Don't save the animals!

[FalconPunch]

Help! These pandas are going extinct through no fault of man! Preserve these animals that are obvious evolutionary failures because we're selfish. We can't get over how cute they are to realize that they can't reproduce unless forced to because they literally DON'T KNOW HOW. How cute is it to watch a carnivore eating nothing but plants all day?

So please, take your time to donate to our charity to selfishly preserve an evolutionary failure. Remember, "You helped to prolong the existence a useless animal!"

[FUNKbrs]

Damn. I can't seem to find the "applaud" button on my internet.

But seriously, the world has TOO MUCH biodiversity if it has pandas. Pandas are effin useless.

[SolInvictus]

stop stealing people's jokes.

[FalconPunch]

At 7/13/08 05:41 PM, SolInvictus wrote: stop stealing people's jokes.

Who's joke am I stealing?

[aninjaman]

At 7/13/08 05:37 PM, FalconPunch wrote: Help! These pandas are going extinct through no fault of man! Preserve these animals that are obvious evolutionary failures because we're selfish. We can't get over how cute they are to realize that they can't reproduce unless forced to because they literally DON'T KNOW HOW. How cute is it to watch a carnivore eating nothing but plants all day?

So please, take your time to donate to our charity to selfishly preserve an evolutionary failure. Remember, "You helped to prolong the existence a useless animal!"

Acually wether you sre joking are not you are right. The association of zoos and aquariums knows that the panda would go extinct in the wild humans or no and the only reason there is so much effort into keeping pandas alive is the fact that pandas attract visitors to zoos. Same thing with cheetahs. But you still should care about animals and we still cant go around cutting down bamboo forests and killing pandas. We shouldnt invest so much money into keeping pandas breeding but we should set aside a national park for them in china.

[EKublai]

At 7/13/08 05:39 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Damn. I can't seem to find the "applaud" button on my internet.

But seriously, the world has TOO MUCH biodiversity if it has pandas. Pandas are effin useless.

Damn. I can't seem to find the "auto-bitchslap" button on mine!

Oh wait here it is.....

PANDAS! ARE! THE! CUTEST! BEARS! EVER! Like a fusion of Buddha and Muzzy!

[AngryBanana]

But they're too cute to kill.

[FalconPunch]

At 7/13/08 06:23 PM, AngryBanana wrote: But they're too cute to kill.

1: That's selfish

2: I never said kill. Please read my post next time.

[SolInvictus]

At 7/13/08 05:46 PM, FalconPunch wrote:

At 7/13/08 05:41 PM, SolInvictus wrote: stop stealing people's jokes.

Who's joke am I stealing?

all right i can't find it, but its sounds ridiculously familiar.
i take back my comment until i, and if i care to, find where i had heard it.

[MrHero17]

If the zoo wants to pay to have to pandas breed then I'll pay to go see them, but as an animal they do fail pretty bad.

[AngryBanana]

At 7/13/08 06:37 PM, FalconPunch wrote:

At 7/13/08 06:23 PM, AngryBanana wrote: But they're too cute to kill.

1: That's selfish

2: I never said kill. Please read my post next time.

Calm down, I was being sarcastic.

[The-evil-bucket]

At 7/13/08 06:37 PM, FalconPunch wrote: 2: I never said kill. Please read my post next time.

You're right. It's more like taking them off life support. Or leaving them in the middle of the arctic. We're not actively shooting them. So it's not our fault.

[SolInvictus]

pandas are actually suffering a fair bit from the effects of deforestation.

[FalconPunch]

At 7/13/08 08:05 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 7/13/08 06:37 PM, FalconPunch wrote: 2: I never said kill. Please read my post next time.

You're right. It's more like taking them off life support. Or leaving them in the middle of the arctic. We're not actively shooting them. So it's not our fault.

Exactly, even though I did detect sarcasm in that post it isn't our fault that the panda is a failure at life. (Literally)

[Gunter45]

At 7/13/08 08:07 PM, SolInvictus wrote: pandas are actually suffering a fair bit from the effects of deforestation.

And it's making them too sad to fuck?

[CommanderX1125]

At 7/13/08 09:54 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 7/13/08 08:07 PM, SolInvictus wrote: pandas are actually suffering a fair bit from the effects of deforestation.

And it's making them too sad to fuck?

Eh, maybe it is hard to get a hard-on when you have no private rooms. I mean, in every instance, the zoo included, everyone is watching. I'd be a little less then enthusiastic with all those folks about.

Granted, this obviously isn't true for all folks, if so, the internet as we know it would cease to exist, at least in an overwhelming majority of entertainment value.

[poxpower]

At 7/13/08 05:47 PM, aninjaman wrote:
Acually wether you sre joking are not you are right. The association of zoos and aquariums knows that the panda would go extinct in the wild humans or no

So you're trying to tell me that somehow an animal who's been here hundreds of thousands of years would just "die out" EXACTLY as the same time humans move into its habitat and destroy it "wether we were there or not"?

There's maybe a 0.0001% that you're right.

At any rate, still, fuck animals. But let's not pretend like they're just "stupid and weak and would die anyways" because no, they wouldn't, they would be fine if they were left alone. Humans are the caused of MASSIVE animal exstinctions, and no one really gives a crap.

