DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before.
You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.
Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions.
You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.
Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.
I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.
It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.
I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices.
It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.
It's not the same whatsoever. The situation was entirely different with the goats because there was a mother and a baby and thats where certain people's nurturing instinct comes into play. They were fine killing any other goat. As JT said if they can catch one thats not a baby or a mother then he'll kill it. Our conscious isnt as simple as you might be thinking.
The chicken is a soon to be mother, and the eggs are soon to be her babies as well, again what's the difference ? If you say its a difference of the animal being viviparous or oviparous, I would say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. If you say it's a matter of whether the animal has already given birth or not, I would still say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. I get that the contestants reactions were instinctual, but that won't stop me from pointing out the double standard.
The difference is the chicken ain't about to be no ones mother. All the eggs they lay are unfertilised. They are off no use to the mothers. They will never hatch. There's a reason that the roosters are always kept out of egg farms and on survivor are kept separate or not given at all. No one wants to be eating an egg with an actual chick inside it. Atleast in most of western civilisation.
But you're still ripping the chicken's eggs away from her, which if you look at it from the same degree of killing a baby goat, or leaving it an orphan, is just as """bad""".
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before.
You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.
Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions.
You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.
Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.
I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.
It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.
I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices.
It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.
It's not the same whatsoever. The situation was entirely different with the goats because there was a mother and a baby and thats where certain people's nurturing instinct comes into play. They were fine killing any other goat. As JT said if they can catch one thats not a baby or a mother then he'll kill it. Our conscious isnt as simple as you might be thinking.
The chicken is a soon to be mother, and the eggs are soon to be her babies as well, again what's the difference ? If you say its a difference of the animal being viviparous or oviparous, I would say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. If you say it's a matter of whether the animal has already given birth or not, I would still say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. I get that the contestants reactions were instinctual, but that won't stop me from pointing out the double standard.
The difference is the chicken ain't about to be no ones mother. All the eggs they lay are unfertilised. They are off no use to the mothers. They will never hatch. There's a reason that the roosters are always kept out of egg farms and on survivor are kept separate or not given at all. No one wants to be eating an egg with an actual chick inside it. Atleast in most of western civilisation.
But you're still ripping the chicken's eggs away from her, which if you look at it from the same degree of killing a baby goat, or leaving it an orphan, is just as """bad""".
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before.
You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.
Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions.
You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.
Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.
I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.
It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.
I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices.
It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.
It's not the same whatsoever. The situation was entirely different with the goats because there was a mother and a baby and thats where certain people's nurturing instinct comes into play. They were fine killing any other goat. As JT said if they can catch one thats not a baby or a mother then he'll kill it. Our conscious isnt as simple as you might be thinking.
The chicken is a soon to be mother, and the eggs are soon to be her babies as well, again what's the difference ? If you say its a difference of the animal being viviparous or oviparous, I would say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. If you say it's a matter of whether the animal has already given birth or not, I would still say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. I get that the contestants reactions were instinctual, but that won't stop me from pointing out the double standard.
The difference is the chicken ain't about to be no ones mother. All the eggs they lay are unfertilised. They are off no use to the mothers. They will never hatch. There's a reason that the roosters are always kept out of egg farms and on survivor are kept separate or not given at all. No one wants to be eating an egg with an actual chick inside it. Atleast in most of western civilisation.
But you're still ripping the chicken's eggs away from her, which if you look at it from the same degree of killing a baby goat, or leaving it an orphan, is just as """bad""".
Except that baby is no baby. It will never hatch. And we don't feel the same for every animal. Goats can be kept as pets as well. It's quite hypocritical of pretty much everyone then to keep dogs and cats as pets but not goats. You may argue that that's how we were brought up. Doesn't make it right though.
Jesus Christ, it's they don't want to kill it. You don't kill a chicken eating a egg. It's different because they are watching it die in front of them. Smh it isn't that hard to understand
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before.
You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.
Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions.
You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.
Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.
I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.
It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.
