorant snob, just ignorant, fatheaded opinions, a snob and an ignoramus, and tell you to f**k off" is just an unemotional, rational, discussion by an animal lover? Others may appreciate having a champion for the cause.



Notice very carefully that I have not said anything to anyone about muzzling any dog. That is something from a vivid imagination -- perhaps offered for lack of anything better to say.



Your "point" appears to be that you disagree with my personal preferences and feel it is your place to denigrate them. Is there anything else?



If you will identify (quote) an actual argument that you have made, I will respond. It appears to me as though you have emoted extensively and told personal stories that are not relevant.



Aw shucks. Regurgitate then Retreat. It has been amusing watching the antics and seeing the personal stories offered as though they constituted discussion or debate.

Is one who loves horses or wild animals less sensitive than one who loves dogs?



Could also be a pedophile. Is there a foolproof way to distinguish in advance?



If faith = faithful (usually), why do religious couples divorce at rates equal to or greater than non-religious couples?

Nope; he was just a jerk. He told me that I never told him. I told him twice on the phone and emailed him. He just never cared about me like his dog. Then after I broke it off with him; he met another woman who I happen to meet as I did some house maintenance for her and she said he wanted her to take care of his dog when he was working. He tried the same crap with trying to get me to take care of his dog. Happily we both told this idiot where to go and that neither of us wanted to babysit his dog, so he should just put her in a Kennel.

someone must lve them but i hate dogs,nd kids nd god i can't judge dat

That is bull. I have friends that are sensitive and caring but and they don't have kids or pets in their lives. They aren't religious either but that doesn't make them a bad person. My dad was a deeply religious person who beat us kids and the family dog as well as his wife.

I have to agree with you Navygirl.
I bet prisons have as many dog lovers ,Religious people or loves kids as the ones that don't love dogs, God or kids.

If (since) loving dogs, kids and gods doesn't make a person "good" or "faithful", WHY are they common requirements for friendship?

I like cats hate kids and i'm atheist

It appears as though the thread has brought to light several major ideas:

1) Some people assume that possessing a trait they consider "good" is indication that a person is "good" in general

2) Some people prioritize animal relationships above human relationships and infant / child relationships above adult relationships (and require the same as a prerequisite for friendship)

3) Some people restrict friendship to those who share their religious beliefs.

4) Some people appear to equate their requirements for friendship with requirements for a potential mate (as though friendship is limited to mate-material people).

5) Some who love dogs, kids and gods are not adverse to condemning or denigrating those who do not.

6) Emotion is often a (or the) deciding factor in decisions by many people.

Interesting summarization JohnDavid. I was thinking about how a pet owner or single parent says their partner will always come second to their pet or child. If your partner is okay with being second; then all things being equal, your partner should be able to put a family member or friend of their choosing before you and so you will be always come second in the relationship as well. If you think this is unreasonable; then you are setting a double standard as a pet owner or single parent.