What is more pressing is actually protecting animals that count as natural food resources like fish. Overfishing is a much bigger deal than saving the idiot-ass pandas or the whales. Or the dodo.
Oh wait, they're already dead. Suckers.

[SolInvictus]

At 7/13/08 09:54 PM, Gunter45 wrote: And it's making them too sad to fuck?

the zoo pandas were the ones that were having difficulty reproducing.

[aninjaman]

At 7/14/08 01:02 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/13/08 05:47 PM, aninjaman wrote:
Acually wether you sre joking are not you are right. The association of zoos and aquariums knows that the panda would go extinct in the wild humans or no

So you're trying to tell me that somehow an animal who's been here hundreds of thousands of years would just "die out" EXACTLY as the same time humans move into its habitat and destroy it "wether we were there or not"?

There's maybe a 0.0001% that you're right.

What I was saying is we should stop spending so much money trying to breed pandas but we should set aside a large wildlife refugfe for them and let pandas take their own course. Pandas would go extinct in the wild but you are right saying humans have sped up the natural process considerably by killing pandas and destroying their habitat.

[aninjaman]

At 7/13/08 06:23 PM, AngryBanana wrote: But they're too cute to kill.

Its a bit more complicated then that.

[Gunter45]

At 7/13/08 11:55 PM, CommanderX1125 wrote: Eh, maybe it is hard to get a hard-on when you have no private rooms. I mean, in every instance, the zoo included, everyone is watching. I'd be a little less then enthusiastic with all those folks about.

Being in cages doesn't seem to stop prison inmates.

[notld224]

At 7/13/08 05:39 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Damn. I can't seem to find the "applaud" button on my internet.

But seriously, the world has TOO MUCH biodiversity if it has pandas. Pandas are effin useless.

They're cute. Little girls like pandas. Old women like Pandas. The Pope likes Pandas. Your average joe likes Pandas. I like pandas... Sure they can be vicious if prodded, but whatever. People have all sorts of stupid shit going on.

[FUNKbrs]

1: Pandas aren't bears. Bears have sex, albeit gay sex to Judas Priest music, but I digress. I think they're a type of tremendously overweight raccoon or something.

2: I could spend much more time petting cuddly pandas if they were properly preserved.... through taxidermy. Real pandas poop alot, and noone needs that in their house.

3: Either you believe in evolution, or you don't. If you don't, then you shouldn't save the pandas because it's not the responsibility of humans to protect wildlife; it's our our responsibility, in fact, to do the opposite, ie, killing and eating them. If you do, then you have to recognize that the rule "survival of the fittest" pretty much gives pandas the axe right off the jump. Now, if you are creationist, ok, preserve God's "gift of pandas" or whatever, but I've never met a creationist who gave a tin shit about pandas, so there you go.

God hates pandas, and so should you.

[AniMetal]

At 7/13/08 06:23 PM, AngryBanana wrote: But they're too cute to kill.

Nature is such a lovely thing.

Fuck FUNKbrs.

[streetbob]

Damn. I can't seem to find the "auto-bitchslap" button on mine!

Yes, but you sure have found the "auto-asshole button"

[aninjaman]

At 7/14/08 03:34 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: 1: Pandas aren't bears. Bears have sex, albeit gay sex to Judas Priest music, but I digress. I think they're a type of tremendously overweight raccoon or something.

Spend two seconds on google and you will find a page that says pandas are bears.
This says pandas are bears.<a

3: Either you believe in evolution, or you don't. If you don't, then you shouldn't save the pandas because it's not the responsibility of humans to protect wildlife; it's our our responsibility, in fact, to do the opposite, ie, killing and eating them. If you do, then you have to recognize that the rule "survival of the fittest" pretty much gives pandas the axe right off the jump. Now, if you are creationist, ok, preserve God's "gift of pandas" or whatever, but I've never met a creationist who gave a tin shit about pandas, so there you go.

Even if you went by survival of the fittest while pandas are badly "designed" animals they would not die off probably for hundreds if not thousands of years from now. You can not go and kill off a whole specis and once its all gone you say "well it was survival of the fittest. They would die off anyway." Thats not how evoloution works. Survival of the fittest making an animal go extinct happens much slower.

God hates pandas, and so should you.

[jamboreen]

Some said in a post here Pandas are needed by Zoos to attract visitors, which will in turn, generate Revenue, while this may seem the case, Pandas actually cost the zoo more money than they generate, i think its like a ratio of 6:1 for cost : Generated cash, eg, they get 50,000 Euros from people coming specifically to see the panda in one month, but the panda costs 300,000 to keep there, considering there is Feeding and health and i'm almost positive the zoo has to pay money to the Chinese Government(thats where they come from right?) to keep them there.

[MrHero17]

You know, the state government doesn't give your tax money to the zoos to breed pandas, they use there own money which they get from admissions. The zoo can spend there money on w/e they want.

[homor]

At 7/13/08 06:37 PM, FalconPunch wrote: 1: That's selfish

its selfish to protect a helpless species from death.