PDA

View Full Version : What is most worth saving?


MOBIUS
16-06-2005, 15:25:05
If you could save one of these, so that it could lead a full and content life in its native habitat - which would it be?

Funko
16-06-2005, 15:29:12
One of the babies, toss a coin to see which.

mr.G
16-06-2005, 15:30:10
a plant.
a nuclear powerplant

Venom
16-06-2005, 15:31:34
I'd save a baby from my own country. Fuck the rest of you people.

Nills Lagerbaak
16-06-2005, 15:33:42
What a rediculous poll. What funko said.

Venom
16-06-2005, 15:34:23
And yes...this poll is stupid.

MOBIUS
16-06-2005, 15:36:05
Why is it rediculous?

You'd rather an endangered species risks becoming extinct than save a child from billions?

Venom
16-06-2005, 15:38:34
How tasty is this potentially endangered animal?

MOBIUS
16-06-2005, 15:39:49
It's a giraffe!

Nills Lagerbaak
16-06-2005, 15:40:08
Originally posted by MOBIUS
Why is it rediculous?

You'd rather an endangered species risks becoming extinct than save a child from billions?

without doubt. anyone who says otherwise is a dick.

Q.E.D

MOBIUS
16-06-2005, 15:44:13
:lol:

Avoid the question by trying to insult the poster...

That's what they do on Poly.:p

MOBIUS
16-06-2005, 15:46:46
So why do you value human life over all else?

What if that baby grows up to be a serial killing rapist, and the animal is a Tiger whose death condemns tigers as a species to extinction?

mr.G
16-06-2005, 15:49:47
yaaay and the tiger grows up and discovers a cure of cancer, wow i want that tiger on a tigersandwich (triangled o/c) NOW.

Nills Lagerbaak
16-06-2005, 15:50:34
What if, what if.

Humans first in all cases, then animals.

It's a different question if you're talking about us killing the tiger through our own actions, but if the last tiger was caught in a burning cave, and a baby in a burning house, I think you'd be a bit of a cvnt to save the tiger

MOBIUS
16-06-2005, 15:57:55
Wow, such anger!:eek:

Why does the human deserve to live?

Why do any of us deserve to live?

Nills Lagerbaak
16-06-2005, 16:01:57
We don't. But I don't think you'd be human to save the tiger

MOBIUS
16-06-2005, 16:03:59
I figure there's already over 6 billion of us, so what's one or two dead babies in comparison to saving a tiger or a panda...:)

Venom
16-06-2005, 16:08:40
Oh wow, you're like so philosophical. *SNORE*

Funko
16-06-2005, 16:10:08
Pandas are boring.

It'd be funny if you saved the tiger not the baby and the tiger was hungry and ate you.

Nills Lagerbaak
16-06-2005, 16:11:23
Would you be saving the baby from the tiger and if it didn't eat the baby it would die?!

Conundrum extrordinarium

MOBIUS
16-06-2005, 16:17:05
Definitely a reason not to save the baby then. A bit of entertainment too!

Win-win!:)

mr.G
16-06-2005, 16:51:04
Originally posted by Funko
Pandas are boring.
yaaay I prefer the koala, they explode while sitting stoned in a burning eucalyptus tree.

No longer Trippin
16-06-2005, 17:01:03
I'd take one of the kids and sell em'

Cruddy
16-06-2005, 17:03:53
I would save - none of the above.

In order to save an endangered plant or animal, you would first have to save the habit that supports them.

So book me an acre block of rainforest - save dozens of animals and 100s of plants without changing anything.

Lazarus and the Gimp
16-06-2005, 18:13:27
The baby from a developed country. It would owe me a shag when it passed the age of consent, and it wouldn't be such a pain in the arse to get there.

Beta1
16-06-2005, 18:34:45
sorry I seem to have wandered into the web site.

Didnt counterglow used to be around here?

mr.G
16-06-2005, 18:35:36
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
The baby from a developed country. It would owe me a shag when it passed the age of consent, and it wouldn't be such a pain in the arse to get there. schjmart thinking

Venom
16-06-2005, 18:47:32
Originally posted by Cruddy
I would save - none of the above.

In order to save an endangered plant or animal, you would first have to save the habit that supports them.

So book me an acre block of rainforest - save dozens of animals and 100s of plants without changing anything.

And then we can burn it down to support all kinds of babies. YAAAAY!!!!!

Cruddy
16-06-2005, 18:51:29
I fail to see how a square acre of slash and burn land can support all kinds of babies.

By the time they're on solid food, all the soil fertility is gone. You could graze a few cows on it, but by then they're on solids so the milk is a non-starter.

By the time the cows have matured for slaughter the babies (now toddlers) will have starved to death.

mr.G
16-06-2005, 18:53:14
rainforrest gump

Venom
16-06-2005, 18:54:38
We can burn it down and build a super market on it. Supermarkets have magical rooms that create food in the back.

Cruddy
16-06-2005, 18:56:30
SIG material!

I'd have thought you'd have advocated keeping the forest and eating the babies.

