Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

Not what I was trying to imply. Random kid should also respect he's parents, and gun laws.

[Tellemurius]

thats true, know a kid that was hyped up over guns, give him one and blows out the whole clip in seconds pell-mell while im aiming my shots.

[Max White]

*Sigh*
What has tv done to our young, suggestiable youth? It takes about three seconds to aim a rifle, so why have they offloaded a magazine in less then 2?

[Tellemurius]

dude don't ask me, you pull that shit in the military your CO is coming after you. we been brought up with shows and games where the main characters have shitty accuracy creating a shootout, they sit there blow off their whole clip maybe hitting the guy once. plus the bad guys miss so they get the idea they are invincible.

[Max White]

Interesting fact: Contrary to popular belief, guns shoot in a relatively straight line, especially over shot distances; therefore it is in your best interest to aim the darn thing, because the bullet isn't going to curve around into the target for you.

[G-Flex]

dude don't ask me, you pull that shit in the military your CO is coming after you. we been brought up with shows and games where the main characters have shitty accuracy creating a shootout, they sit there blow off their whole clip maybe hitting the guy once. plus the bad guys miss so they get the idea they are invincible.

They have it backwards on multiple counts. In a real wartime scenario, the vast majority of bullets don't hit anything, but for completely different reasons: Most fire is cover/suppressive, not just one guy aiming at another guy and trying to kill him.

[Tellemurius]

yea but in real war, conserve your bullets. You can't just blow off a whole clip in seconds, i don't find the fun in that.

[GamerKnight]

Max White... I will post what I think. What you think has very little influence on what I think.

Now thats out of the way. Panda=Fail. Just as big as the dodo. The thing is that humanity is the new apex predator. Animals must now adapt or die. This is a fact. Things like rodents, foxes and domestic animals are going to survive. This is how evolution has played the cards, and we have got the winning hand, at least in the long run. The world is ours to rule, until our time is up and the cards are reshuffled. Pandas have lost,  just like the dinosaurs, just like the mammoths. Pandas have drawn these cards: Destroy own habitat to feed. Have the physical parts necsessary to feed on meat, but too fat to hunt. Very difficult to reproduce without aid. Particularly tasty. How long do you think they have, tops? Resources should be devoted to animals that have a chance of survival. Another animal will take over their habitat. The world will keep on spinning.

People who think Pandas have a chance are dreamers. I'm a realist.

[Max White]

Or an extinctionist...
Remember the part were I said that pandas play their role in the eco system? All animals do. If we, as humans decide that we can do as we like, then we will kill ourselves. Take for example, the spraying of pesticides. You could say that this is what we have decided we will do, so they we can grow food without dealing with locus plauges. However, a lot of pesticides kill bees. You have two options, stop spraying, and deal with local, or keep spraying and kill the bees. Easy choice for you right? The bees adapt or die in your books.

A great man once said that were bees to disapear from earth, all humans would be dead in less then three years.

We need the enviroment, and saying 'It must adapt to us' is just plain irresponcible.

[GamerKnight]

We are going to kill ourselves. Its in our nature. We evolved too well, and we are damaging the environment. I'm a realist because I know that's going to happen, and nothing will change it. The animals that survive our time on Earth will be superior, better equipped to survive. This will keep on happening until the sun expands and swallows the Earth, or the perfect species is created, and all other life becomes redundant.

[Max White]

When your argument is based on the idea that 'We are going to kill ourselfs' you do not make a compelling ethical argument.
Fun fact: Animals after the precambrian explosion evolved at a faster rate then before. If you want evolution, you don't kill species off. As for this 'master race' you speak of, without a food web to support them, this isn't feasable.

[GamerKnight]

I didn't say that they would survive. I just said that they would develop.

[Max White]

And where did I incorrectly make that assumption?

[GamerKnight]

By saying that without a food web to support them it wouldn't be feasible. This 'master species' will consume everything there is to consume, then pass away, leaving Earth barren and lifeless. That is what I meant. However, I really have no idea what you meant and I am just guessing your ideas.

[Vector]

We are going to kill ourselves. Its in our nature. We evolved too well, and we are damaging the environment. I'm a realist because I know that's going to happen, and nothing will change it. The animals that survive our time on Earth will be superior, better equipped to survive. This will keep on happening until the sun expands and swallows the Earth, or the perfect species is created, and all other life becomes redundant.

And we aren't attempting to become a perfect species--that not only destroys, but also builds--because... it's inconvenient?