I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices.
It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.
It's not the same whatsoever. The situation was entirely different with the goats because there was a mother and a baby and thats where certain people's nurturing instinct comes into play. They were fine killing any other goat. As JT said if they can catch one thats not a baby or a mother then he'll kill it. Our conscious isnt as simple as you might be thinking.
The chicken is a soon to be mother, and the eggs are soon to be her babies as well, again what's the difference ? If you say its a difference of the animal being viviparous or oviparous, I would say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. If you say it's a matter of whether the animal has already given birth or not, I would still say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. I get that the contestants reactions were instinctual, but that won't stop me from pointing out the double standard.
The difference is the chicken ain't about to be no ones mother. All the eggs they lay are unfertilised. They are off no use to the mothers. They will never hatch. There's a reason that the roosters are always kept out of egg farms and on survivor are kept separate or not given at all. No one wants to be eating an egg with an actual chick inside it. Atleast in most of western civilisation.
But you're still ripping the chicken's eggs away from her, which if you look at it from the same degree of killing a baby goat, or leaving it an orphan, is just as """bad""".
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before.
You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.
Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions.
You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.
Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.
I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.
It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.
I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices.
It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.
It's not the same whatsoever. The situation was entirely different with the goats because there was a mother and a baby and thats where certain people's nurturing instinct comes into play. They were fine killing any other goat. As JT said if they can catch one thats not a baby or a mother then he'll kill it. Our conscious isnt as simple as you might be thinking.
The chicken is a soon to be mother, and the eggs are soon to be her babies as well, again what's the difference ? If you say its a difference of the animal being viviparous or oviparous, I would say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. If you say it's a matter of whether the animal has already given birth or not, I would still say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. I get that the contestants reactions were instinctual, but that won't stop me from pointing out the double standard.
The difference is the chicken ain't about to be no ones mother. All the eggs they lay are unfertilised. They are off no use to the mothers. They will never hatch. There's a reason that the roosters are always kept out of egg farms and on survivor are kept separate or not given at all. No one wants to be eating an egg with an actual chick inside it. Atleast in most of western civilisation.
But you're still ripping the chicken's eggs away from her, which if you look at it from the same degree of killing a baby goat, or leaving it an orphan, is just as """bad""".
Except that baby is no baby. It will never hatch. And we don't feel the same for every animal. Goats can be kept as pets as well. It's quite hypocritical of pretty much everyone then to keep dogs and cats as pets but not goats. You may argue that that's how we were brought up. Doesn't make it right though.
Again, of course it won't hatch when you seperate the chicken from the eggs, I find that act to be equivalent to killing the baby goat or leaving it an orphan, because you're essentially doing the exact same thing, whether the eggs would of been able to hatch or not is insignificant because they were gonna hatch at one point.
And no, those are farm animals that have a general purpose in humans lives, as opposed to cats or dogs who have other purpose that we benefit from.
Jesus Christ, it's they don't want to kill it. You don't kill a chicken eating a egg. It's different because they are watching it die in front of them. Smh it isn't that hard to understand
How ironic, since your poorly written sentence is just as hard to understand.
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before.
You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.
Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions.
You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.
Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.
I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.
It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.
I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices.
It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.
It's not the same whatsoever. The situation was entirely different with the goats because there was a mother and a baby and thats where certain people's nurturing instinct comes into play. They were fine killing any other goat. As JT said if they can catch one thats not a baby or a mother then he'll kill it. Our conscious isnt as simple as you might be thinking.
The chicken is a soon to be mother, and the eggs are soon to be her babies as well, again what's the difference ? If you say its a difference of the animal being viviparous or oviparous, I would say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. If you say it's a matter of whether the animal has already given birth or not, I would still say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. I get that the contestants reactions were instinctual, but that won't stop me from pointing out the double standard.
The difference is the chicken ain't about to be no ones mother. All the eggs they lay are unfertilised. They are off no use to the mothers. They will never hatch. There's a reason that the roosters are always kept out of egg farms and on survivor are kept separate or not given at all. No one wants to be eating an egg with an actual chick inside it. Atleast in most of western civilisation.
But you're still ripping the chicken's eggs away from her, which if you look at it from the same degree of killing a baby goat, or leaving it an orphan, is just as """bad""".
boy you reaching lmaooo
Nope. Don't think so.
The chicken is like a "mother" who was forced to have an abortion (metaphorically of course) meanwhile the goat got her kid killed. hehehehe.
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before.
You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.
Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions.
You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.
Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.
I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.
It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.
I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices.
It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.
It's not the same whatsoever. The situation was entirely different with the goats because there was a mother and a baby and thats where certain people's nurturing instinct comes into play. They were fine killing any other goat. As JT said if they can catch one thats not a baby or a mother then he'll kill it. Our conscious isnt as simple as you might be thinking.
The chicken is a soon to be mother, and the eggs are soon to be her babies as well, again what's the difference ? If you say its a difference of the animal being viviparous or oviparous, I would say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. If you say it's a matter of whether the animal has already given birth or not, I would still say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. I get that the contestants reactions were instinctual, but that won't stop me from pointing out the double standard.
The difference is the chicken ain't about to be no ones mother. All the eggs they lay are unfertilised. They are off no use to the mothers. They will never hatch. There's a reason that the roosters are always kept out of egg farms and on survivor are kept separate or not given at all. No one wants to be eating an egg with an actual chick inside it. Atleast in most of western civilisation.
But you're still ripping the chicken's eggs away from her, which if you look at it from the same degree of killing a baby goat, or leaving it an orphan, is just as """bad""".
Except that baby is no baby. It will never hatch. And we don't feel the same for every animal. Goats can be kept as pets as well. It's quite hypocritical of pretty much everyone then to keep dogs and cats as pets but not goats. You may argue that that's how we were brought up. Doesn't make it right though.
Again, of course it won't hatch when you seperate the chicken from the eggs, I find that act to be equivalent to killing the baby goat or leaving it an orphan, because you're essentially doing the exact same thing, whether the eggs would of been able to hatch or not is insignificant because they were gonna hatch at one point. And no, those are farm animals that have a general purpose in humans lives, as opposed to cats or dogs who have other purpose that we benefit from.
Unfertilised eggs will never hatch. Never. Ever. As with most animals you need a male and a female to produce an offspring. A female by herself will just lay an egg with no chick in it.
They have a general purpose where you might come from but as you said before it's not the same all over the world. We all have different morals. Just gotta learn to open up and accept that we're not all the same
@LurkerNoMore this is not a fight but a healthy debate
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before.
You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.
Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions.
You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.
Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.
I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.
It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.
I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices.
It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.
It's not the same whatsoever. The situation was entirely different with the goats because there was a mother and a baby and thats where certain people's nurturing instinct comes into play. They were fine killing any other goat. As JT said if they can catch one thats not a baby or a mother then he'll kill it. Our conscious isnt as simple as you might be thinking.
The chicken is a soon to be mother, and the eggs are soon to be her babies as well, again what's the difference ? If you say its a difference of the animal being viviparous or oviparous, I would say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. If you say it's a matter of whether the animal has already given birth or not, I would still say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. I get that the contestants reactions were instinctual, but that won't stop me from pointing out the double standard.
The difference is the chicken ain't about to be no ones mother. All the eggs they lay are unfertilised. They are off no use to the mothers. They will never hatch. There's a reason that the roosters are always kept out of egg farms and on survivor are kept separate or not given at all. No one wants to be eating an egg with an actual chick inside it. Atleast in most of western civilisation.
But you're still ripping the chicken's eggs away from her, which if you look at it from the same degree of killing a baby goat, or leaving it an orphan, is just as """bad""".
Nope. Don't think so.The chicken is like a "mother" who was forced to have an abortion (metaphorically of course) meanwhile the goat got her kid killed. hehehehe.
So when people neuter their pets isnt that abortion (metaphorically) ? Or when they give their pets offsprings away to other people ? Most owners i know only keep 1 or 2 and then proceed to give em out. How is that any different ?
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before.
You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.
Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions.
You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.
Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.
I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.
It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.
I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices.
It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.
It's not the same whatsoever. The situation was entirely different with the goats because there was a mother and a baby and thats where certain people's nurturing instinct comes into play. They were fine killing any other goat. As JT said if they can catch one thats not a baby or a mother then he'll kill it. Our conscious isnt as simple as you might be thinking.
The chicken is a soon to be mother, and the eggs are soon to be her babies as well, again what's the difference ? If you say its a difference of the animal being viviparous or oviparous, I would say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. If you say it's a matter of whether the animal has already given birth or not, I would still say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. I get that the contestants reactions were instinctual, but that won't stop me from pointing out the double standard.
The difference is the chicken ain't about to be no ones mother. All the eggs they lay are unfertilised. They are off no use to the mothers. They will never hatch. There's a reason that the roosters are always kept out of egg farms and on survivor are kept separate or not given at all. No one wants to be eating an egg with an actual chick inside it. Atleast in most of western civilisation.
But you're still ripping the chicken's eggs away from her, which if you look at it from the same degree of killing a baby goat, or leaving it an orphan, is just as """bad""".
Except that baby is no baby. It will never hatch. And we don't feel the same for every animal. Goats can be kept as pets as well. It's quite hypocritical of pretty much everyone then to keep dogs and cats as pets but not goats. You may argue that that's how we were brought up. Doesn't make it right though.
Again, of course it won't hatch when you seperate the chicken from the eggs, I find that act to be equivalent to killing the baby goat or leaving it an orphan, because you're essentially doing the exact same thing, whether the eggs would of been able to hatch or not is insignificant because they were gonna hatch at one point. And no, those are farm animals that have a general purpose in humans lives, as opposed to cats or dogs who have other purpose that we benefit from.
Unfertilised eggs will never hatch. Never. Ever. As with most animals you need a male and a female to produce an offspring. A female by herself will just lay an egg with no chick in it. They have a general purpose where you might come from but as you said before it's not the same all over the world. We all have different morals. Just gotta learn to open up and accept that we're not all the same @LurkerNoMore this is not a fight but a healthy debate
Oh, for some reason I totally thought that a rooster was in camp with his mates. That's my bad. But I'm still 99% sure that the contestants wouldn't have cared if the eggs were fertilised or not.
Well yeah, but we're still talking about westerners so....yeah.
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before.
You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.
Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions.
You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.
Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.
I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.
It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.
I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices.
It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.
It's not the same whatsoever. The situation was entirely different with the goats because there was a mother and a baby and thats where certain people's nurturing instinct comes into play. They were fine killing any other goat. As JT said if they can catch one thats not a baby or a mother then he'll kill it. Our conscious isnt as simple as you might be thinking.
The chicken is a soon to be mother, and the eggs are soon to be her babies as well, again what's the difference ? If you say its a difference of the animal being viviparous or oviparous, I would say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. If you say it's a matter of whether the animal has already given birth or not, I would still say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. I get that the contestants reactions were instinctual, but that won't stop me from pointing out the double standard.
The difference is the chicken ain't about to be no ones mother. All the eggs they lay are unfertilised. They are off no use to the mothers. They will never hatch. There's a reason that the roosters are always kept out of egg farms and on survivor are kept separate or not given at all. No one wants to be eating an egg with an actual chick inside it. Atleast in most of western civilisation.
But you're still ripping the chicken's eggs away from her, which if you look at it from the same degree of killing a baby goat, or leaving it an orphan, is just as """bad""".
Nope. Don't think so.The chicken is like a "mother" who was forced to have an abortion (metaphorically of course) meanwhile the goat got her kid killed. hehehehe.
So when people neuter their pets isnt that abortion (metaphorically) ? Or when they give their pets offsprings away to other people ? Most owners i know only keep 1 or 2 and then proceed to give em out. How is that any different ?