You're going soft Venom!

mr.G
16-06-2005, 18:57:49
I don't need a supermarket, i live above a burger king
taaaaaaadaaaaaaa

Venom
16-06-2005, 18:59:59
Originally posted by Cruddy
SIG material!

I'd have thought you'd have advocated keeping the forest and eating the babies.

You're going soft Venom!

Sometimes I can't resist a good burning.

mr.G
16-06-2005, 19:01:03
yaaaay otherwise your flamethrower will go all rusty

Oerdin
16-06-2005, 19:12:15
I'd go with saving a species since we already have plenty of humans. It sucks when a human dies but we are talking about saving an entire species from extinction.

Venom
16-06-2005, 19:24:14
Originally posted by mr.G
yaaaay otherwise your flamethrower will go all rusty

God damn right. Use it or lose it, as they say.

Cruddy
16-06-2005, 19:26:36
I say kill Venom and use him to fertilise an acre of rainforest.

Venom
16-06-2005, 19:41:19
Fat doesn't make good fertilizer.

Cruddy
16-06-2005, 19:45:42
Even the fat will be better for the forest than a flamethrower.

Venom
16-06-2005, 19:52:07
Sometimes nature needs a good burning to come back stronger than ever. It's really the pavement that prevents growth.

Cruddy
16-06-2005, 19:54:13
Well then...

* Cruddy sets fire to Venom

Let's test you're theory.

Venom
16-06-2005, 19:55:34
I'm flame retardant.

Or more precisely flame retarded.

Cruddy
16-06-2005, 20:01:54
Don't kid yourself.

Fat burns very well indeed.

Venom
16-06-2005, 20:03:48
It's more like flame broiled, like at Burger King. I was created by the fat. Cured by the fat. Cooked by the fat. I'm infused with that fatty flavor.

Cruddy
16-06-2005, 20:05:09
Sure as shit, it isn't brains.

Koshko
16-06-2005, 21:35:53
Where's the "I'm a heartless bastard" option?

Japher
16-06-2005, 21:47:34
I'm flame retardant.

Or more precisely flame retarded.



More like retarded flammer...

The animal option might be good if they are a tasty animal

Venom
16-06-2005, 22:03:48
Who's retarded now, asshole. I already inquired on tastiness.

Lurker the Second
16-06-2005, 22:13:51
Originally posted by Venom
Who's retarded now, asshole?

If you insist:

Your message is too long.
Reduce your message to 10000 characters.
It is currently 69990 characters long.


Damn, I shouldn't have even tried to answer that question around here. :(

mr.G
16-06-2005, 22:32:22
:lol:

Venom
16-06-2005, 22:44:14
:lol:

MOBIUS
17-06-2005, 01:02:44
I notice how no one has tried to save the 3rd world baby...:D

protein
17-06-2005, 01:11:02
would the plant potentially cure cancer?

Debaser
17-06-2005, 01:24:56
Originally posted by MOBIUS
I notice how no one has tried to save the 3rd world baby...:D

Er... except for Funko & Nils right at the beginning of the thread...

jsorense
17-06-2005, 03:52:02
OMG, another Poly thread.
I will not read it and maintain my blissful ignorance. Ommmhhhhh Ohmmmhhhh Ohmmmmmhhh

Lazarus and the Gimp
17-06-2005, 08:55:03
Originally posted by MOBIUS
I notice how no one has tried to save the 3rd world baby...:D

Fucking colonialist. We should not be "saving" it. We should instead write off its debts and allow it to save itself and future generations. I suppose you want us to tell it about Jesus and change its name fropm "Mbozi" to "Benjamin" too, don't you?

Funko
17-06-2005, 09:04:11
Originally posted by Debaser
Er... except for Funko & Nils right at the beginning of the thread...

Yeah, and I didn't vote in the poll.

Nills Lagerbaak
17-06-2005, 10:24:07
I voted just to get option 1 off the mark

Funko
17-06-2005, 10:39:54
ok I will to then.

Venom
17-06-2005, 13:10:23
Voting in this poll gives you cancer.

Funko
17-06-2005, 13:45:51
Who will save me?

Debaser
17-06-2005, 13:50:01
Not Mobius, he's busy wanking off panda's or something.

The Norks
17-06-2005, 14:02:28
if something is endangered its usually because a) its too dumb to breed or run away (panda, or latterly the dodo) and therefore deserves to die, or its because we are threatening it by destroying it environment. In which case we should save the environment before the species as Cruddy said. Ditto for the third world child whose life is already threatened by aids, poverty, disease and lack of food/water in many cases. The most likely to survive from the list is the 1st world child. Saving the others would always be an uphill struggle.

However I would save none of the above and just save all 32 species of HAMSTER :D

yum yum yum hamsters in my tum, hamsters on my face, hamsters every place, fill their pouches watch them go hamsters make me happy so, hamsters every day for tea, hamsters for you and hamsters for me... :D

MOBIUS
17-06-2005, 15:42:02
Originally posted by Debaser
Not Mobius, he's busy wanking off panda's or something.

No wonder they have trouble reproducing...:cute: