Speaking of utmost correct, and other nonsensical, gramatically incorrect phrases, why don't you read a fucking post before replying to it, porngoblin? Your example has absolutely nothing to do with Prometheus's logic. You're the only one (at the moment) talking out of their ass.

Prom was stating that life can only progress, carry on forward, due to death - vice a vi the circle of life, which i disagree with, then he condoned hunting...which i most certainly disagree with. if im wrong about his post then tell me so, it wouldnt be the first time that someone misread a post, and your grammer doesnt mean a turd when it's the point that counts

Grammar is actually exceedingly important, as it denotes meaning. I'm not perfect myself in terms of grammar, but I do at least try to correct my mistakes, which most people on DF don't seem to be bothered with. At any rate, Prom never said anything that could reasonably be interpreted as making it alright to molest children, murder families, commit cannibalism, or burning houses down. Hence, your examples were inappropriate and facetious.

Only the killing of living things can sustain life.
Do we not make distinctions between different forms of life? I believe that we, as a people, do--at least.
nor have I seen any arrests for mass murder at poultry processing plants, where literally thousands of lives are lost each day.
To state that hunting is an act of murder belies either a total ignorance of the dynamics of life, or a personal bias so strong that it precludes rational thought.
Only death sustains life.
.
.
.
.
those are his key comments that led me to my examples.....but perhaps the most potent is

"To state that hunting is an act of murder belies either a total ignorance of the dynamics of life, or a personal bias so strong that it precludes rational thought."

my point is....while people make comments like that....when meateaters turn around to veges, mentioning how they are going to cook a nice roast for teh first time and altho they know your vege...it doesnt matter because it's still interesting, i have the right to go to the next extreame because there ARE NO RULES. why is it exceptible to murder innocents like that but not to do the examples i mentiod before.....it isnt. thats why we draw a line. Proms post was almost a reflection of mine, useing the same points but comeing to an opposite end...and end which as i just mentiod leads down a dark road.

as to grammer, maybe you have the time online to make sure every i is dotted...i dont

I see your point Porngoblin. You believe in the sanctity of all life and I happen to think that admirable. I don't happen to follow the same philosophy, however I understand your reasoning (maybe a little extreme) in response to Proms post.

Sigh...this is exactly why I say grammar is important...don't complain about being misunderstood, when you make it hard to understand you. I don't fully understand what you mean here. My guess is you're saying that, essentially, there's no reason not to say that if it's wrong to kill humans, it's wrong to kill animals, and then you can reverse it. I don't believe this is true. While I can certainly see the reasoning behind viewing the killing of animals as something akin to the killing of humans, to view it as alright to kill either humans or animals, and to hold their lives in equal regards, is fundamentally on a different plane as it involves, essentially, self-destruction, and hence almost inherently denotes a deranged mindset.

i never said i wasnt deranged.....but your still not getting my point...and i wont even start you on the bollux about grammer.(if someone is less educated is their points any the less important)

regarding the key sentances i posted last time from Proms post -

if it's acceptable to kill animals, because this is his interpretation of the system of life, then it is acceptable in my book to kill humans, and since many horrific ways to kill animals are condoned, i may find my own particular ways to kill humans, as i mentiond in my examples of what i would do to my nighbours. I dont actually hold animal life to the same level as humans, i hold it above, not only because they contribute to the world far more than we do, if anything we have become more and more removed, but because they are innocent compared to the crimes our race has committed against ourselves let alone nature.

my point. if killing animals is okay then i see killing humans is okay, and who is to say i am wrong, certainly not the hundreds of thousands of people who practise cannabalism.

So what im actually saying is that killing animals is wrong (birds and fish included) because we have to draw a line, currently the majority of our race doesnt.

thanxx soulful...thats a neat avvie. yess i do belive in the sactity of all life. it's one of the key elements i teach when co-teaching broadsword fighting. the sword is a weapon of defence wether edged or not. even when not fired a gun contains a mecahnism that is intended for one purpose, the bullets contain an explosive compound with one aim in mind, a sword however can be picked up and never used to strike a blow.

well, technically, if you are skilled enough.....you can shoot a bullet to stop a bullet.........point in case, missles seeking missles.............defense

but no human IS that skilled are they, and you still have to shoot it to stop it, you can stop a sword from doing a BLOW without doing a blow by either doing a parry or block or even just holding the sword there.