But how are any of the questions you've asked against my case ? I've never stated that benefiting off of eggs is wrong at all, or are you just curious about what I think ? Either way, I'll still answer; Nah I don't think so, do you consider a women without ovaries to have aborted ? And I don't think that the latter would be considered an abortion (figuratively speaking) either.
I really hate the "keep the tribe strong" mentality because they could switch next episode and then the person you kept around is why your new tribe lost.
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before.
You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.
Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions.
You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.
Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.
I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.
It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.
I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices.
It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.
It's not the same whatsoever. The situation was entirely different with the goats because there was a mother and a baby and thats where certain people's nurturing instinct comes into play. They were fine killing any other goat. As JT said if they can catch one thats not a baby or a mother then he'll kill it. Our conscious isnt as simple as you might be thinking.
The chicken is a soon to be mother, and the eggs are soon to be her babies as well, again what's the difference ? If you say its a difference of the animal being viviparous or oviparous, I would say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. If you say it's a matter of whether the animal has already given birth or not, I would still say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. I get that the contestants reactions were instinctual, but that won't stop me from pointing out the double standard.
The difference is the chicken ain't about to be no ones mother. All the eggs they lay are unfertilised. They are off no use to the mothers. They will never hatch. There's a reason that the roosters are always kept out of egg farms and on survivor are kept separate or not given at all. No one wants to be eating an egg with an actual chick inside it. Atleast in most of western civilisation.
But you're still ripping the chicken's eggs away from her, which if you look at it from the same degree of killing a baby goat, or leaving it an orphan, is just as """bad""".
Nope. Don't think so.The chicken is like a "mother" who was forced to have an abortion (metaphorically of course) meanwhile the goat got her kid killed. hehehehe.
So when people neuter their pets isnt that abortion (metaphorically) ? Or when they give their pets offsprings away to other people ? Most owners i know only keep 1 or 2 and then proceed to give em out. How is that any different ?
But how are any of the questions you've asked against my case ? I've never stated that benefiting off of eggs is wrong at all, or are you just curious about what I think ? Either way, I'll still answer; Nah I don't think so, do you consider a women without ovaries to have aborted ? And I don't think that the latter would be considered an abortion (figuratively speaking) either.
But the only way to benefit from them is by taking them which you have said is the same as killing a baby goat. A woman decides for herself to get her ovaries removed. Pets are neutered without consent.
Oh, for some reason I totally thought that a rooster was in camp with his mates. That's my bad. But I'm still 99% sure that the contestants wouldn't have cared if the eggs were fertilised or not.Well yeah, but we're still talking about westerners so....yeah.
I really hate the "keep the tribe strong" mentality because they could switch next episode and then the person you kept around is why your new tribe lost.
Yeah that used to work in the old days but since cambodia tribe swaps happen so often its better to just get rid of them.
I really hate the "keep the tribe strong" mentality because they could switch next episode and then the person you kept around is why your new tribe lost.
Yeah that used to work in the old days but since cambodia tribe swaps happen so often its better to just get rid of them.
They seem to be realizing this with voting out Caleb and Tony, hopefully they take ozzy out as soon as possible.
I personally don't like that they switch tribes so soon. It makes the initial tribes pointless as hell and on top of that I like the tribes to stay consistent for awhile.
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before.
You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.
Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions.
You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.
Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.
I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.
It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.
I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices.
It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.
It's not the same whatsoever. The situation was entirely different with the goats because there was a mother and a baby and thats where certain people's nurturing instinct comes into play. They were fine killing any other goat. As JT said if they can catch one thats not a baby or a mother then he'll kill it. Our conscious isnt as simple as you might be thinking.
The chicken is a soon to be mother, and the eggs are soon to be her babies as well, again what's the difference ? If you say its a difference of the animal being viviparous or oviparous, I would say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. If you say it's a matter of whether the animal has already given birth or not, I would still say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. I get that the contestants reactions were instinctual, but that won't stop me from pointing out the double standard.
The difference is the chicken ain't about to be no ones mother. All the eggs they lay are unfertilised. They are off no use to the mothers. They will never hatch. There's a reason that the roosters are always kept out of egg farms and on survivor are kept separate or not given at all. No one wants to be eating an egg with an actual chick inside it. Atleast in most of western civilisation.
But you're still ripping the chicken's eggs away from her, which if you look at it from the same degree of killing a baby goat, or leaving it an orphan, is just as """bad""".
Nope. Don't think so.The chicken is like a "mother" who was forced to have an abortion (metaphorically of course) meanwhile the goat got her kid killed. hehehehe.
So when people neuter their pets isnt that abortion (metaphorically) ? Or when they give their pets offsprings away to other people ? Most owners i know only keep 1 or 2 and then proceed to give em out. How is that any different ?
But how are any of the questions you've asked against my case ? I've never stated that benefiting off of eggs is wrong at all, or are you just curious about what I think ? Either way, I'll still answer; Nah I don't think so, do you consider a women without ovaries to have aborted ? And I don't think that the latter would be considered an abortion (figuratively speaking) either.
But the only way to benefit from them is by taking them which you have said is the same as killing a baby goat. A woman decides for herself to get her ovaries removed. Pets are neutered without consent.
DarkFights wrote:
Oh, for some reason I totally thought that a rooster was in camp with his mates. That's my bad. But I'm still 99% sure that the contestants wouldn't have cared if the eggs were fertilised or not.Well yeah, but we're still talking about westerners so....yeah.
I think they might. I guess we'll never know.
Taking a fertilised egg from an oviparous animal is figuratively abortion, correct. If a woman had her ovaries removed without consent, would you call that an abortion ? That would answer your question.
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before.
You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.
Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions.
You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.
Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.
I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.
It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.
I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices.
It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.
It's not the same whatsoever. The situation was entirely different with the goats because there was a mother and a baby and thats where certain people's nurturing instinct comes into play. They were fine killing any other goat. As JT said if they can catch one thats not a baby or a mother then he'll kill it. Our conscious isnt as simple as you might be thinking.
The chicken is a soon to be mother, and the eggs are soon to be her babies as well, again what's the difference ? If you say its a difference of the animal being viviparous or oviparous, I would say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. If you say it's a matter of whether the animal has already given birth or not, I would still say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. I get that the contestants reactions were instinctual, but that won't stop me from pointing out the double standard.
The difference is the chicken ain't about to be no ones mother. All the eggs they lay are unfertilised. They are off no use to the mothers. They will never hatch. There's a reason that the roosters are always kept out of egg farms and on survivor are kept separate or not given at all. No one wants to be eating an egg with an actual chick inside it. Atleast in most of western civilisation.
But you're still ripping the chicken's eggs away from her, which if you look at it from the same degree of killing a baby goat, or leaving it an orphan, is just as """bad""".
Nope. Don't think so.The chicken is like a "mother" who was forced to have an abortion (metaphorically of course) meanwhile the goat got her kid killed. hehehehe.
So when people neuter their pets isnt that abortion (metaphorically) ? Or when they give their pets offsprings away to other people ? Most owners i know only keep 1 or 2 and then proceed to give em out. How is that any different ?
But how are any of the questions you've asked against my case ? I've never stated that benefiting off of eggs is wrong at all, or are you just curious about what I think ? Either way, I'll still answer; Nah I don't think so, do you consider a women without ovaries to have aborted ? And I don't think that the latter would be considered an abortion (figuratively speaking) either.
But the only way to benefit from them is by taking them which you have said is the same as killing a baby goat. A woman decides for herself to get her ovaries removed. Pets are neutered without consent.
DarkFights wrote:Oh, for some reason I totally thought that a rooster was in camp with his mates. That's my bad. But I'm still 99% sure that the contestants wouldn't have cared if the eggs were fertilised or not.Well yeah, but we're still talking about westerners so....yeah.
I think they might. I guess we'll never know.
Taking a fertilised egg from an oviparous animal is figuratively abortion, correct. If a woman had her ovaries removed without consent, would you call that an abortion ? That would answer your question.
But the eggs don't have chicks in them. Removing ovaries isnt the same as abortion i agree. But giving away your pets babies is though right ? (figuratively speaking that is)
Lets get back to the point. I think it's not hypocritical to not want to kill the goat but kill the chicken. Because they're not the same. It's kind of like comparing a bird to an insect. I'm no psycologist so i'm not sure why but i personally empathize more with a goat. Killing a goat is harder than a chicken. Killing a cat is even harder. It all depends on the person doing the killing imo.
Challenge 17 wrote:I really hate the "keep the tribe strong" mentality because they could switch next episode and then the person you kept around is why your new tribe lost.
Yeah that used to work in the old days but since cambodia tribe swaps happen so often its better to just get rid of them.
They seem to be realizing this with voting out Caleb and Tony, hopefully they take ozzy out as soon as possible.
I'd like ozzy to stay around for now. He's a big threat and if they're taking out physical threats it's better for Cirie since he can be considered a bigger threat than her. Seems to want to work with her too.
I also remember JT saying that he is okay with finding a buck and killing it, but not doing the same to a damn goat. **** me in the ear.
It's the fact that it was a baby and a mother that was a red flag for people. Sandra nor the rest of the group were in the wrong for thinking the way they thought. It's not hypocrisy.
I was just hoping someone was thinking "Oh, maybe we should just vote off Tai in a blindside" since Caleb is a much more physical assest to the team at the moment.
I was just hoping someone was thinking "Oh, maybe we should just vote off Tai in a blindside" since Caleb is a much more physical assest to the team at the moment.
I think at this point they know that most tribe switches last for 2-3 tribals, so even if they lose again they have the majority to take out hali and tai if they lose again. Which would be better than someone they were alligned with in their initial tribe thats on another tribe going home.
I was just hoping someone was thinking "Oh, maybe we should just vote off Tai in a blindside" since Caleb is a much more physical assest to the team at the moment.
I think at this point they know that most tribe switches last for 2-3 tribals, so even if they lose again they have the majority to take out hali and tai if they lose again. Which would be better than someone they were alligned with in their initial tribe thats on another tribe going home.
You're right, and I was aware of that. Tai having that many confessionals just made my dislike for Tai resurface. I just dread the fact of him being a possible key player this season.
richjoe92 wrote:I was just hoping someone was thinking "Oh, maybe we should just vote off Tai in a blindside" since Caleb is a much more physical assest to the team at the moment.
I think at this point they know that most tribe switches last for 2-3 tribals, so even if they lose again they have the majority to take out hali and tai if they lose again. Which would be better than someone they were alligned with in their initial tribe thats on another tribe going home.
You're right, and I was aware of that. Tai having that many confessionals just made my dislike for Tai resurface. I just dread the fact of him being a possible key player this season.
Yeah i don't like him whatsoever. He doesn't seem to be too smart and just seems to get really lucky.
But you're still ripping the chicken's eggs away from her, which if you look at it from the same degree of killing a baby goat, or leaving it an orphan, is just as """bad""".
L
Except that baby is no baby. It will never hatch. And we don't feel the same for every animal. Goats can be kept as pets as well. It's quite hypocritical of pretty much everyone then to keep dogs and cats as pets but not goats. You may argue that that's how we were brought up. Doesn't make it right though.
Jesus Christ, it's they don't want to kill it. You don't kill a chicken eating a egg. It's different because they are watching it die in front of them. Smh it isn't that hard to understand
boy you reaching lmaooo
Again, of course it won't hatch when you seperate the chicken from the eggs, I find that act to be equivalent to killing the baby goat or leaving it an orphan, because you're essentially doing the exact same thing, whether the eggs would of been able to hatch or not is insignificant because they were gonna hatch at one point.
And no, those are farm animals that have a general purpose in humans lives, as opposed to cats or dogs who have other purpose that we benefit from.
How ironic, since your poorly written sentence is just as hard to understand.
Nope. Don't think so.
The chicken is like a "mother" who was forced to have an abortion (metaphorically of course) meanwhile the goat got her kid killed. hehehehe.
Y'all will literally fight over anything and everything.
Unfertilised eggs will never hatch. Never. Ever. As with most animals you need a male and a female to produce an offspring. A female by herself will just lay an egg with no chick in it.
They have a general purpose where you might come from but as you said before it's not the same all over the world. We all have different morals. Just gotta learn to open up and accept that we're not all the same
@LurkerNoMore this is not a fight but a healthy debate
So when people neuter their pets isnt that abortion (metaphorically) ? Or when they give their pets offsprings away to other people ? Most owners i know only keep 1 or 2 and then proceed to give em out. How is that any different ?
Oh, for some reason I totally thought that a rooster was in camp with his mates. That's my bad. But I'm still 99% sure that the contestants wouldn't have cared if the eggs were fertilised or not.
Well yeah, but we're still talking about westerners so....yeah.
Hali was awesome that episode.
But how are any of the questions you've asked against my case ? I've never stated that benefiting off of eggs is wrong at all, or are you just curious about what I think ? Either way, I'll still answer; Nah I don't think so, do you consider a women without ovaries to have aborted ? And I don't think that the latter would be considered an abortion (figuratively speaking) either.
Caleb thought he was slick but she just turned his words right against him real quick.
I really hate the "keep the tribe strong" mentality because they could switch next episode and then the person you kept around is why your new tribe lost.
But the only way to benefit from them is by taking them which you have said is the same as killing a baby goat. A woman decides for herself to get her ovaries removed. Pets are neutered without consent.
I think they might. I guess we'll never know.
Yeah that used to work in the old days but since cambodia tribe swaps happen so often its better to just get rid of them.
They seem to be realizing this with voting out Caleb and Tony, hopefully they take ozzy out as soon as possible.
I personally don't like that they switch tribes so soon. It makes the initial tribes pointless as hell and on top of that I like the tribes to stay consistent for awhile.
Taking a fertilised egg from an oviparous animal is figuratively abortion, correct. If a woman had her ovaries removed without consent, would you call that an abortion ? That would answer your question.
Switching from 2 tribes to 3 is great idea imo but its about to be overkilled
But the eggs don't have chicks in them. Removing ovaries isnt the same as abortion i agree. But giving away your pets babies is though right ? (figuratively speaking that is)
Lets get back to the point. I think it's not hypocritical to not want to kill the goat but kill the chicken. Because they're not the same. It's kind of like comparing a bird to an insect. I'm no psycologist so i'm not sure why but i personally empathize more with a goat. Killing a goat is harder than a chicken. Killing a cat is even harder. It all depends on the person doing the killing imo.
I'd like ozzy to stay around for now. He's a big threat and if they're taking out physical threats it's better for Cirie since he can be considered a bigger threat than her. Seems to want to work with her too.
The fact that they didn't know makes it easier to consume. They never had to kill a live animal, which makes all the difference.
It's the fact that it was a baby and a mother that was a red flag for people. Sandra nor the rest of the group were in the wrong for thinking the way they thought. It's not hypocrisy.
I was just hoping someone was thinking "Oh, maybe we should just vote off Tai in a blindside" since Caleb is a much more physical assest to the team at the moment.
I think at this point they know that most tribe switches last for 2-3 tribals, so even if they lose again they have the majority to take out hali and tai if they lose again. Which would be better than someone they were alligned with in their initial tribe thats on another tribe going home.
You're right, and I was aware of that. Tai having that many confessionals just made my dislike for Tai resurface. I just dread the fact of him being a possible key player this season.
Yeah i don't like him whatsoever. He doesn't seem to be too smart and just seems to get really lucky.
Pages